Bibliographic record
Abstract
Songs that were once considered standard repertoire in elementary music programs across Canada are now being identified as including derogatory, misogynistic, and/or harmful texts. While there has been research and findings compiled on the text of songs (Bailey, 2020; Ellingsen, 2019; Kelly-McHale, 2018; McDougle, 2021), this is still a relatively new field, particularly regarding how information about texts of songs is shared with teachers. How can existing music education programs provide learning opportunities around repertoire selection for both in-service and preservice teachers? The Orff Level Certificate Program of Carl Orff Canada works with both preservice and in-service music teachers. The Orff program occurs on a yearly basis, with approximately 25 teacher educators and 250 teachers enrolled across the country. With the majority of elementary educators being “white, middle class, female, heterosexual teachers” (Holden & Kitchen, 2019, p. 27), there is a need to acknowledge the social hierarchy present in the classroom, that is, the power and privilege held by music educators. By working with music teachers to think critically about what musics to include, Orff Level Teacher Educators can provide the tools for music educators to “shape a curriculum and a pedagogy that purposefully places classroom musics alongside students’ own musics, experiences and interests (Hess, 2017, p. 71). In March 2021, an online survey, including a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended questions was sent to 25 Orff Level Teacher Educators in Canada. Responses were received from 17 teacher educators. The following questions guided the investigation: (a) How are songs selected for inclusion in the program? (b) Have there been changes to the repertoire list over the last five years? If so, what is driving these changes? (c) How do teacher educators see their selection process of repertoire impacting teachers’ choices of repertoire? Using thematic analysis, I analyzed the responses looking for common themes. These findings have served as a foundation for dialogue with Orff Teacher Educators. The next phase of the study will begin in spring 2022 where I will be interviewing three to five participants to further clarify findings from the survey portion of the research.
 
 References
 
 Bailey, P. (2020, April 27). Reclaiming kumbaya!
 https://www.decolonizingthemusicroom.com/reclaiming-kumbaya
 
 Ellingsen, A. (2019, October 30). Jump Jim Joe.
 https://www.decolonizingthemusicroom.com/jump-jim-joe
 
 Hess, J. (2017). Equity in Music Education: Why equity and social justice in music education?
 Music Educators Journal, 104(1), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117714737
 
 Holden, M., & Kitchen, J. (2019). Equitable admissions in Canadian teacher education: Where
 we are now, and where we might go. In J. Mueller, & J. Nickel, (Eds.) Globalization and
 diversity in education: What does it mean for Canadian teacher education? (23-60).
 Canadian Association for Teacher Education.
 
 Kelly-McHale, J. (2018). Equity in music education: Exclusionary practices in music
 education. Music Educators Journal, 104(3), 60–62.
 https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117744755
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".