Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was designed to collect six participants' experiences and suggestions in terms of integrating dance and drama into New Zealand primary school classrooms. The purpose of doing this research is to inspire more generalist teachers to integrate dance and drama into primary school classrooms and to encourage school administrators and policymakers to optimize the integration of dance and drama into the educational structure. This research started with examining the background, development and issues around the integration of dance and drama in primary school classrooms. Drawing on relevant literature, the four most common issues are defined and discussed. Afterwards, the research questions are outlined, in order to better understand the encouragements and barriers teachers encountered when they strived to integrate dance and drama into their classrooms. I first use critical autoethnography and position myself, as a researcher, to retell my prior learning experiences about dance and drama courses in Canada and New Zealand to foreground my interest in this topic. Using the qualitative methodology of narrative inquiry, I draw on the narratives of six participants' experiences in integrating dance and drama into their practice. Semi-structured interviews were applied to explore and discuss the research questions with participants. Thematic analysis of data identified three key findings from my research questions: encouragements, barriers, and sparks (inspirations). I found that supportive principals, teachers' prior arts experiences and relevant qualifications were encouraging them to integrate dance and drama into their classrooms. However, attention to numeracy and reading, teachers' confidence and allocated time to the arts were discouraging for teachers wanting to integrate dance and drama into their classrooms. Furthermore, the research considered what participants might envisage for future teaching training in a tertiary degree or diploma and professional development in schools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".