Music Therapists’ Perspectives on Working with Educational Assistants in Manitoba School Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music therapists who work in schools often collaborate with other professionals, including educational assistants. Overall, the literature identifies that the educational assistant’s role in music therapy contexts is to assist students in achieving the goals that have been established in their individualized education plans and/or in their music therapy treatment plans. However, literature and my experiences indicate that the complexities of the educational assistant’s role are not well understood, and that this confusion can have an adverse effect on therapeutic outcomes. Although one study has examined educational assistants’ perspectives on this topic, very little literature exists to help guide music therapists and educational assistants in their professional collaborations. The purpose of this study was to investigate music therapists’ perspectives on their experiences of working with educational assistants in school settings. Three Canadian music therapists participated in individual qualitative interviews that examined their perspectives on collaborations that they had with educational assistants in school music therapy contexts. These interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. Results revealed information about collaborations that happened before, during and after music therapy sessions as well as information pertaining to aspects of collaboration that music therapists found helpful and aspects that they found challenging. My interpretations as well as potential implications for practice and research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".