Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate second-grade students’ (N = 128) rhythm-reading achievement and retention after 5 or 10 min of weekly instruction for 3 weeks. Eight intact classes were placed into two groups. Group 1 received 5 min of rhythm-reading instruction during weekly music class, whereas Group 2 received 10 min of rhythm-reading instruction during weekly music class. Treatment lasted 3 weeks, after which students individually completed posttest I. After 2 weeks of no rhythm-reading instruction or practice, students were individually administered posttest II to measure retention. Results indicated that both groups successfully read rhythms after instruction and retained rhythm-reading skills after two additional weeks of no instruction. Between-group analysis suggested that 5 min of instructional time is equally as effective as 10 min on student achievement and retention. Implications include increased efficiency in planning and teaching, increased student engagement, and effective instructional practices in the elementary music classroom.
As the adage goes, “practice makes perfect.” Music scholars have indicated that the cumulative amount of formal practice time, as opposed to informal practice, leads to higher performance levels (Bonneville-Rousey & Bouffard, 2015; Ericsson et al., 1993; Hallam, 2013; Sloboda et al., 1996). Although informal practice time includes improvising and performing favorite songs, formal practice time is concerned with deliberate practice (Hallam, 2013; McPherson & McCormick, 1999; Miksza, 2012). Deliberate practice has been defined as “goal-directed practice aimed at improving performance” (Bonneville-Rousey & Bouffard, 2015, p. 688). Deliberate practice requires focus, effort, determination, and intense preparation (Bonneville-Rousey & Bouffard, 2015; Ericsson et al., 1993; Hallam, 1998; Lehmann & Ericsson, 1997).
Some scholars contend the relationship between deliberate practice time and musical achievement is not as straightforward as it seems, stating other factors also contribute to musical achievement (Bonneville-Rousey & Bouffard, 2015; Hallam, 1998; Williamon & Valentine, 2000). Some attribute motivation and self-efficacy as factors influencing performance achievement (Bonneville-Rousey & Bouffard, 2015; Hallam, 1998). Hallam (2013) includes graded examinations or performances as powerful motivational sources. The influence of self-regulation is mixed (Hallam, 2013; McPherson & McCormick, 2006). McPherson and McCormick (2006) found self-regulation to indirectly affect performance, whereas Hallam (2013) found that self-regulation did not impact performance when combined with other variables. Although there is some consensus that other variables may influence musical performance achievement, Hallam (2013) found the length of time of learning to be the strongest predictor of musical achievement.
Theoretical Framework
Although deliberate practice is associated with solo practice and performance achievement, there are elements of deliberate practice that align with Carroll’s (1963) Model of School Learning, which is a time-based framework for variations in classroom learning and achievement. Hallam (1998) summarized Carroll’s theory as “the degree of learning is a function of time spent learning, divided by time required for learning” (p. 116). The model includes five variables that impact student achievement: quality of instruction, student ability to understand instruction, opportunity to learn, student perseverance, and student aptitude (Carroll, 1963, 1989). The latter three variables relate to time. Opportunity to learn is defined as the amount of time allotted to a subject, task, or concept. Perseverance is the amount of time students are willing to spend on a task. Aptitude is the amount of time a student needs to learn the task (Carroll, 1963, 1989). These three variables in the Carroll (1963) model are supported by Ericsson et al. (1993) and Mosing et al. (2019), who found a relationship between time and learning in deliberate practice.
Because of the relationship between time and learning, it is easy for K–12 music teachers to assume that increased time practicing a skill will lead to greater achievement; however, K–12 music teachers face time limitations. According to Carroll (1963), the time given to learn should be divided by the time needed to learn to determine how much time is required to learn the task. How much time then should music teachers devote to practicing specific skills? Specifically, how much time does it take elementary students to demonstrate rhythm-reading achievement?
