The Development of Intangible Cultural Heritage Curriculum Based on Experiential Learning Theory to Improve Undergraduate Students Understanding in Intangible Cultural Heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) study the current situation and existing problems of undergraduate students 'understanding of intangible cultural heritage, 2) develop a curriculum of intangible cultural heritage based on experiential learning theory, and 3) compare undergraduate students' understanding of intangible cultural heritage before and after teaching. The sample group was 50 students who were selected to attend the Intangible Cultural Heritage curriculum in the spring semester of 2023. The research tools were 1) Lesson plans 2) a Questionnaire on the current situation and existing problems of undergraduate students 'understanding of intangible cultural heritage, 3) an Interview form on the current situation and existing problems regarding students' understanding of intangible cultural heritage, 4) understanding intangible cultural heritage test, 5) Observation of Students' Behavior form, and 6) Interview form on opinions about teaching. This study was conducted in three steps: 1. The study on the current situation and existing problems of undergraduate students 'understanding of intangible cultural heritage, 2. The development of a curriculum of intangible cultural heritage based on experiential learning theory, and 3. The experimental and improvement of curriculum. The results of the study showed that: 1)The current situation and existing problems of the intangible cultural heritage of college students have three aspects: students, teachers, and the school environment. The most important current situation and existing problems of undergraduate students 'understanding of intangible cultural heritage was the school environment aspects. 2)The Curriculum of intangible cultural heritage based on experiential learning theory includes 6 elements: Principle, Goal Contents, Learning process, Learning resource, and Evaluation. The learning process consisted of 4 steps: 1) Concrete Experience, 2) Reflective Observation, 3) Abstract Conceptualization, 4) Active Experimentation 3)The curriculum based on experiential learning theory can improve undergraduate students' understanding of intangible cultural heritage.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".