Shaping future directions for dance education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between curriculum development and teacher’s practice is often diminished through political and cultural agendas as well as changing trends in teacher education and students’ interests and experiences in dance. The ongoing research and forum presentations by Dance and the Child International (daCi) colleagues on international curriculum developments have identified that many countries have developed meaningful dance curricula that reveal that identity development is closely linked to learning and education. Unfortunately, the implementation of those curricula have been impeded by many barriers, such as the lack of respect and understanding of the role of dance education for all young people, the adequate training for dance artists, specialist and generalist teachers, and a clear set of standards for dance education. It is evident that the need for advocacy and collaboration is essential for the maintenance and implementation of dance curricula in our schools. In this paper, ideas and successes may provide a platform from which to support and guide dance experiences for young people. Firstly, an outline of the results of a survey questionnaire that was sent to dance educators in selected countries will be outlined. The results of the survey questionnaire provide insight into how dance is experienced, and insight into the deeper personal meanings of people who stayed involved in dance beyond childhood. Additionally, the findings propose key characteristics of dance learning that advocate for the importance of a comprehensive dance education. Secondly, identifying the major learning outcomes of international dance curricula and relating them to what young people have said about their experiences may convey what is needed in future curricula development for both young students and teacher 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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.010 |
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".