A Mixed-Methods Study of Vocal Educators’ Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Vocal Education: Exploring Hopes, Concerns, and Strategies for Effective Integration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64169/dje.121Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, AI Ethics, AI in Education, Educator Perspectives, Music Pedagogy, Technology Integration, Vocal EducationAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a valuable tool in education, with the potential to expand opportunities for educators and students. While research specifically focused on vocal educators remains scarce, understanding their perspectives is essential for ensuring AI’s ethical and practical integration into vocal instruction. This study explores vocal educators’ hopes and concerns about AI to recommend actionable strategies for effective integration. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, with 34 vocal educators completing an online questionnaire incorporating Stein et al.’s (2024) Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (ATTARI-12), followed by semi-structured interviews with nine participants. Quantitative data were analysed using statistical methods, and qualitative data were evaluated through inductive analysis. Results of this study suggest vocal educators are cautiously optimistic, with Likert means ranging from 2.59 to 3.44 on a five-point scale, and two primary themes emerging: Conditions for AI Integration and Potential Uses for AI. This study proposes a model of AI integration grounded in pedagogical relevance, peer engagement, and practitioner-informed governance, positioning vocal educators as essential contributors to AI tool development.
References
[1] Alkharusi, H. (2022). A descriptive analysis and interpretation of data from Likert scales in educational and psychological research. Indian Journal of Psychology and Education, 12(2), 13-16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373096780
[2] Aljarrah, E. (2016). E-voting in Jordan: Assessing readiness and developing a system. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 860-867. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306111975_E-voting_in_Jordan_Assessing_readiness_and_developing_a_system DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.076
[3] Anderson, A. J., & Vingrys, A. J. (2001). Small samples: Does size matter? Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 42(7), 1411-1413. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11381039/
[4] Aromataris, E., & Riitano, D. (2014). Systemic reviews, step by step: Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. The American Journal of Nursing, 114(5), 49-56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24466512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446779.99522.f6
[5] Barrera Castro, G. P., Chiappe, A., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Alcántar Nieblas, C. (2025). Key barriers to personalised learning in times of artificial intelligence: A literature review. Applied Sciences, 15(6), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063103
[6] Basit, T. N. (2013). Ethics, reflexivity and access in educational research: Issues in intergenerational investigation. Research Papers in Education, 28(4), 506-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2012.689318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2012.689318
[7] Bauer, W. L. (2023). Make AI your personal music teaching assistant: 4 ideas you can use now! University of Florida. https://musiceducation.arts.ufl.edu/resources/ai-music-teaching-assistant/
[8] Bhandari, P. (2023). Triangulation in research: Guides, types, examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/triangulation/
[9] Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Routledge.
[10] Blakeslee, S. (2004). The CRAAP test. LOEX Quarterly, 31(3), 6-7. https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol31/iss3/4
[11] Blundel, R. (2007). Critical realism: A suitable vehicle for entrepreneurship research? In H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 49-74). Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847204387.00010
[12] Boeren, E. (2018). The methodological underdog: A review of quantitative research in the key adult education journals. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713617739347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713617739347
[13] Bowen, P., Rose, R., & Pilkington, A. (2017). Mixed methods – Theory and practice. Sequential, explanatory approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 5(2), 10-27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317545024_MIXED_METHODS-THEORY_AND_PRACTICE_SEQUENTIAL_EXPLANATORY_APPROACH
[14] Bransen, M. (2024, May 23). The 22 best AI education tools (students and teachers) in 2024. Tilburg.ai. https://tilburg.ai/2024/01/best-ai-education-tools/
[15] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage Publications.
[16] Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
[17] Brown, M. E. L., & Dueñas, A. N. (2020). A medical science educator’s guide to selecting a research paradigm: Building a basis for better research. Medical Science Educator, 30(2), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00898-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00898-9
[18] Chen, W. (2022). Design of music teaching system based on artificial intelligence. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022, Article 2627395. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2627395 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2627395
[19] Cheng, Z., Zhang, M., Sun, J., & Dai, W. (2025). On weaponisation-resistant large language models with prospect theoretic alignment. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 10309-10324). https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.687
[20] Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 321-333. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n3a176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n3a176
[21] Datapott Analytics. (2022, July 11). Statistical data analytics and research services. https://datapott.com
[22] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[23] Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. M. (2006). What good is polarising research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035005014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035005014
[24] Fang, J., Su, H., & Xiao, Y. (2018). Will artificial intelligence surpass human intelligence? [Unpublished manuscript]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3173876 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3173876
[25] Fleming, J. (2018). Recognising and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 311-320. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329356638_Recognizing_and_resolving_the_challenges_of_being_an_insider_researcher_in_work-integrated_learning
[26] Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: Methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401
[27] Fryer, T. (2022). A critical realist approach to thematic analysis: Producing causal explanations. Journal of Critical Realism, 21(4), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2076776 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2076776
[28] Gai, M. (2025). Implementation of an innovative approach to vocal training in college: The case of artificial intelligence technologies NSynth, Sing Like Me, and Flow Machines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(2), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-025-01003-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-025-01003-y
[29] García‐Avilés, J. A. (2020). Diffusion of innovation. In J. Van den Bulck (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media psychology (1st ed., pp. 1-8). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0137
[30] Ghimire, A., Prather, J., & Edwards, J. (2024, April 14). Generative AI in education: A study of educators’ awareness, sentiments, and influencing factors. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.15586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE61694.2024.10892891
[31] Glasow, P. A. (2005). Fundamentals of survey research methodology. Mitre.
