Seniors' participation in an intergenerational music learning program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergenerational programs that bring together young people and older adults have been the subject of investigation in recent years. However, there is little research on the topic of intergenerational education programs, and virtually no research on collaborative, intergenerational music education programs in public school settings. This study sought to capture senior citizens' reflections on their experience as co-participants with adolescents in an Ontario Ministry of Education fully-funded daytime instrumental band program. This program has been running continuously and successfully at a high school since 1994. The site is a rich source of information about the ways in which seniors interact musically, socially and educationally with their own age cohort and with adolescents in this co-learning environment. Qualitative data were gathered using tools of ethnography including participant observation, interview and document analysis, while quantitative data regarding demographic and other information about participants' backgrounds, experience, practice habits and so forth were gathered by means of a questionnaire. An instrumental case study approach was used to investigate the associations of young and old both in social and learning contexts in a broad sense, so that the findings would not be limited to the specific interactive associations that occurred in a music learning and performance environment, but could be applied to other intergenerational associative situations. The study reports on the personal, social and intellectual benefits that senior participants divulged as they reflected on their participation in an intergenerational instrumental music program. The study concluded that an active daytime high school music program that included senior citizens as registered music students, which supported the interaction of young and old as equals in music learning activities, resulted in a greater understanding, acceptance, care, respect and appreciation of one age group for another. Recommendations for social policy regarding support for intergenerational, collaborative, publicly funded educational programs are offered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".