Reform of Traditional Music Teaching Methods and Cultivation of Students’ Musical Creativity on Digital Platforms
, , , and
Feb 03, 2025
About this article
Published Online: Feb 03, 2025
Received: Sep 21, 2024
Accepted: Jan 08, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0026
Keywords
© 2025 Qingru Zhang et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
After the comprehensive achievement of music
| Class | Mean | SD | t | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |||
| Class A | 57.10 | 78.94 | 6.13 | 7.98 | -2.809 | 0.004 |
| Class a | 56.94 | 79.64 | 6.38 | 6.36 | -2.660 | 0.001 |
| Class B | 56.02 | 62.38 | 8.18 | 8.20 | -1.860 | 0.059 |
| Class b | 54.87 | 65.94 | 8.12 | 6.41 | -2.922 | 0.051 |
Different methods are evaluated in the DSD100 validation set
| Method | Bass (dB) | Drums (dB) | Other (dB) | Vocals (dB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCRPCAi | 1.61 | 4.05 | 2.33 | 5.19 |
| EFN | 1.71 | 4.08 | 2.39 | 5.36 |
| SHN-4 | 1.8 | 4.13 | 2.45 | 5.43 |
| PSHN | 2.08 | 4.44 | 2.59 | 5.50 |
| Att-Ret+Coh | 2.24 | 4.45 | 2.64 | 5.45 |
| CLSA | 2.23 | 4.49 | 2.75 | 5.43 |
Sample class analysis
| Class | Girls | Boys | Total number | Average performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class A | 36 | 29 | 65 | 57.10 |
| Class a | 34 | 26 | 60 | 56.94 |
| Class B | 32 | 34 | 66 | 56.02 |
| Class b | 28 | 35 | 63 | 54.87 |
Different methods of separation performance indicators on MIR-1K
| Method | Vocal (dB) | Accompaniments (dB) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GNSDR | GSIR | GSAR | GNSDR | GSIR | GSAR | |
| NCRPCAi | 6.58 | 10.48 | 10.45 | 6.94 | 12.48 | 8.32 |
| EFN | 8.54 | 13.62 | 10.85 | — | — | — |
| SHN-4 | 8.64 | 14.25 | 11.59 | 9.52 | 13.78 | 12.27 |
| PSHN | 9.51 | 14.88 | 11.81 | 9.56 | 13.96 | 12.48 |
| Att-Ret+Coh | 9.87 | 15.6 | 12.32 | 9.65 | 13.97 | 12.85 |
| CLSA | 10.72 | 15.66 | 12.66 | 9.58 | 14.09 | 12.88 |