Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his essay, Aaron Schutz contrasts Dewey's approach to education with that of child-centered educators of the 1920s and 1960s, whom he calls "personalists" (presumably so they are not too easily dismissed).The contrast is analyzed by considering different attitudes toward "games" versus "play," adopted by Dewey and the personalists, respectively, where games have predefined goals and rules, and play has emergent goals and rules (if any).This contrast is vivified by George Dennison's comparison of boys playing Little League baseball and children engaging in a ball game spontaneously with friends.In Schutz's analysis, the advocates of child-centered education of the 1920s, as well as the "free" or "alternative" schools of the 1960s, have a different approach to education than critics, such as John Dewey.In particular, Dewey is viewed as favoring education through participation in games, while personalists favor education by participation in play.In emphasizing education through "games" with preset rules, Dewey is seen as preparing children for work, bureaucratic life, and formal democracy, while personalists, in emphasizing "play," are seen as socializing for personal enjoyment, emergent community, and informal democracy.Dewey's criticism of child-centeredness is turned on its head, making him too adult-centered.Schutz has written elsewhere about personalists, such as Margaret Naumberg and Caroline Pratt, and one can sympathize with his concern that their work not be summarily "erased" by Dewey's criticism.Nevertheless, for those familiar with Dewey, something seems to have gone quite wrong here.Dewey consistently opposed traditional adult-centered education, alienating work, and merely formal conceptions of democracy.Dewey was arguing primarily against dualistic, either/or thinking, such as adult-centered versus child-centered, work versus play, external versus internal control.His attitude was not the polar opposite of either child-centeredness or adult-centeredness, but critical of
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".