Elementary Rhythm-Reading Studies
Rhythm-reading in the elementary classroom has been addressed by prior researchers regarding the effectiveness of approaches to rhythm-reading instruction (Agre, 1991; Palmer, 1976), presentation mode of rhythm patterns (Durá & Tejada, 2020; Persellin, 1992; Shehan, 1987), and mnemonic and counting strategies (Bebeau, 1982; Colley, 1987; Gauthier & Dunn, 2004). Hurley et al. (2018) found aural preparation an important factor in second-grade students’ rhythm-reading achievement. Two researchers have compared students’ math and reading achievement to rhythm-reading or rhythm pattern performance (Agre, 1991; Atterbury, 1983). Agre (1991) found low math achievers may not be low music achievers but poor test-takers on rhythm assessments. Although Atterbury (1983) did not analyze rhythm-reading in her study, results indicated that students with reading challenges also struggle with rhythmic performance. For each rhythm-reading study, a considerable amount of class time was spent in the deliberate practice of rhythm-reading instruction (see Table 1).
Comparison of Instructional Time in Elementary Rhythm-Reading Studies.
There are fewer studies on rhythm-reading with elementary-aged students than with secondary and post-secondary students. I found no studies where time was the dependent measure in rhythm-reading learning in an elementary general music classroom. The only extant study that measured students’ rhythm-reading skill retention in elementary settings was Shehan’s (1987) assessment of short-term retention. Second- and sixth-grade students with no music experience received an individual 15-min session on rhythm learning. Shehan (1987) found the auditory and visual presentation of rhythms as the most effective method used. Most elementary music programs are taught in groups rather than individual lessons. To optimize the use of group instructional time for elementary students’ rhythm-reading and retention, further research is needed into the effects of various instructional time lengths in direct group instruction and its impact on student achievement and retention.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate second-grade students’ rhythm-reading achievement and retention after 5 or 10 min of weekly instruction for 3 weeks. Specifically, the following research questions were addressed.
Method
The choice of a quantitative experimental study was based on a two-group pretest–posttest I–posttest II research design. A pilot study was used to determine the duration of time used in class, length of treatment, and materials used. Participants and assessment delivery were identical between the pilot study and this research study. The treatment, specifically the number of rhythm-reading activities, was increased for the current study because pilot study results revealed students got faster at activity execution each lesson. I received institutional review board (IRB) approval to conduct this research study.
Sampling Procedures and Description of Research Participants
The entire second-grade population (N = 166) in a town centered around a medium-to-large-sized state university in the southern United States was invited to participate in this research study. This grade was chosen for many reasons, including logistics, maturation, students’ musical readiness, and the implemented use of Unit 1 of Conversational Solfege (CS) (Feierabend, 2001) as a literacy curriculum before this treatment. Also, second grade was the highest grade in the school. Regarding maturation, Persellin (1992) found first-grade students the least accurate with the visual presentation of rhythms, whereas Shehan (1987) found the aural and visual presentation of rhythms successful in second-grade students’ learning and short-term retention. In terms of musical readiness, Gordon (1999) indicated the need for students to develop “a musical listening vocabulary or other fundamental audiation skills necessary for learning to perform well” (p. 43) before students at ages 8 or 9 are confronted with the expectation to read notation. Concerning musical readiness and the use of CS, Greene and Strong (2018) wrote that CS should begin when students are musically ready by demonstrating the ability to sing in tune, move to a steady beat, and connect to the emotional part of music. CS is a sound-before-sight music literacy curriculum of sequenced instruction “as a Kodály adaptation for North American children. . . In each unit of CS, students move through 12 discrete steps—from ear-readiness to creating music independently through inner hearing, performance, and then reading and writing” (Greene & Strong, 2018, pp. 144–145). Before treatment, students in all second-grade classes demonstrated musical readiness and completed steps 1 through 5 in Unit 1 of CS, with 95% of students able to successfully improvise patterns on their own, which Greene and Strong (2018) recommend “is time to move on to the Reading steps (6-8)” (p. 156).
All students were given IRB consent and assent forms before the study started. Forms were collected by classroom homeroom teachers and sealed in envelopes. All students received treatment and were assessed. After the final assessment, I opened the envelopes and counted 133 signed IRB consent/assent forms returned, and those students’ data were included in the study. Participants were Caucasian (n = 84), African American (n = 24), Asian (n = 10), Hispanic (n = 3), and multi-race (n = 2). Three students were absent from school during at least 1 treatment day and were excluded from analysis. During exploratory data analysis, two students who reversed reading the quarter notes and eighth notes on posttest II were the lowest scoring outliers and were excluded from analysis. This left 128 participants for this study, including 65 males and 63 females.
