A Curriculum for the Study of Audio, Video, Computer, and Electronic Music Instrument Technology for Undergraduate Music Education Majors Based on a Survey Among Members of the Florida Music Educators Association

Curtis B. Tredway, The University of Texas at El Paso

The purpose of this study was to provide undergraduate music education majors a course of instruction by which fundamental knowledge and skills concerning audio, video, computer, and electronic music devices can be attained. The study was completed in the following stages: Justification of the study of technology based on the writings of the Music Educators National Conference; Investigation of the terms "technology," and "educational technology"; Review of literature; Creation and evaluation of a survey instrument; Administration of the survey to members of the Florida Music Educators Association; Creation of a technology curriculum; Evaluation of the curriculum.

The Music Educators National Conference (MENC) was established in 1907 and is the world’s largest association of professionals dedicated to music education. In 1986 its membership was given as 55,000 ("The School Music", p. 7). MENC has recognized the importance of technology in music education for some time. In 1972, the publication Guidelines in Music Education: Supportive Requirements recommended the use of audio and video recording and playback equipment, closed-circuit television, and electronic tone generators and filters as tools to be used in music classrooms (MENC, p. 30+).

In 1986 MENC presented a second edition of The School Music Program: Descriptions and Standards. This publication outlines music experiences and standards for implementation of music programs in early childhood education, elementary school, middle school and junior high school, and senior high school. Within each of these four areas, recommendations are given for scheduling and course offerings, staffing, materials and equipment, and facilities. The materials and equipment recommended throughout this publication include the following: record players, cassette recorders, reel-to-reel recorders, compact disc players, headphones, microphones, amplifiers, speakers, motion picture projectors, filmstrip projectors, overhead projectors, video recorders, synthesizers, electric pianos with consoles, electric guitars with consoles, and computers with appropriate software. Opportunity-to-Learn Standards for Music Instruction Grades PreK-12, published by MENC in April of 1994, makes similar recommendations for classroom equipment.

The 1987 publication, Music Teacher Education: Partnership and Progress, contains a series of goals to be attained by future music educators (MENC). Citing a need for change in teacher preparation, this document ". . . proposes various sets of ideals to which each participant and institution can aspire as the process of change and growth evolves" (p. 11). Throughout the text many references are made to the use of technology for instructional and non-instructional purposes.

In addition to addressing the needs of the music education student, MENC has also attempted to bring technological information to currently practicing music educators. Beginning in September of 1989 the Music Educators Journal began printing a series of articles entitled "Technology for Teaching." These articles have attempted to address practical applications of technology in the classroom. An issue-by-issue investigation indicated that these articles often dealt with specific models of equipment rather than concepts which are applicable to whole genres of technology. There appeared to be an emphasis on computer technology, followed by electronic music instrument technology, and, to a limited degree, video technology. No articles were found to address audio technology. Further, applications of technology were biased toward instructional uses.

In 1990 the Music Educators National Conference published a booklet entitled Tips: Technology for Music Educators. This was a publication that provided basic information, but did not serve as an instructional manual for the novice, nor was audio technology addressed.

Two important questions to be answered at the outset of this study were "What is educational technology?" and "Are audio, video, computer and electronic music devices a part of educational technology?" Apparently, confusion and concern exists in regard to definitions of such terms as "technology" and "educational technology."

Derick Unwin, author of The Encyclopaedia of Educational Communications and Technology (1978), completed an extensive review of the literature in order to arrive at a definition of "educational technology." Quoting P. D. Mitchell, Unwin reports the following: "For some, technology means equipment; for others, a process (e.g. system analysis); application of a body of knowledge and practices; a discipline (viz., industrial arts); or even a branch of cultural anthropology" (p. 309).

