ETEC 500 #1: Critical comparison of different research discovery tools

For this assignment, I chose to critically compare the results of generative AI (specifically ChatGPT) with those of the University of British Columbia’s library database and Google Scholar as research discovery tools. The focus of the research I sought was on how technology can support Indigenized music education content in elementary schools. I selected this topic because I felt it is both relevant and directly applicable to my current practice as a non-Indigenous music educator working predominantly in Indigenous elementary school contexts situated on the traditional territory of the Tsimshian Nation.

I began my inquiry by carefully considering the wording of the prompt I gave to ChatGPT. I started with the prompt: “Give me a list of 10 recent and peer-reviewed academic research journals on the topic of how technology can support Indigenized music education content in elementary schools. Format the results in 7th Edition APA Style.”

The results provided enough options for me to choose from, but they required some filtering on my part. I later had second thoughts about using ChatGPT as a research discovery tool when I found that some of the DOI links it provided didn’t work, and the accuracy of the APA citations was questionable. In the end, these were the titles of the sources I selected from ChatGPT:

• Walking Carefully Towards Bridging the Gap
• The Impact of New Technologies on the Musical Learning of Indigenous Australian Children
• ICT and Music Technology During COVID-19
• Employing Mobile Learning in Music Education
• On Embedding Indigenous Musics in Schools

Next, I turned to UBC’s library search engine. Finding relevant results required more effort, but the academic integrity of these sources was clear. Finally, I used Google Scholar, which yielded a vast array of results but required manual sifting to ensure credible, peer-reviewed relevance.

This research exercise revealed several key differences between the discovery tools I used. While my research question was thoughtful, I found that its complexity—integrating music education, technology, and Indigenous cultural content—was somewhat difficult for generative AI to fully grasp. ChatGPT tended to offer sources that lacked one or more essential elements of my query.

In contrast, UBC’s library produced sources with greater cultural and academic depth, though many were slightly older. Google Scholar represented a productive middle ground; while it required manual sorting, the content offered felt more contemporary and aligned with the intersection of technology and Indigenous-focus music education that I desired.

This process illuminated both the advantages and limitations of generative AI in academic research. While ChatGPT provided a useful starting point, the sources I found through UBC’s library and Google Scholar ultimately aligned more closely with the depth and contemporary cultural relevance I sought. This experience has influenced the way in which I approach research moving forward, particularly when exploring interdisciplinary or culturally sensitive topics.