Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review addresses internationally published empirical studies on the subject of technology-enhanced creativity. The study aims to identify the types of technological tools used to enhance students’ creativity and examine how technological tools can support students’ creativity in K-12 music education. This review selected and analyzed 17 studies published from 1987 to 2022 in peer-reviewed journals using a rigorous five-stage scoping framework. Data extraction and analysis were conducted in Covidence. The results revealed eight types of technological tools used to enhance creativity in the music classroom, in which sequencer software and GarageBand were the most commonly used type of technological tools and applications respectively. Technology’s support for creativity was also discussed from the perspectives of Lubart’s four roles of computers: (a) computer as nanny, (b) computer as pen-pal, (c) computer as coach, and (d) computer as colleague. The results showed a dearth of research on how technology can become students’ partners to help them generate creative ideas. Based on the findings, this review concluded with implications and recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".