MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389120841 · doi:10.21432/cjlt28153

Technology in Music Education

2023· article· en· W4389120841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adita Maharaj, Amrit Kaur Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumBachelorMusic educationTeaching methodPsychologyComputer scienceMathematics educationCertificateTransformational leadershipMultimediaPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the use of music software as a pedagogical tool for the delivery of specific content in a music education course offered to Certificate and Bachelor of Education Program students at a Caribbean university. The existing course uses a traditional approach, and thus, the study is significant as the results would propel a shift toward transformational teaching. Twenty-four university students were chosen for the study which adopted a mixed methods approach. Over one semester, participants used a free, open-source music software program to learn simple time signatures. Students produced an assignment as well as completed a questionnaire. Ninety percent of students were able to compose eight bars of music according to a simple time signature using the software. Most participants intimated they felt comfortable and motivated using the software, they understood concepts taught, and they suggested its continued use. The majority of participants also stated that they required more training. Some participants even said that they would adopt this methodology on their teaching practicum. Based on the results, recommendations include the adoption of this and other technological teaching tools within the music program, a teaching practicum assessment, and a progressive training component for both students and staff.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207