Feasibility, acceptability, and perceived benefits of a creative arts intervention for elementary school children living with speech, language and communication disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with speech, language, and communication disorders require specialized support in response to their emotional expression challenges. Not only is such support key for their development, but it is also essential for their mental well-being. Art making emerges as a valuable tool for enabling these children to convey emotions both verbally and non-verbally, fostering a positive self-concept. School-based arts interventions have the potential to improve self-concept and emotional expression, and more generally, the quality of life. However, there is limited empirical evidence regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a manualized, school-based creative arts intervention for this specific group. Aim: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived benefits of an art-based intervention for elementary school students with speech, language, and communication disorders, using qualitative methods to obtain diverse perspectives. Results: The findings indicate that the intervention was feasible and well received, as reported by teachers, students, and facilitators. Participants also discussed potential positive outcomes, including emotional expression, emotional growth, and fulfilment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs. Students found the workshops conducive to sharing emotions and took pride in the creative process. Teachers gained deeper insights into their students, fostering positive classroom relationships. Observational data triangulated these findings. Conclusion: This innovative project suggests that art-based interventions can potentially benefit students' emotional expression, but further experimental studies are needed to substantiate these effects.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".