Effects of a Special Art Education Course on Attitudes toward Omani Learners with Special Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual arts are activities that contribute to educating learners with and without special needs. These activities provide an opportunity for learners with special needs (LSN) to freely express their feelings, conflicts, psychological problems, and their artistic creativity. Visual arts are considered as a source of satisfaction, development of the feeling of achievement, and happiness, and a means of activating thinking and learning. In the professional context, art therapy is one of the therapeutic interventions in special education programs. The aim of this research was to explore effects of a Special Art Education (SAE) Course on attitudes toward Omani LSN. Participants of 19 undergraduate students of Art Education Department (AED), Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) were involved in this research. Participants responded to the scale of attitudes towards the LSN before and after studying the SAE course. The scale consisted of 30 items distributed into three domains related to course instructor, course topics, and course teaching methods. The results indicated that these domains contributed to improving participants' attitudes. This improvement was demonstrated by the size effects of the SAE course on participants' attitudes toward Omani LSN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".