"The Innocent Eye": changing pre-service teachers' perceptions of the teaching of visual arts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"THE INNOCENT EYE": CHANGING PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE TEACHING OF VISUAL ARTS by WAYNE JOSEPH TOUSIGNANT Month of Graduation 2011 Advisor: Dr. Karen Tonso Major: Instructional Technology Degree: Doctor of Education The study looks at the pre-service program at the Faculty of Education, University of Windsor from 1995 to 2009. The two main goals of this paper were to identify the perceptions and beliefs held by pre-service teachers of art education upon entering the course and at the conclusion of the course. As well as the identification of pedagogical strategies that initiate lifelong learning in elementary pre-service teachers in creative fluency and visual communication for the twenty-first century. A historical research methodology focused on past occurrences and events to inform this study of social priorities, expectations and limitations related to the teaching of art in the Province of Ontario. The data sources included previous surveys and artwork from the past 14 years. Findings indicated that a discrepancy still existed between what was mandated by curriculum for the arts and what was actually being taught in the classroom. The findings also confirmed the assessment by the National Art Education Association that the formal education of students continued to be skewed towards reading, writing and mathematics competencies at the expense of other subjects, including art education (NAEA, 2008). Based on the information from the surveys, the only noteworthy positive change in the teaching of visual arts over the past 14 years was in the area of media technology. This dissertation provided evidence that the critical period of intervention to empower students in visual communication is before a child reaches the age of eight years old. Cross-curricular, collaborative pedagogical strategies are effective for the development of creativity and visual communication through activities that allow the innate abilities of children to co-exist with formal design and realism. The findings also indicate that pedagogical practice built upon Abstract Expessionism during the period of intervention to be essential.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".