The role of drawing and artful engagement in early childhood education: co-constructing meaning as curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arts in early childhood education and care (ECEC) have in the past been treated as a separate subject understood simply as crafts or activities to occupy children. Through arts-based research with children in the field, this paper looks to expand upon notions of artful engagement as a social practice (Kind, 2014). Artful engagement in the early years is understood as a way of thinking with materials and artistic sensibilities in relationship with dynamic learning processes (Kind & Argent, 2020). The findings in this paper are based on a four-month qualitative research study in a licensed childcare center on Vancouver Island. Artful processes are considered through weekly engagement with drawing, movement, and photography with toddlers. Documentation is offered to illustrate the process of co-constructing knowledge (BC Ministry of Education, 2019, Berger, 2015). Narratives derived from the research offer considerations for the co-construction of meaning and curriculum, made possible through the work of pedagogical documentation (ECEBC, 2021). Dispositions of early childhood educators as co-learners with children are examined and offer alternate narratives of ECEC practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".