MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412472631 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n3p251

A Study on the Situations, Problems, and Needs of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education to Enhance Songwriting Skills for Children’s Songs

2025· article· en· W4412472631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Srikunyarphat Rangsriborwornkul, Manit Asanok

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyTeaching methodPedagogyHigher educationMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aimed to explore the situations, problems, and needs of teaching in higher education with the goal of enhancing songwriting skills for children’s songs. A survey research method was employed, with data collection through online questionnaires. The sample of this study consisted of 522 participants, including 19 lecturers and 503 undergraduate students majoring in Early Childhood Education and studying at universities located in the northeast of Thailand. Mean, standard deviation, percentage, and content analysis were employed to analyze the data. This study reveals that most students and educators lack a background in music. Also, teaching how to write children's songs by adapting lyrics of original songs without learning music notes is used the most. The level of problems is moderate, equally for both students and instructors. The level of needs is high, similar to that of both learners and instructors. In addition, the findings of this research provide important information to those who are involved in early childhood education programs at higher education institutions, allowing them to consider appropriate teaching strategies to meet students' and instructors' needs and to find suitable and sustainable solutions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducational Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207