Music Makes You Smarter: A New Paradigm for Music Education? Perceptions and Perspectives from Four Groups of Elementary Education Stakeholders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through 14 years of teaching music in the Greater Toronto Area, the “music makes you smarter” notion has imbued many of the conversations I have had with multiple stakeholders in public education. Such conversations have suggested that the ancillary benefits of teaching music have now become the principal reason why we teach music-- what I refer to as a new paradigm shift in music education. This study attempts to validate my own experiences through a sample size of 100 participants and a multiple methods approach to inquiry. Specifically, this study explores the perceptions and perspectives of the “music makes you smarter ” notion by four groups of stakeholders in elementary education, namely; music teachers, students, parents, and non-music teachers. With a few exceptions, both quantitative and qualitative data have generated perceptions and perspectives that validate the “music makes you smarter ” notion, suggesting that my own experiences of a paradigm shift within music education in the GTA were indeed authentic and valid. This paper ends with a discussion on the ramifications of this new paradigm shift and ultimately argues that the music itself should be the focus of music 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 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".