Unwin’s research also acknowledges the importance of an understanding in the use of the tools and instruments of education. Goodman (1972) is quoted as saying ". . . there has always been a technology of education. But it has been, and is still predominately, a tool-technology . . ." (cited in Unwin, p. 318). Ofliesh (1970) describes educational engineers as those who often have little experience in educational instrumentation, and must rely on the expertise of others in the development of instruments that facilitate their educational systems designs (cited in Unwin, p. 319). Finally, Unwin quotes Komoski’s (1969) description of modern educators as ". . . modern versions of the poly-technic men of the renaissance [sic]: generalists who know how to accomplish a broad range of specific objectives through the imaginative use of intelligently selected tools" (cited in Unwin, p. 326, emphasis added).

This definition implies that the teacher must have a thorough understanding of the tools of education and may devise imaginative uses of these tools that may not have been originally intended by the developer. Therefore, it appears that the devices of audio, video, electronic music, and computer technology, used as tools and instruments of education, have a definite place in educational technology and, as such, warrant inclusion in an undergraduate music education curriculum.

Many magazines and journals exist that are written specifically for the music and music education community, such as Music Educators Journal, Keyboard, the Instrumentalist, and Electronic Musician. Although these sources often discuss new technologies and their applications, they were not found to instruct the reader in the use of these devices in the same manner proposed by this study. Other magazines, such as Teacher and Technology and Technological Horizons in Education, discuss new technologies and their applications in education, but are not written specifically for a music or music education audience.

Several studies have been conducted concerning the use of audio technology and music instruction. This technology was generally manifest in the form of pre-recorded audiotapes and was often used in conjunction with other educational technology. Examples include Rasmussen (1966), Ihrke (1971), Bodenstein (1975), Bridges (1982), Spohn (1962, 1963), and Unsworth (1970) (all cited in Higgins, 1992, p. 481). Recent studies involving video technology reflect the developments and increased popularity in videotape recording and videodisc technology. Gonzo and Forsythe (1976), Jordon (1980), Leppla (1989), Blackman (1989) and Miller (1987) have conducted research in these areas (all cited in Higgins, 1992).

Excluding music literature and music composition, little recent research was found in the area of electronic music technology. Two recent studies, Gatzert (1989) and Van Scoyoc (1991) dealt with the development of curricula for specific electronic music devices.

Research studies concerning music education and computer technology were numerous, especially in the areas of music theory and ear training. These included Kuhn and Allvin (1967), Placek (1972), Hofstetter (1978, 1979, 1981), Newcomb, Weage, and Spencer (1980), Arenson (1982), and Dalby (1989) (all cited in Higgins, 1992). Another area of research that examined the use of computers was instrumental music instruction and evaluation. Deihl and Radocy (1969) devised a program to teach musicianship skills to intermediate level wind instrumentalists (cited in Higgins, 1992). Peters developed a computer program to test the pitch and rhythmic accuracy for trumpet performers (1974) and to teach percussion pedagogy (1978b) to undergraduate music education students (cited in Higgins, p. 485-486).

Three studies concerning the uses of technology in music education have particular relevance to this study. Grijalava (1986) surveyed music educators in independent California schools used to determine their use of computers. Charles P. Schmidt (1988) reported that 59.6% of colleges and universities surveyed require instruction concerning media/technology/computers for all undergraduate music education majors, 8.7% require instruction of some music education majors, and 31.7% do not include this type of instruction in their curriculum. Schmidt’s study did not attempt to define the components that were found as part of media/technology/computer instruction. Shellhouse (1990) surveyed 50 community colleges in the state of Illinois and found that computer facilities were available in few of the colleges across the state.

As can be seen from the studies presented, many studies were concerned with the application of selected technological devices. Rarely did studies provide instruction for the use of these devices as a planned experience. Further, few studies addressed non-instructional uses of technology among music educators.

A closed-response survey was constructed to gather data concerning ownership and usage of audio, video, computer, and electronic music devices. This survey consisted of three sections. Section I was labeled "Demographics." Respondents were asked to choose from categories provided by the researcher to determine the (a) grade levels taught by the respondent, (b) amount of teaching experience of the respondent, and (c) primary area of instruction of the respondent. Each response had a numerical identifier which could be used for statistical purposes.

