Humanist Roots and Self-Creative New Materialist Alternatives to Technical/Rational/Discursive Educational Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper presentation traces the roots of humanism in teacher education practicum experience and suggests some alternatives for its practice. It explains how in particular, humanism underpins technical, rational, and discursive orientations of the field experience. To promote alternatives to current encouragement towards reflective and reflexive practice, I draw on new materialist philosopher, Karen Barad who understands matter as less fixed and determined, more uncertain and complex and who uses this notion to bridge cultural and biological understandings of life by claiming agential realism. Agential realism means that literally everything exists in moving relation to what it is not, which breaks the subject-object symmetry of reflective understanding. Diffraction is explained in contrast to reflection and reflexivity and involves mapping the making of difference that is a pattern always accompanied by the difference that difference makes and continues to make. The paper concludes with theories and methods that are examples of alternatives to reflection and reflexivity. While the theories and methods presented have not elsewhere been described as diffractive, considered through new materialism they seem to offer possibility for thinking beyond fixed entities, neutral arrangements and objective separations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.139 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".