An Illuminative Evaluation on Practical Art, Craft and Design Instruction: The Case of Botswana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art, craft and design (ACD) is a practical subject that provides learners the opportunity to explore various media and techniques. This includes creating two and three dimensional work in order to help learners develop their practical skills which may benefit them in future. Learners may create products to sell and earn a living as the National Principles and ‘Vision 2016’ advocate for ‘self-reliance’. Thus, effective engagement of learners in practical activities may help them develop creative and practical skills resulting in benefits in the completion of primary school studies. Engagement in the development of creative and practical skills is particularly helpful for those who do not advance to secondary education. It is in this context, that this study investigated the extent to which primary school teachers engaged pupils in ACD practical activities. The study also examined the application of ACD theory to practice as advocated by the Botswana Lower Primary Creative and Performing Arts syllabus, which was introduced in 2002. This was a qualitative case study which involved eight lower primary teachers. The research methodology was framed within Parlett and Hamilton’s concept of ‘Illuminative Evaluation’ accompanied by classroom participant observation. The study revealed that all of the teachers who participated in the study had limited knowledge and skills in art, craft and design. None of them had specialized in the subject. The results further indicated that teachers had been trained in basic pedagogy on the general methods of teaching in primary schools; however, they lacked knowledge and skills in ACD. This deficit may have contributed to their lack of encouraging learners to apply theory into practice, thus depriving them the opportunity to gain basic practical skills required at primary level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".