Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate how high school instrumental music programs in Canada and the United States might better encourage students to participate in what I call “volitional music making.” The study arose from concerns that the most prevalent form of school music can be authoritarian, irrelevant to students’ lives, and inadequate in preparing students for lifelong music making. Teaching for volitional music making aims to address these concerns by providing students with more decision-making power, more independence in the classroom, and a stronger focus on their personal satisfaction. Teacher research methodology guided this study. I designed a curricular and pedagogical approach aimed at cultivating the skills and dispositions of volitional music making. This approach was then implemented with a class of 22 Grade 9 students and their teacher at an independent high school in Toronto. Data on their experiences was collected through field notes, artifacts, questionnaires and interviews. Additionally, a group of six students at the same school who regularly engaged in volitional music making was observed and interviewed. The goal was to better understand what skills and dispositions they possessed that led them to participate. Results indicated that the curricular and pedagogical approach succeeded in cultivating some of the skills and dispositions of volitional music making but failed to cultivate others. A tension between student autonomy and teacher responsibility was revealed, as was a tension between students’ creative exploration and teachers’ requirement to assess. Unexpectedly, some of the students who participated in the approach developed skills and dispositions beneficial to meeting standards of excellence within the prevalent form of music education. A combination of curricular and extra-curricular offerings is argued as effective in encouraging students towards volitional music making.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".