Investigating Kindergarten Parents’ Selection of After-School Art Education Settings in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research purpose was to investigate kindergarten parents’ selection of after-school art education settings in Taiwan. A review of the literature and interviews with parents were conducted to identify several possible factors that would impact on parents’ selection of after-school art education settings for their children. Then, the researcher self-compiled a survey and distributed 550 copies to parents and 515 copies were obtained. The effective return rate was 93.6%. The findings were as follows: 1. The majority of parents believed children can attend after-school art education settings at the age of four years, and parents also believed that art specialists have a great impact on children’s drawings. 2. Type of kindergarten attended by children (public or private), mother’s age, mother’s occupation, and education level of mother and father have significant effects on decision making regarding the selection of after-school art education settings for their children. 3. The effects on learning: More than 85% of the parents believed that their children have achieved their expectation, which was to enrich creativity, patience, and attention. And, over 80% of the children discussed what they had learned with their parents. 4. The most popular way to teach is to combine teacher-directed and student-directed methods. 5. The most frequently used art materials are markers and crayons in after-school art education settings.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".