Does Practice Make Perfect? Children's and Adults' Constructions of Graphic Merit and Development: A Crosscultural Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses and illustrates the results of a two-tiered cross-cultural study of drawing production and response. Drawings were made by 360 children and adults from three countries: Brazil, Canada and Taiwan. The resulting draw ings were judged by children and adults, 64 in all from each of the 3 countries. Our findings suggest that the aesthetics of Modernism have a limited cross-cultural appeal to children and most adults, while other more conventional aesthetic frameworks seem to have a much wider appeal?especially the outmoded notion that skill is the foundation upon which aesthetic merit can best be judged. Our results also pro vide supporting evidence for the Kindler & Dar ras (1997) model of graphic apprenticeship as the exploration of a number of representational repertoires. One piece of evidence is that the graphic preferences of the 8 year-old judges show that at the start of aesthetic development a large set of visual repertoires is included in the concept and that, as the individual is socialized, these wide vistas are narrowed. The results of our study highlight the wide gap in expectations between those who naively consume the visual arts (students) and those whose profession it is to study as well as to make it (art teachers). The implications of our study for education at the elementary and secondary levels are clear: basic skills and techniques for observation drawing and for mastering all conventional graphic forms be they popular or high art ought to be the foun dation for successful instruction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".