Study Timeline
The study took 6 weeks, from pretest to posttest II. The week before treatment, all students were individually administered a pretest (see Figure 1) during the my planning time. Treatment lasted 3 weeks. Posttest I (see Figure 2), which measured learning achievement, was individually administered immediately following the third treatment session during the same class. Posttest II (see Figure 3), which measured retention, was individually administered during regular class instruction, which occurred in Week 6 of the study.
Pretest Rhythms.
Posttest I Rhythms.
Posttest II Rhythms.
Treatment Groups
There were two treatment groups for this study: Groups 1 and 2. Intact classes were randomly assigned to a treatment group, four to Group 1 and four to Group 2. Treatment occurred during three consecutive regularly scheduled music class sessions. Classes met for 45 min in each lesson, but the treatment period was only 5 or 10 min of the total lesson time. For the treatment, Group 1 received 5 min of rhythm-reading instruction in each lesson, for a total of 15 min of instruction/treatment over 3 weeks. Group 2 received 10 min of rhythm-reading instruction in each lesson, for a total of 30 min of instruction/treatment over 3 weeks. Group 2 repeated all rhythm-reading activities, whereas Group 1 classes performed each rhythm-reading activity only once.
Treatment
Treatment involved me leading students in the notation reading Steps 6 to 8 of the Unit 1 CS curricula (see Figure 4) for the respective 5 or 10 min each week for 3 weeks. Step 6 was rote reading and introduced the visual presentation of notation for the quarter note and barred eighth notes and included identification of each note’s respective parts (notehead, stem, beam). Step 7 was decoding familiar patterns by reading from Pattern Set 1A or songs and chants from Unit 1 learned in previous steps. Step 8 was decoding unfamiliar patterns through reading patterns from Pattern Set 1B or new songs and chants from Unit 1. For each rhythm unit in CS, two sets of patterns are provided. Pattern Set 1A was designed to be taught to students to become familiar patterns to decode (Step 3), read (Step 7), and write (Step 10). Pattern Set 1B was reserved as unfamiliar patterns to decode (Step 4), read (Step 8), and write (Step 11).
Twelve Steps of Conversational Solfege.
During each class, I started treatment with a timer. Rhythm-reading instruction then commenced, and I introduced the quarter note, barred eighth notes, and had students recall each part (head, beam, stem). After this brief warm-up, I read patterns aloud from Pattern Set 1A in random order while pointing to each note. The class echoed the pattern as I pointed again to each note. All these activities encompassed Step 6. Step 7 immediately followed. Students decoded rhythm patterns from Pattern Set 1A and familiar songs and chants from Unit 1 that were learned aurally in previous lessons. For these rhythm-reading activities, I did not read aloud the rhythm and allowed students to transfer rhythm-reading skills. A variety of rhythm-reading activities from the Techniques section of CS (Feierabend, 2001), such as Stop and Go (p. 41) and Read and Remember (p. 40), were employed to maintain high student engagement. After a successful group performance of reading familiar rhythm patterns, Step 8 began. While this was like Step 7 in activities, the rhythm patterns were new to students and had not been practiced or heard in previous classes. When the timer went off, I immediately stopped the rhythm-reading activities and transitioned the students into singing activities, the next component in the music lesson.
Testing Instruments and Scoring
Although the three tests (pre, post I, and post II) were inspired heavily by CS, I customized each. In authentic CS assessment, decoding familiar (Pattern Set 1A) and unfamiliar (Pattern Set 1B) patterns should be two separate assessments (Feierabend, 2001), yet to meet the timeline for this study, each test included two patterns from Pattern Set 1A and two patterns from Pattern Set 1B. Different pattern combinations were used for each assessment. The combination of Pattern Set tests measured students’ ability to read familiar and unfamiliar rhythm patterns with syllables in one assessment. For all tests, students were assessed individually and audio recorded using an iPad2. Students were presented four 4-beat rhythm patterns and asked to read aloud one line at a time.
Pretest, posttest I, and posttest II scoring was identical since the tests were formatted the same. Since the assessment aligned with CS practice, the Rhythm Pattern Rubric was used to ensure validity (Feierabend, 2001, p. 323, see Figure 5). Students whose rhythm syllables were completely reversed were excluded from analysis. Per the rubric, each rhythm pattern had a 5-point maximum, making the total maximum score for each test 20 points. I trained the independent judge on the scoring process, which involved listening to each recording and immediately scoring it.