[32] Gnambs, T., Stein, J. P., Appel, M., Griese, F., & Zinn, S. (2025). An economical measure of attitudes towards artificial intelligence in work, healthcare, and education (ATTARI-WHE). Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100106
[33] Goundar, S. (2012). Research methodology and research methods. Cloud computing (pp. 1-47). Research Gate Publications.
[34] Grassini, S. (2023). Development and validation of the AI attitude scale (AIAS-4): A brief measure of general attitude toward artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191628 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191628
[35] Greene, J. (2024). Driscoll model of reflection. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/health-and-medicine/driscoll-model-reflection
[36] Greene, M. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Researcher, 19(15), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1106
[37] Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage Publications.
[38] Hitsuwari, J., & Takano, R. (2025, April 14). Associating attitudes towards AI and ambiguity: The distinction of acceptance and fear of AI. Research Square [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6007527/v1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6007527/v1
[39] Humphrey, N. (2013). Social and emotional learning: A critical appraisal. SAGE Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288603
[40] Huriye, A. Z. (2023). The ethics of artificial intelligence: Examining the ethical considerations surrounding the development and use of AI. American Journal of Technology, 2(1), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.58425/ajt.v2i1.142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58425/ajt.v2i1.142
[41] IBM. (2024). What is AI? https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence
[42] Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
[43] Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012). Systematic literature studies: Database searches vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 29-38). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2372251.2372257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2372251.2372257
[44] Juranek, J., & Pochwatko, G. (2025). Measurement of general attitude toward AI and its relationship with AI anxiety, attitude toward robots and belief in human nature uniqueness: Polish adaptation of the ATTARI-12 questionnaire. SSRN [Preprint]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5166754 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5166754
[45] Keita, Z. (2023). AI and music education. National Association for Music Education. https://nafme.org/blog/ai-in-education/
[46] Khan, H. (2021). Types of AI - Different types of artificial intelligence systems. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355021812_Types_of_AI_Different_Types_of_Artificial_Intelligence_Systems_fossgurucomtypes-of-ai-different-types-of-artificial-intelligence-systems
[47] Khaydarov, A. (2024). The impact of modern technologies on the development of vocal art. European Journal of Innovation in Nonformal Education, 4(12), 163-167. http://innovatus.es/index.php/ejine
[48] Kieslich, K., Lünich, M., & Marcinkowski, F. (2021). The threats of artificial intelligence scale (TAI). International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(9), 1563-1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00734-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00734-w
[49] Konidena, B. K., Malaiyappan, J. N. A., & Tadimarri, A. (2024). Ethical considerations in the development and deployment of AI systems. European Journal of Technology, 8(2), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.47672/ejt.1890 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47672/ejt.1890
[50] Krägeloh, C., Melekhov, V., Alyami, M., & Medvedev, O. (2024). Artificial intelligence attitudes inventory (AIAI): Development and validation using Rasch methodology. Research Square [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4403120/v1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4403120/v1
[51] Lam, T., & Green, K. (2019). Likert scale: Misuse of mid-point anchor. Advance. https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.7765463.v2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.7765463
[52] Lawani, A. (2021). Critical realism: What you should know and how to apply it. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(3), 320-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2020-0101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2020-0101
[53] Lim, W. M. (2024a). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
[54] Lim, W. M. (2024b). What is quantitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264622 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264622
[55] Liu, H., & Guo, W. (2025). Effectiveness of AI-driven vocal art tools in enhancing student performance and creativity. Journal of Vocal Pedagogy, 12(3), 45-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70037
[56] McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2003). Critical realism: A way forward for evaluation research in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02730.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02730.x
[57] Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
[58] Ng, A., & Mahmoud, B. (2025). Empowering music educators with AI for personalised instruction. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tcv6g_v1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tcv6g_v1
[59] Olorunfemi, O., Shoetan, P., Amoo, O., Atadoga, A., Farayola, O., & Abrahams, T. (2024). Towards a conceptual framework for ethical AI development in IT systems. Computer Science and IT Research Journal, 5(3), 616-627. https://fepbl.com/index.php/csitrj/article/view/910 DOI: https://doi.org/10.51594/csitrj.v5i3.910
[60] Onwuegbuzie, A., Frels, R., & Hwang, E. (2014). Mapping Saldaña’s coding methods onto the literature review process. Journal of Education Issues, 2(1), 130-150. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127478 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v2i1.8931
[61] Ovcharenko, N., Samoilenko, O., Moskva, O., & Chebotarenko, O. (2020). Innovative technologies in vocal training: Technological culture formation of future musical art teachers. Journal of History, Culture and Art Research, 9(3), 115-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i3.2729 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i3.2729
[62] Patel, M., & Patel, N. (2019, January 4). Exploring research methodology: Review article. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 6(3), 48-55. www.ijrrjournal.com DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351235105-3
[63] Pretorius, L. (2024). Demystifying research paradigms: Navigating ontology, epistemology, and axiology in research. The Qualitative Report, 29, 2051-2064. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.7632 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.7632
[64] Rampin, R., & Rampin, V. (2021). Taguette: Open-source qualitative data analysis. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(68), 3522. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522
[65] Resnik, D. B. (2015, January 4). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institutes of Health. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis
[66] Robles, P., & Mallinson, D. J. (2025). Artificial intelligence technology, public trust, and effective governance. Review of Policy Research, 42(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12555
[67] Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press.
