“The strawberry in the pot that became something” – entanglements of bodies, materials, and affect in science activities supported by a community organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A move beyond static and representational accounts of science learning and becoming through relations is needed.Purpose In this paper extra-learning activities in science offered by a community organization to an elementary class over one academic school year are assessed in light of their contributions to science learning and becoming. The latter is explored through a theoretical grounding and focus on the entanglements of bodies, materials, and affect. In doing so, the paper speaks to the affective turn in science education. The study is grounded in a non-representational and subjective reading of the work affect is doing yet also attends to the role of materials and bodies within that process, speaking to materialism, embodiment, and dignity.Sample One elementary school class, participating in a one-year long activity assumed by a community organization (CO).Design & Method Data was collected through a video ethnography of the science activities assumed by the CO. Through interaction analysis, telling moments of joint-engagement in science were analysed by centering body-material-affect entanglements. By juxtaposing these moments with background information from interviews of the teacher and the instructor, a bricolage of data sources led to narratives presented as three stories.Results Making evident entanglements through three stories, the paper offers insights into ways non-representational embodied and material forms of learning and becoming can be studied and documented and the insights they might offer into understanding learning and becoming in science. The stories speak to the kind of work entanglements make evident in terms of lived affect in science but also moments of relations between participants and dignity affirming or undermining work in science learning and becoming.Conclusion More studies are needed to engage with body-material entanglements in and through affect and report on the manner affect supports dignifying forms of engagement with science.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".