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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samira Jamouchi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.050
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSFU Educational ReviewSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207