MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736854765 · doi:10.7202/1040297ar

Factors Influencing Technology Use in Aural Skills Lessons

2017· article· en· W2736854765 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Justine Pomerleau Turcotte, María Teresa Moreno Sala, Francis Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue musicale OICRM · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyPerceptionPsychologyCompetence (human resources)SingingPianoDictationMathematics educationPedagogyMedical educationComputer scienceSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North America, aural skills ( as ) are usually taught to children during the instrumental music lessons. While learning musical dictation and sight-singing can be difficult for some learners, the use of appropriate technological tools could facilitate the process. However, the use of information and communication technologies ( ict ) by music teachers in aural skills instruction to children have not been documented. An online survey was conducted in the Province of Quebec (Canada) in order to answer the following questions: 1) To what extent do instrumental music teachers use ict when teaching as to children between 6 and 12 years old?; 2) Are the teachers’ socio-demographic characteristics, as training and perception of as teaching linked to the use and the frequency of use of ict ? The results show that the use of ict to teach as is still relatively uncommon. Furthermore, it would be negatively correlated with age, competence felt during training and perceived competence to teach as . Finally, it appears that a smaller proportion of piano teachers and women use ict , or use them less often. A better understanding of the teachers’ perception of technology could help develop more adapted resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue musicale OICRMSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207