Rationalism and empiricism: contrasting approaches to drawing as education reform in the late nineteenth century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct from studies that discuss art education and the formation of a visual culture, this article compares the different uses and ends which drawing served in Ontario and the United States in last two decades of the nineteenth century. Drawing in Ontario and the US represented differing systems of knowledge and truth claims that were vying for prominence as a foundation for education in the late nineteenth century: Froebelian rationalist philosophy in Ontario and empirical positivist science in the US. This article identifies the networks associated with the different uses that drawing served in education reform. A common interest in Froebelian philosophy and kindergarten classes linked Ontario educator James L. Hughes with educators in Boston. This provided access to the innovations in the teaching of drawing that were being made by Walter Smith. Smith was a key figure in the process of establishing and promoting the importance of drawing, industrial drawing and design in Britain, United States, Ontario and Brazil in the last half of the nineteenth century. Another network was centered around G. Stanley Hall and the empirical positivist science of education that underpinned large-scale studies of children’s drawings. The methods that Hall and his collaborators employed to study children’s drawings were critical to the making of child studies in America. This article contends that neither of the examples of the uses of drawing analysed in this article served a liberatory purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".