MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921279733 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v12i1.612

Exploring Art and Craft in Teacher Education Whilst Going Toward a Performative Approach

2019· article· en· W2921279733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformative utteranceCraftSubject (documents)AestheticsVisual artsSociologyThe artsEpistemologyObject (grammar)ArtPedagogyComputer sciencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1997, I have returned to and revisited textile materials through different types of approaches. As an artist, I have been working with soft sculptures and immersive installations. As an artist-teacher, I sought to (re-)introduced wool felting tradition to teacher students in Norway. As a researcher, I re-turn (Barad, 2014) my approach to wool felting and engage diffractively (ibid.) within teacher education.
 I am now still exploiting a performative approach to the subject of arts and craft within teacher education. This approach is conjointly inspired by contemporary visual art form of expressions and by Barad’s performative ontology.
 In this text I attempt to convey my working processes as I relate how I started to engage with a performative approach to drawing in the field of arts and craft in teacher education, and how I now aim to enact further a performative approach to wool felting. This approach is inspired by post-humanism perspectives. Consequently, traditional binaries or dichotomies one can find in assumptions related to the humanities, as subject-object and theory-practice (van der Tuin and Dolphijn, 2010), are here deterritorialized to be simultaneously and differently reterriorialized (Deleuze and Guattari,1980). My approach goes thus beyond the theory-practice division to hold an intra-active pedagogy (Lenz Taguchi, 2010) and an ethico-onto-epistemological framework (Barad, 2007). This implies a set of mind considering an intimated relationship between making, being and knowing: all those aspects are present under a creative process, not isolated and nor independent of the process. Adopting a performative approach with my students, I do not necessarily privilege a linear approach and I do not necessarily privilege human agency above non-human entities. Following an ethico-onto-epistemological framework means here to merge the phenomenon of felting (beings) and its written study and analysis (ways of knowing).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it