Investigating the Relationship between Materiality and Meaning in Art Education Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores ways in which the new materialist idea of the entanglement of materiality and meaning can be investigated in art education encounters. For this study, I developed a workshop with the methodology of Design Based Research that was implemented in two iterations in the Art Education graduate studio in Concordia University and in the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts respectively. Five students enrolled in the BFA specialization in Art Education in Concordia University volunteered to participate. Their experience as students, art makers and teachers was key for pointing towards procedures and theory that could be applied to future educational encounters. Throughout the workshops it was possible to observe that our understandings of materiality and its relationship to meaning are deeply rooted in and performed by the way we position ourselves in the world and thus our learning and teaching. An important achievement of the exercises was providing opportunities to witness that things make sense together with and without us. Added to that, the research pointed towards the potentialities of a pedagogy of diffraction for articulating the relationship between materiality and meaning in art education settings. That is, it the exercises allowed for unexpected and unconventional approaches to materiality as a way to produce difference, rather than replicating sameness, and to give way for things to take shape and meaning in relations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".