An investigation of postsecondary violin instructors’ remedial pedagogy: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applied violin instructors at the postsecondary level often implement remedial pedagogy with incoming first-year students in order to address technical/musical habits or deficiencies. As students strive to alter their technique, resistance to change and low self-efficacy often result. Using a descriptive qualitative multiple case study research design, 10 postsecondary violin instructors from across North America were interviewed to gain insight into their personal perspectives and experiences implementing remedial pedagogy with first-year violin students. The interview data and external data sources were analyzed through the theoretical framework of attribution theory and teacher attribution scaffolding theory. The results indicate that many participants address correction through effective communication, based on the individual physiological/psychological wellbeing of every student, their level of self-efficacy, motivation, resistance to change, and postsecondary expectations. The pedagogical expertise and applied experiences presented in this study should inform current and future violin pedagogues about how to effectively address technical/musical deficiencies so that the wellbeing of students remains a priority throughout the remedial process.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".