Individual Differences, Student Satisfaction and Performance in Supplemental On-line Activities in a Postsecondary Music Course
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an extension of our previous research on the infusion of technology into a postsecondary music course to promote the skill of close listening of music. In-class hindrances in higher education classrooms, such as time, equipment, acoustics, and class size, limit student experiences of quality listening and thereby reduce their capacity for learning fundamental features important to hearing differences in musical styles.. For this study, we developed on-line, supplemental listening activities using Articulate Storyline, Adobe Connect and the virtual world Open Sim. We pretested students on music experience, computer experience and self-regulation. At the end of each course, students answered a survey on their enjoyment, tendency to recommend, their engagement and perceived increase in understanding of material, and whether or not the activities were worthwhile. In a comparison of 2014 and 2015 results, we found that students with high selfregulation levels rated these items more positively when the content included more advanced musical concepts. We also found that students who thought the on-line activities had increased their understanding of the material engaged more intensively with all the on-line activities than students who praised the convenience or aesthetic experience of the on-line activities.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it