Rhythm Pattern Rubric From Conversational Solfege (p. 323).
Results
Exploratory Analysis
After all scoring was complete, raw data were screened. There were four outliers on posttest I and six outliers on posttest II. The two lowest scoring outliers on posttest II were eliminated from analysis because these participants incorrectly read all quarter notes as “du-day” and paired eighth notes as “du,” scoring only 4 total points out of 20. The remaining four outliers scored between 6 and 12 points on posttest I. While they were still outliers on posttest II, raw scores increased by at least one point and were included in the analysis.
Analyses
To test the effectiveness of 5 min of weekly rhythm-reading instruction over three consecutive weeks, a one-sample t-test was conducted. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for both groups on the pretest and both posttests. The test value was zero because all pretest scores were zero; thus, there was no variability within the group. The assumption that the population is normally distributed was not reflected in the sample (skewness = −1.81). According to Mertler and Vannatta (2010), the assumption could be made if scores were transformed by reflecting and inversing them. Using the transformed scores, there was a statistically significant difference for the 5-min group (M = 18.18, SD = 1.94) on rhythm-reading ability, t(66) = 13.375, p < .001. Results indicated that 5 min of weekly rhythm-reading instruction over three consecutive weeks was adequate time for second-grade students to independently read familiar and unfamiliar rhythm patterns.
Pretest and Posttest Descriptive Statistics.
A one-sample t-test comparing the effectiveness of 10 min of weekly rhythm-reading instruction administered over three consecutive weeks was conducted. There was no variability within the group because all students scored zero on the pretest, making the test value zero. Using the transformed scores, there was a statistically significant difference for the 10-min group (M = 17.85, SD = 2.613) on rhythm-reading ability, t(60) = 12.110, p < .001. Results indicated that 10 min of weekly rhythm-reading instruction over three consecutive weeks was adequate time for second-grade students to independently read familiar and unfamiliar rhythm patterns. This suggests elementary music teachers can spend 10 min of weekly class time on rhythm-reading practice for second-grade students to read familiar and unfamiliar rhythm patterns successfully and independently.
A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare group effects on rhythm-reading scores from pretest to posttest I. There was no statistically significant difference between groups on rhythm-reading ability, F(1, 1) = .003, p = .957, which suggests 5 min of rhythm-reading instruction may be as effective as 10 min.
A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to measure rhythm-reading retention. Two outliers were excluded from all analyses, and the dependent variable used was test scores. There was a statistically significant difference between posttest I and posttest II, F(1, 126) = 26.219, p < .001, with the higher mean at posttest II. Statistical significance was not found between groups, F(1, 126) = 1.326, p = .252, suggesting 5 min of weekly rhythm-reading instruction for 3 weeks was similar to 10 min. Results reveal second-grade students who received as little as 5 min of weekly rhythm-reading practice can retain and improve rhythm-reading skills after 2 weeks of no rhythm-reading practice.
Discussion
I aimed to determine the effects of instructional time on second-grade students’ rhythm-reading achievement and retention. The first research question posed whether 5 min of rhythm-reading instruction delivered weekly for three consecutive weeks was adequate time for second-grade students to learn and retain rhythm-reading skills. Scores on posttest I for Group 1 participants demonstrated students’ ability to successfully read simple quarter note and paired eighth note rhythm patterns after 5 min of instruction for 3 weeks. The second research question asked whether 10 min of rhythm-reading instruction delivered weekly for three consecutive weeks was adequate time for students to learn and retain rhythm-reading skills. Group 2’s posttest I scores reflect students’ ability to successfully read simple quarter note and eighth note rhythms after 10 min of instruction for 3 weeks. To summarize, results from Research Questions 1 and 2 imply second-grade students can be taught how to read quarter note and barred eighth note patterns in relatively minimal weekly class time. When framed in the context of Carroll’s (1963) Model of School Learning, the opportunity to learn, or time spent learning, needed for rhythm-reading achievement of simple patterns for second-grade students is 5 to 10 min of class over 3 weeks.
