Differentiating between teaching experience and expertise in the music studio: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a measure to investigate studio teacher’s observational skill as a function of the observer’s ability to identify effective pedagogical practices. A secondary purpose was to see if observational skill varied as a function of scores on a measure of empathy. Participants ( N = 60) were saxophonists who observed and wrote about the strengths and weaknesses of two 1-minute videos of private saxophone lessons and two private violin videos. To develop expertise criteria, four expert teachers observed the videos for their respective instruments and their responses were converted into lists of strengths and weaknesses. These lists were then compared to participants’ responses and used as criteria for determining the degree to which participants’ analyses matched the experts’ responses. Participants also completed a demographic survey and the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire. Results indicated that the degree to which participants’ analyses matched the experts did not vary as a function of teaching experience. The degree to which participants’ analyses matched the experts also did not vary as a function of empathy scores, though descriptive trends indicated that higher empathy scores were accompanied by a greater degree of match. There was a significant difference in degree of match between the participants and experts for the saxophone and violin videos. Implications for tool refinement and future 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".