Towards a curriculum for training undergraduate choral conducting students in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a feature of present-day schooling, in South Africa and abroad, that music teachers are expected to organise and direct vocal ensemble activities, for example, yet adequate preparation provided in higher education courses for this role that the school music teacher has to fulfil, seems lacking. The purpose of this study is to compile a knowledge base that will enable the planning and development of a choral conducting curriculum, for use in South African tertiary institutions. The curriculum should be aimed at aspirant teachers in primary and secondary schools and community leaders who are culturally aware and who have a responsibility and interest in the choral field. Choral conducting as a recognised subject of an undergraduate study package is a relatively new academic field in South Africa. The envisaged curriculum needs to enhance the proficiency of choral conducting students within an educational context. The thesis is presented in five chapters of which Chapter 1 represents the background to the study, Chapter 5 summarises the study with recommendations and a conclusion, whilst Chapters 2 – 4 constitute the greater part of the research. Chapter 2 – Towards a definition of an effective conductor, offers a perspective on the various roles of conductors and investigates the nature of the art of choral conducting in order to move towards a definition of an effective conductor. In Chapter 3 – Current choral conducting curricula, the present situation with regards to choral conducting curricula in Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Philippines, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America is discussed. Chapter 4 – Choral conducting skills, examines the knowledge and skills that ought to be part of a choral conductor's proficiency. The meaning of each component and its characteristics are discussed. The primary method of research was the review of literature in order to acquire an in-depth understanding of the theme under investigation. The researcher also used the Internet as source of information on national and international choral conducting curricula.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".