Hybrids between rituals and explorative routines: opportunities to learn through guided and recreated exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within the commognitive perspective, ritual and explorative routines are used in a very particular way to distinguish students’ routines according to whether they are driven by social reward or by generating a substantiated narrative. Explorative routines in this theorisation may refer not to inquiry-based activity but to the result of a student’s routine moving from being process-oriented to becoming outcome-oriented, a deritualisation. Choice of tasks as well as a teacher’s moves offer students different opportunities to engage in rituals, explorative routines and deritualisations. Through nuancing the space spanned by opportunities to engage in rituals and explorative routines respectively, we describe and contrast classroom practices in three lessons from three contexts. The lessons share a commonality in encouraging explorative routines as a starting point, yet being adapted towards ritual activity through decreased openings for student agentivity, fewer invitations for students’ own substantiations or both. We argue that such adaptations are driven by the teachers’ commitment to reach mathematical closure in a lesson, to balance considerations of the classroom community and individual students and to meet curricular requirements. Our model helps interrogate the nature and relevance of hybrids of explorative routines and rituals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".