Reflection on Higher Education in the Arts in Mainland China: An Opportunity to Promote Artists Personal Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. BackgroundChinese culture has a long history, heavily influenced by a Confucian outlook on politics and education. Confucianism promotes social liquidity and equity, by advocating the belief that if a good scholar is encouraged through education, ordinary people will be motivated to pursue official careers through learning. A hundred years ago China adopted modern educational practices from the West. Firstly, it drew on the experiences of Japan, and then began to imitate the German education system. Thus, China's modern education has followed a traditional approach (Guan, 2013). China went on to apply features of the American education system in 1922, and Dewey lectured in China between 1919 and 1921. However, China's education system remained traditionalist. The Soviet Union had the greatest impact on Chinese education prior to the foundation of new China in 1949 (Guo, 2004). The Soviet education system was discipline-oriented, and it retains a significant influence on Chinese education to date. Objectively speaking, this system sought to analyze educational phenomena by applying the tenets of Marxism. These mirrored many of the collectivist values and characteristics of the Confucian approach to education. However, in contrast, artistic achievements evoke a cultural tradition that privileges education for self-improvement and family honor. This is important as Chinese parents set higher educational goals and standards for their children than Western parents do (Brand, 2002). Indeed, family orientation, cultural values, and other societal pressures account for many of the differences between Chinese and Western cultures.It is widely accepted that emphasis on education and knowledge accelerates social cultural development (Wang, 1995). Development advances by attainment of both systematic scientific and cultural knowledge and rudimentary knowledge and skills. However, ignorance of students' subjectivity and development, and the absence of a model to cultivate talent and innovation, characterize Chinese higher education practices. Chinese education policy, in line with politics, is based on uniform plans. Evaluative examinations also remain unchanged, although new curriculum reform is introducing some flexibility, providing space for the development of local curricular and school-based curricular, while maintaining uniformity. As Chinese traditional education practice tends to place students in a passive position, students commonly lack enthusiasm to learn and feel powerless in their choice of study (Guan, 2013). Such an underpowered student body is detrimental to talent cultivation.Since it pursued a policy of opening up and implementing free market reforms in 1979, China's education system has become highly specialized, with many universities expanding, or merging with others, to provide a more comprehensive education in parallel with specialized technical training. However, the entire social environment is characterized by a utilitarianism, which upholds the idea that learning is superior to anything else. Alongside utilitarianism, credentialism has the largest influence on imperial examination systems in Chinese society. In the cultural context of China, utilitarianism places self-interest above other human beings. This outlook not only hides a slew of talents within the student body by imposing superior judgments and quashing creative spirit, but it also fosters an educational practice that results in a strong desire for excellence and poor reaction to failure.The Chinese government is in the process of adapting to the trends of educational universalization, as evidenced in its newly advocated arts policy (Guo, 2012). Henceforth, arts instructors and educators are to be encouraged not only to recognize and value talent, but also to develop students' artisanship, and promote adaptability in their career development (MOE, 2008). As indicated in the introductory section, the concept of professional training is one of the most serious concerns of twenty-first century education systems, which seek to shape the personal qualities required to thrive in a new age. …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".