MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040390101 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v14i2.6319

An Investigation of Canadian Undergraduate Music Education Students’ Personal and Professional Experiences During a Three-Month Residency in China

2020· article· en· W3040390101 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan G. Bayley, Vanessa Mio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBachelorChinaMedical educationPsychologyContext (archaeology)Professional developmentPedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated undergraduate Canadian music education students’ personal and professional experiences during a three-month residency in China. Participants (N=3), in this case study, were part of a SSHRC funded Canada-China Reciprocal Learning Program and were in the process of completing a Bachelor of Education degree. The participants observed classroom teaching, attended workshops/presentations at Southwest University in Chongqing, China, and gave presentations to Chinese teachers and students. They were asked a wide range of open-ended questions relating to their preconceptions of life in China, coping strategies (e.g., language, local customs, environmental context, etc.), curricular and pedagogical similarities/differences, relationships with their Chinese counterparts, and potential impact on their future educational and professional plans. The findings indicated intellectual, social, and personal growth over this three-month period. Students spoke of overcoming fear and acquiring increased personal/professional self-awareness. However, there was no solid assurance that the participants’ experiences would have a lasting positive effect on their future pedagogical practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207