Portraiture and the Role of Researcher: Reflections and Questions/La Méthode De L'art Du Portrait et le Rôle Du Chercheur : Réflexions et Questions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PreludeThis paper represents the fruits of a reflective process that began during the writing of the first of three comprehensive essays in partial fulfillment of my doctoral degree at McGill University (Carroll, 2002). In this essay I positioned myself as researcher by identifying my epistemological stances and grounding my inquiry in a theoretical framework. I also discussed my role as researcher and described how I would collect, code, analyze, organize, and present my data. Figure 1 illustrates the recursive phases of this reflective process.I asked myself, What are my assumptions and understandings of what it means to know, and how do they reflect my epistemological stances, my ways of understanding what it means to know? How do these stances feed into the different facets of my theoretical framework? In what ways do they illuminate the methodology, or path of inquiry (the what, how and why of my methods or tools of inquiry), that I choose in the examination of children's intuitive musical and meta-cognitive understandings?The focus of my doctoral inquiry (Carroll, 2007) was to examine how children used a range of personal, social, and material resources to solve a multilevel music notational task. I asked 13 children ages 5-9 to notate a song they learned the previous week so that someone who did not know the song could sing it just by 'reading' the marks on their paper. I also asked them to sing the song back from their notation, explain what they did, and then, in the following week teach the song to a classmate using their notational symbols as a reference point. The song was a traditional American folk tune entitled Mary wore a red dress, which I sang to Lulu.In my quest to portray as fully as possible the processes and products of children's intuitive understandings, I found that portraiture (Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) provided a fitting epistemological and methodological frame for collecting, coding, analyzing, interpreting, and presenting my data. Narrative portraits of the processes by which the children completed the multilevel notational task and descriptive portraits of their invented notations revealed diat children with no prior music training used increasingly sophisticated representational strategies to notate a song. They also refined their notations when singing the song, teaching the song, or when prompted by an adult or a peer. I concluded that the peer-peer situation was a motivating force for triggering a recursive process of reflecting-on-actions and knowing-in-action (Schon, 1987). Classmates' questions, comments, and their singing played a critical role in moving the children to modify their notations as well as their singing, verbal explanations, and gesturing in ways they did not do alone or with me. Analysis of the children's notations, verbal explanations, and teaching strategies provided insights not only into what they intuitively knew about music but also their appropriation of the cultural conventions of writing and their aesthetic sensibilities, as gleaned from their choice of symbols, colours, and how they presented the symbols on the page. Interviews with parents, teachers, and the school principal provided contextual background for interpreting the children's notations and how they approached the task.This study demonstrated that researching the products and processes of children's invented notations from a social constructivist perspective using multiple data sets enables more detailed narrative and descriptive portraits of children's musical and meta-cognitive understandings, which in turn can contribute to a better understanding of the musical resources/understandings that clients bring to the music interactive play-space or field of play. My doctoral inquiry could be classified as foundational research in music therapy, which Bruscia (2005) defines as a type of research that deals with topics that emanate from related fields (for example, psychology, music, medicine, education) but have important implications for music therapy (p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».