An investigation of the relationship between teachers' art self-concepts and their students' art self-concepts at the intermediate elementary level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistency and quality have become the focus of public education in Ontario (The Ontario Curriculum: The Arts, 1998). While the Ontario curriculum has become more specific and rigorous, the government has not mandated that teachers of intermediate-level Art must be specialists. This has resulted in a disparity in staffing for intermediate-level Art, with some students taught by specialists while generalists teach others. This study sought to establish any links between teachers' and students' Art self-concepts as a basis for improvement implications involving competency, consistency, and self-concept issues related to this core problem. Research has shown that competence has a positive correlation with self-concept (King, 1983, p. 12) and that self-concept has a positive correlation with success or achievement (Guay, Marsh, and Boivin, 2003, p. 134). This investigation into teacher/student Art self-concepts has lead to an understanding of specific areas in which support is needed to develop competency in generalist teachers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".