The Influence of Teaching Songs with Text and a Neutral Syllable on 4-to-9-Year-Old Portuguese Children’s Vocal Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on children’s singing development is extensive. Different ages, approaches, and variables have been taken into consideration. However, research on singing with text or a neutral syllable is scarce, and findings are inconclusive. This study investigated the influence of singing with text and a neutral syllable on children’s vocal performance. Children aged 4 to 9 (n = 135) participated in two periods of instruction and assessment. In Period One, Song 1 was taught with text and Song 2 with a neutral syllable, and in Period Two, the text was added to Song 2. In each period, children were individually audio-recorded singing both songs. Three independent raters scored the songs’ vocal performances using two researcher-designed rating scales, one for each song, which included the assessment of tonal and rhythm dimensions. Before data analysis, the validity and reliability of the rating scales used to assess vocal performance were examined and assured. The results revealed that 4-, 5-, and 7-year-olds sang Song 1 significantly better in Period One, and 4- and 5-year-olds sang Song 1 significantly better in Period Two. Thus, singing with text seems to favour younger children’s vocal performance. Findings also revealed that girls scored significantly higher than boys for Song 1 in both periods, but not for Song 2 in Period One. The implications of incorporating songs with text and neutral syllables into music programs, as well as the instruments used to assess vocal performances, are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".