Sensory Learning in Cultural Institutions: Sensory Experience, Aesthetic Sensibility and Intercultural Learning in Garden Settings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many cultural institutions invite visitors to interact somatically with artefacts or displays, in hands-on games and activities, listening to soundtracks, responding to olfactory phenomena. Handling collection objects increasingly supplements, or replaces, floor talk or worksheet approaches. Exploring 'discovery worlds', tropical forests, or Egyptian temples, or assuming the roles of forensic archeologists or curators, learners can see, smell, taste, touch, wear, or hear properties of objects, or enjoy kinetic spatio-temporal experiences in multi-sensory environments. These explorations can embrace learner knowledge, provoking curiosities, igniting discussions, inviting inferential responses. The pleasure of engaging with objects in these ways can be especially intense when learners are investigating aesthetic phenomena. Drawing on extended research and case study analyses of education practices in cultural institutions, this chapter focuses on how visitors experience the sensory worlds of two culturally rich constructs: Japanese-style gardens in Canadian settings. It examines how multisensory and aesthetic experiences can mediate first-hand learning with culturally significant phenomena. It argues that this learning has important implications for enhancing aesthetic and intercultural learning, and for how visitors might value these phenomena. It argues further that “aesthetic engagements constitute special instances of interactive learning” that invigorate learning dispositions (Bell, 2011, p. 42) and enhance rich learning power (Claxton, 2005), planting the seeds of interests that can persist through a lifetime of holistic sensory engagements in museums
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it