Action Research on College Students’ Learning Satisfaction of Incorporating Art Therapy and Spirituality into A Career Planning Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The investigation of college students’ learning satisfaction for a new teaching model: Example of incorporating art therapy and spirituality into a career planning course. The subjects of this action research were 47 freshmen enrolled in the “Career Planning-Soft Power of Employability” course (10 males and 37 females). Two types of Likert scale questionnaire surveys were conducted before the end of the first semester. The Learning Satisfaction Questionnaire survey showed that the students’ response to the course was positive. Regarding the precursor activity designed for incorporating art therapy into the career planning course, the students’ average learning satisfaction was 4.45 with a standard deviation of 0.82, whereas their average learning satisfaction of overall curriculum planning was 4.34 with a standard deviation of 0.78. The results of open feedback forms showed that the incorporation of art therapy into the relevant activities of this course helped enhance the students’ concentration and interest in learning. In addition, the course was designed to enhance the effectiveness of teaching assessment. The results of the Teaching Assessment Questionnaire showed that the students’ average satisfaction of teaching in this course was 4.44 with a standard deviation of 0.78. Finally, this action research not only proposed specific suggestions for incorporating art therapy and spirituality into career planning course design and teaching method but also pointed out the direction for future action research on the incorporation of expressive art therapy into the relevant course activities of general education.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".