Section II, labeled "Usage," determined the number of days per year specific devices were used in given situations. Subjects were asked to provide a numerical response. Each item in Section II was identified as expressing a primarily instructional, non-instructional, or neutral application. The Usage section of the survey instrument contained 14 instructional items, 20 non-instructional items, and 21 neutral items.

Section III, labeled "Ownership," determined the ownership or availability of various audio, video, computer, and electronic music devices. Respondents were asked to choose from responses provided by the researcher which best described the ownership and location of various devices. These responses were given numerical identifiers for statistical purposes. Section III was not actually a part of the study, and results from this section were not used to determine the content of the proposed technology curriculum. However, it was included because of its relationship to the study and for the benefit of future researchers who may wish to investigate factors, such as ownership and location of devices, that may influence usage.

The instrument was evaluated for validity by a panel of five music education professionals. The instrument was evaluated for reliability using a test/re-test method. The mean, mode, and standard deviation was determined for each individual item on both the test and re-test. The responses for each individual item on both the test and re-test were ranked and correlated to produce a correlation coefficient and a correlation coefficient (adjusted for ties) for each item in the survey instrument.

The resulting data were then subjected to four different types of treatment:

These four treatments of data were applied to the survey instrument as a whole, as well as various sub-sections.

For the survey instrument as a whole, correlation coefficients ranged from .926 to .671. For various sub-sections of the survey instrument, correlation coefficients ranged from 1.000 to .566.

The survey instrument was sent to a random sample of 400 members of the Florida Music Educators Association. One hundred eighty-eight returned surveys were used in this study. Responses were averaged, with the ten highest responses identified for later use in constructing a proposed curriculum for the study of technology among undergraduate music education majors. The ten highest responses were then also determined for 17 sub-groups based on the level of instruction, number of years experience, and primary area of emphasis of the respondents. The ten highest responses from the entire population and the 17 sub-groups were then combined to produce a list of 23 responses. It was hypothesized that the combined list would contain more non-instructional than instructional items.

A curriculum was constructed to provide basic skills and concepts for undergraduate music education majors in the areas of audio, video, computer, and electronic music instrument technology. Limitations on the construction of the curriculum were as follows: (a) The curriculum must reflect those 23 items identified by the survey, and (b) the curriculum must not exceed ten hours of instructional time.

The curriculum was evaluated by a panel of six education and music education professionals using a six point Likert-type scale. A mean score of 4.0 was considered the acceptable minimum for each item of the curriculum evaluation form. Criteria for evaluation were as follows:

It was hypothesized that the ten highest mean responses concerning audio, video, computer, and electronic music devices and their applications could be identified from a survey instrument administered to members of the Florida Music Educators Association. The ten highest mean responses concerning audio, video, computer and electronic music devices and their applications were also identified among members of the Florida Music Educators Association based on the primary area of emphasis, grade level of instruction, and teaching experience of the respondents.

Another hypothesis stated that a combined list of the ten highest mean responses for each of the previous groups surveyed would contain more non-instructional applications of technology than instructional applications. Of the 23 survey items identified by the survey for use in the construction of the curriculum, 11 were considered to be "neutral," 8 were "non-instructional," and 4 were "instructional."

A final hypothesis stated that goals, objectives, and activities which reflect the uses of technology among members of the Florida Music Educators Association could be identified and organized into a ten hour curriculum for undergraduate music education majors. This hypothesis received some support from the results of this study. Twenty-four of 26 sections of the proposed curriculum received acceptable mean scores when evaluated by a panel of six education and music education professionals. Two items of the curriculum evaluation form attained a mean score of below 4.0, indicating that further revisions were required for those corresponding sections of the proposed curriculum. Therefore, instructional activities were added to the curriculum based on the comments of the evaluators. Many other suggestions for improvement made by the panel of evaluators were not implemented due to their lack of relation to the survey items used in the construction of the proposed curriculum.