Although it may seem reassuring to elementary music specialists that students can attain high and accurate rhythm-reading achievement in such a short period on task, the issue of efficiency remains. According to Carroll (1963, 1989), aptitude is the amount of time students need to learn a task and may require less practice time than the amount assigned to learning a task or opportunity to learn. Research Question 3 sought to answer this question and compared Groups 1 and 2 on posttest I. No statistical difference was found, suggesting students who practiced rhythm-reading for 5 min each week performed as well as students who practiced rhythm-reading for 10 min in a weekly class.
Several implications can be made from this finding. First, second-grade students have a high aptitude for rhythm-reading according to Carroll’s (1963, 1989) definition of aptitude, thus requiring minimal class time spent practicing reading rhythms to achieve mastery. Findings also suggest elementary music teachers can increase teaching efficiency by spending 5 min on rhythm-reading practice, which contrasts existing studies examining rhythm-reading group instruction with elementary students (Agre, 1991; Bebeau, 1982; Colley, 1987; Gauthier & Dunn, 2004; Palmer, 1976). Previous studies had a wide range of class time with group instruction of practicing rhythms from 15 to 35 min from 4 weeks to 5 months (see Table 1), whereas the current study had group practice for a total of 15 or 30 min over 3 weeks.
Several considerations may have factored into these results. To begin, only two notation symbols were in this study. This may have been attributed to the minimal time required by students to master the pattern performance reading. Findings align with Shehan (1987) and Persellin (1992), who found students successful at rhythm-reading three notation symbols after one 10- to 15-min treatment intervention; however, Shehan’s (1987) and Persellin’s (1992) treatments were administered individually to students. Treatment for this study was group instruction. The presentation of minimal notation symbols also supports chunked learning as a strategy for rhythm-reading instructional design in second-grade students (Miller, 1956.)
Another issue involved students’ aural preparation on quarter notes and barred eighth notes using the CS music literacy curriculum. Before treatment, students in this study completed Steps 1 through 5 in CS, which is a sequence of aural perception and discrimination skills. Current study findings align with Hurley et al. (2018), who found an increase in rhythm-reading performance skills with aural preparation (Steps 1–5) using CS with second-grade students. Step 5 of CS Unit 1 is improvising four-beat rhythm patterns different from the teacher’s pattern. According to Gordon (1997), improvisation is like discrimination learning because improvisation limits students to particular meters and rhythms and responds to the teacher’s pattern. Perhaps the aural/oral improvisation step before notation reading further solidifies an auditory understanding of the notes and their function that aids visual presentation of notation.
Although many deliberate practice studies have indicated increased time to higher performance achievement (Bonneville-Rousey & Bouffard, 2015; Ericsson et al., 1993; Hallam, 2013; Sloboda et al., 1996), the same may not be true of group instruction in an elementary music setting. Most deliberate practice studies are focused on individuals and more complex performance skills, whereas this study was focused on time-based group instruction. Unlike deliberate practice, instruction in an elementary music setting includes listening, moving, singing, chanting, and playing instruments, which may influence students’ rhythm-reading performance. This may also support a less-is-best approach in some contexts, similar to this study.
As Carroll (1963) suggested, student perseverance, or how long a student is willing to work on a task, is an important variable that impacts learning. In elementary music classes, lesson pacing and transitions are vital and support a less-is-best approach to maintain student engagement. Although Colley (1987) covered more rhythmic concepts than the two in this study, she discussed how student enthusiasm for rhythm-reading diminished by the third and fourth weeks of instruction with some classes. Results from the current study support elementary music teachers spending as few as 5 min on rhythm-reading instruction and covering fewer concepts to maintain student enthusiasm and focus, or student perseverance. Further research is needed on student perseverance in the elementary music classroom.
The final two research questions concerned students’ retention of rhythm-reading skills. The fourth research question addressed students’ retention of rhythm-reading achievement after 2 weeks of no rhythm-reading instruction. Posttest II results from Groups 1 and 2 indicate students can successfully retain rhythm-reading skills after 2 weeks of no rhythm-reading instruction. Findings align with Shehan (1987), who assessed short-term retention on rhythm pattern instruction; however, participants in the current study had a longer break between posttest I and posttest II and fewer notation symbols than Shehan (1987). Findings also suggest that students may require less time reviewing rhythm-reading skills after not practicing the skill for a few weeks. This is especially helpful to consider when returning from spring break or on program rehearsal and performance weeks.
