Partnerships for Arts Integration: Exploring the Experiences of Teachers and Artists Working with Integrated Arts Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
i\\.bstract This research acknowledges the difficulties experienced by teachers presenting integrated arts curricula. Instructional support is offered by arts organizations that provide arts partnerships with local schools boards. The study focuses on the experiences of 8 teachers from a Catholic school board in southern Ontario who participated in integrated arts programs offered by The Royal Conservatory of Music's Learning Through the Arts ™ (LTTATM) program and a local art gallery's Art Based Integrated Learning (ABIL) program and examines their responses to the programs and their perception of personal and professional development through this association. Additionally, questions were posed to the."aftisfs"from-tneSe]Jfograrrrs;-and"they liiscus·sed·how "participating in-collaboration with teachers in the development of in-school programs enabled them to experience personal and professional development as well. Seven themes emerged from the data. These themes included: teachers' feelings of a lack of preparedness to teach the arts; the value of the arts and arts partnerships in schools; the role of the artists in the education of teachers;
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".