Developing a performance with special needs students : a case study in creativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis advances the proposition that learning disabled students' participation in kinesthetic or dance and mime performance activities provides an alternative expressive mode to the verbally oriented activities through which creativity has traditionally been examined and evaluated. Between February and May, 1989, I designed and carried out research project in an elementary school in Vancouver, B.C. A group of students, characterized as "learning disabled," participated under my direction in the design, rehearsal, and presentation of a performance of mime and movement to a narrated text developed mainly by the students. Techniques of participant observation and interview (as well as videotape recordings) were used to document both students' activities and the responses of students and their teachers The technique of cognitive mapping was used to analyze observations of the students in kinesthetic activities. Results of this case study have implications for theory and practice. Theoretical implications relate to conceptions o creativity derived from Maslow's description of "peak experiences" and from analyzing Weisberg's definition of creativity. An applied outcome of this research allows practical generalizations about the use, design, and implementation of programmed kinesthetic activities as a means of encouraging creativity among learning disabled students.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".