There were four outliers in the exploratory analysis of raw data on posttests I and II that did show minimal improvement between the two tests and were included in the study. A further look into these four students revealed one student receives special education services for reading. A second student had failed reading in the current year. The third student received English language learning (ELL) services throughout the school year and was still learning English. There was no language, reading, or other academic concerns with the fourth student.
Three of these outliers align with existing research suggesting the potential influence of language reading achievement on rhythmic performance in children aged seven and eight (Atterbury, 1983), yet none of these outliers struggled in math, which Agre (1991) states can impact rhythm-reading achievement. Although the struggling readers in the current study scored lower than most other participants on the rhythm-reading performance posttest, these students still made gains; furthermore, not all students who struggled in reading achievement were an outlier on the assessment. This suggests that some who struggle in reading can learn how to read simple rhythm patterns. The student receiving ELL service may have struggled with the ability to understand instruction, which is a variable of achievement in Carroll’s (1963) Model of School Learning. Further research is needed to investigate students receiving ELL services and achievement in music, specifically regarding rhythm-reading. In addition, future research is required between rhythm-reading instruction and math or language development in early childhood and elementary students.
The final research question queried whether there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 on retention scores. Comparison of the group scores on posttests I and II revealed no statistically significant difference, which further supports 5 min of instruction as adequate time as 10 min on students’ rhythm-reading retention. Although there was no statistical significance between groups on posttests I and II results, there were slightly higher means on posttest II, which measured retention, for both groups. The cause of the higher means is unclear. The students had 1 week of spring break, followed by a typical week of school. Possible reasons for the higher means are rest received over spring break or participation in other music-making activities like singing and movement in music class. Further research is needed to investigate rhythm-reading retention after variable lengths of times of no instruction.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. First, the researcher was the participants’ music teacher, which could have led to bias. Several accommodations were made to prevent researcher bias. Consent forms were sealed in an envelope and remained unviewed until the conclusion of the study to avoid coercion. The study was not referenced to students by me to further prevent coercion. As it was unknown which students submitted a consent form until the study’s conclusion, all students received treatment as part of regular, weekly music class instruction. To ensure validity and reliability, a timer was used during treatment administration. The investigator and an independent judge gave pretest and posttest scores. Other limitations include the limited sample and generalizability of this study. Although 77% of second-grade students were included in the data collection, results may not be generalizable to a larger population.
Implications
In summary, several implications and applications can be made from the results of the current study. First, second-grade students can quickly learn to read rhythm patterns with limited notation and retain rhythm-reading achievement after no formal practice. Specifically, elementary music teachers can plan for as little as 5 min of focused and explicit rhythm-reading practice for students’ rhythm-reading achievement and retention. Second, students can retain rhythm-reading skills after weeks without instruction. This should reassure elementary music teachers who juggle the demands of weekly or bi-weekly class meetings, planning, teaching programs, and the need to teach other musical concepts and ideas. Elementary music teachers do not need to plan extensive blocks of time for rhythm-reading review if there is no opportunity to practice this skill for a few weeks. Results from this study suggest students will quickly recall rhythm-reading skills.
There are other implications and applications for elementary music teachers to consider, such as the presentation and preparation of notation. One suggestion is limiting the number of notation concepts introduced. This can lead to elevated rhythm-reading achievement for students. Only two concepts were introduced in this study, and students were successful. Next, aural skills practice before the presentation of visual notation may contribute to high rhythm-reading achievement (Hurley et al., 2018). Before this study, students could decode familiar and unfamiliar rhythm patterns and improvise four-beat patterns using the quarter note and barred eighth notes. In addition, CS (Feierabend, 2001) can be an effective curriculum for teaching rhythm-reading skills using a sound-before-sight approach. In this study (and in Hurley et al., 2018), I found success with second-grade students using CS. Finally, elementary music teachers should consider using time when teaching rhythm-reading or other topics. Wang and Sogin (1997) wrote that teachers spend less time on activities than perceived and spend more time talking than perceived. Using a timer may keep the teacher and students better focused and minimize distractions. Hopefully, these suggestions assist elementary music teachers and can increase teaching efficiency and planning without fear of limiting rhythm-reading achievement and retention in students.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