[68] Russell, R. G., Lovett Novak, L., Patel, M., Garvey, K. V., Craig, K. J. T., Jackson, G. P., Moore, D., & Miller, B. M. (2023). Competencies for the use of artificial intelligence–based tools by health care professionals. Academic Medicine, 98(3), 348-356. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004963 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004963
[69] Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[70] Sarkar, S., & Bhatia, G. (2021). Writing and appraising narrative reviews. Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research, 10(3), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcsr.jcsr_1_21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcsr.jcsr_1_21
[71] Sattar, K., & Yusoff, M. S. B. (2025). Unveiling the interplay of medical professionalism, mental well-being and coping in medical students: A qualitative phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education, 25, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06595-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06595-5
[72] Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020). Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014
[73] Shamakhmudova, D. M. (2025). Artificial intelligence in music education. European Journal of Arts, 1, 66-69. https://doi.org/10.29013/EJA-25-1-66-69 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29013/EJA-25-1-66-69
[74] Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861
[75] Siddiqui, M. A. (2024). A comprehensive review of AI: Ethical frameworks, challenges, and development. Adhyayan: A Journal of Management Sciences, 14(1), 68-75. https://doi.org/10.21567/adhyayan.v14i1.12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21567/adhyayan.v14i1.12
[76] Sindermann, C., Sha, P., Zhou, M., Wernicke, J., Pak, K., Li, M., Becker, B., Sariyska, R., & Montag, C. (2021). Assessing the attitude towards artificial intelligence: Introduction of a short measure in German, Chinese, and English language. Künstliche Intelligenz, 35, 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00689-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00689-0
[77] South, L., Saffo, D., Vitek, O., Dunne, C., & Borkin, M. (2022). Effective use of Likert scales in visualisation evaluations: A systematic review. Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3), 43-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14521
[78] Stein, J., Messingschlager, T., Gnambs, T., Hutmacher, F., & Appel, M. (2024). Attitudes towards AI: Measurement and associations with personality. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53335-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53335-2
[79] Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L., Garcia-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33
[80] Sukhera, J. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(4), 414-417. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1
[81] Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2010). Research in organisations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. Berrett-Koehler.
[82] Tanujaya, B., Prahmana, R., & Mumu, J. (2023). Lesson study with sharing and jumping tasks in online mathematics classrooms for rural area students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14, 169-188. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i1.pp169-188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i1.pp169-188
[83] Tenser, D. (2025). Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt: AI that is ‘as smart as the smartest artist’ will be here in 3 to 5 years. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ex-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-ai-that-is-as-smart-as-the-smartest-artist-will-be-here-in-3-to-5-years/
[84] Toyon, M. (2021). Explanatory sequential design of mixed methods research: Phases and challenges. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 10(5), 253-260. https://www.ssbfnet.com DOI: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i5.1262
[85] Trail. (2024). EU AI Act: How risk is classified. https://www.trail-ml.com/blog/eu-ai-act-how-risk-is-classified
[86] Ugoji, N. (2025). Ethical considerations and challenges of AI in teaching and learning of music. International Journal of Arts, History and Cultural Studies, 10(1), 91-97. https://iigdpublishers.com/article/373
[87] University of San Diego. (2024). 39 examples of artificial intelligence in education. https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/artificial-intelligence-education/
[88] Uzumcu, O., & Acilmis, H. (2024). Do innovative teachers use AI-powered tools more interactively? A study in the context of diffusion of innovation theory. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 29, 1109-1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09687-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09687-1
[89] Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
[90] Woodruff, K., Hutson, J., & Arnone, K. (2023). Perceptions and barriers to adopting artificial intelligence in K-12 education: A survey of educators in fifty states. In Reimagining education - The role of e-learning, creativity, and technology in the post-pandemic era (pp. 1-28). Faculty Scholarship. https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/faculty-research-papers/506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002741
[91] Yvonne Bulk, L., & Collins, B. (2024). Blurry lines: Reflections on “insider” research. Qualitative Inquiry, 30(7), 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231188048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231188048
[92] Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855-879. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43826004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.09
[93] Zhang, Y., Fen, B. W., Zhang, C., & Pi, S. (2024). Transforming music education through artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review on enhancing music teaching and learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 18(18), 76-93. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i18.50545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i18.50545
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Wende Donahue
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
