The lecture as experiential education:The cucumber in 17th century Flemish art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses an unconventional format to problematize a common <br/>dichotomy found in the theory and practice of experiential education. The <br/>paper comprises the contributions of five authors and begins with one <br/>author’s description of a potential real-life scenario. Three co-authors <br/>respond individually and independently to this question and the final author <br/>joins with the first in the concluding comments section. The key consensus <br/>of the responding co-authors is that simplistically equating the Deweyan <br/>notion of primary experience with physical, tactile activity is a limited and <br/>limiting understanding of experience in education and that in fact, under <br/>the correct circumstances, a lecture can and even should be part of <br/>experiential education. Finally, the two authors of the concluding <br/>comments suggest that the field, must begin to move beyond John Dewey <br/>while finding ways to overcome the deeply entrenched dualistic concept of <br/>experience that continues to affect our practices and theorizing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 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".