{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018461538461538463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3023255813953485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Research-Classroom Gap: Has SWRL Found an Answer?

Some say that music teachers are not interested in what is being investigated or proved by scientific research. Others believe that researchers have failed to make contact with what teachers do every day. No matter whether the fault lies with the researchers or the teachers, there is no question that the problem of communication does exist. And this gap between research and the classroom can be attributed to many factors, including training for research, ineffective comprehension and dissemination of research information, failure on the part of music educators to agree on common behavioral outcomes and overall objectives for music learning, and a general lack of interestboth on the part of the researcher who can see no further than his role as the initiator of research, and on the part of the classroom teacher who fails to play his role as the synthesizer of the researcher's findings. An important question is, to what extent are classroom teachers interested in the "hottest" results of music research? Perhaps the problem with bridging the gap is that the sole responsibility for comprehension, synthesis, and implementation has been placed on the classroom teachers-who are already responsible for keeping up with the various educational "innovations" that music educators have devised. Both music research and music education have invented or adapted an abundant supply of educational constructs for classroom teachers to use-individualized instruction, behavior modification, the discovery method, computer assisted instruction, and so on. But they are