The Other Conversation: Teaching Practice and Music Technology

Dr. Michael Nord 

Willamette University Department of Music

Overview

A wealth of research and anecdotal data supports the notion that technology can enhance learning.  Increasingly, technology is second nature to our students.  They embrace its use in their music classes.  We teachers are learning too. 

Naturally, conversation in the music technology education community focuses on new capabilities and newly created resources.  Similar conversations about capabilities are taking place in academic communities whose domains range from art to quantum mechanics.  At the same time a quieter, but equally critical conversation is taking place with regard to teaching practice and the use of music technology.

Most of us accept the notion that it is good teaching, not simply good hardware or software, wherein lies the greatest potential for learning improvement in technology-assisted environments.  That being the case, perhaps there ought to be some surprise at the low volume of the conversation about the teaching, as compared to the conversation about the technology with which we teach. 

This paper will present a constructivist approach to technology-assisted music instruction.  Following some background and theoretical underpinnings, I will share some concrete examples of the approach applied to a music theory lab class.  This will be followed by survey information provided by students and their classroom theory teacher as to strength and weaknesses of the pedagogy.

Motivations

Why bring this up?  First, it is clear that those of us using technology in our classrooms would be well served by increased participation in the conversation about teaching.  This conversation contributes, as suggested by Berz and Bowman (1995), to Òthe establishment of a knowledge base that might serve as a foundation for technology-based music instructionÓ (p.22).  Moore (1992), Tabscot (1999) and Vincent & Merrion (1996) observe that new technology invites a new paradigm.  They suggest that the new paradigm should be teacher, rather than technology directed.  Furthermore it ought to focus on the unique opportunities for the doing of music that new technologies offer.  In something of a contrast to this ideal, Deal &Taylor (1997) note that the most widespread uses of technology are: 1) notation 2) drill and practice 3) multimedia analysis/appreciation.

            Next comes some of the things we know about learning.  In considering theoretical issues, a line of thinking in and out of music education, I would offer that one include scholars from Dewey through Mursell, Bruner, Thomas, Duffy & Jonasen and Webster.  This list is by no means complete, but the thinking represented by these scholars offers a big picture ideal.  That is, that learning opportunities ought to be situated or authentic and involve exploration and problem solving. 

            Finally, some more personal issues motivate me.  Primary among these are the experiences IÕve shared with students in my classrooms.  Second is my discomfort with the limits of the Òmachine as teacherÓ idea that seems to dominate technologyÕs use in music education. Lastly, is my belief that one learns most deeply through problem solving and creative engagement with the subject matter, hence my active interest in developing models consistent with this idea. 

A Constructivist Approach

What makes for appropriate and effective music teaching in technology-assisted environments?  As with so many similar questions, the answer is: Òit depends.Ó  Factors mediating the answer include course aims and goals, facilities, time constraints, technological literacy, and faculty beliefs, values, and experience.  As Webster (2000) observes, one thing is clear, ÒGood teaching should have a sound basis in philosophy, both in music and in educationÓ (p.3).   

     Echoing WebsterÕs thinking, this paper calls for, and will offer examples of a constructivist approach to the integration of technology in music education settings.  While not widely discussed in writings about technology-assisted music education, constructivist practice, in all of its manifestations[1], has been widely adopted, and written about in other disciplines.  

Constructivism, as interpreted here, is an approach to teaching that seeks to facilitate studentsÕ practical understanding of the subject matter by engaging them in explorative and creative problem solving and reflection.   It emphasizes ÒsituatedÓ learning, which, in the case of music, suggests that learners are to be active as creators of original music, and critics and performers of their own and othersÕ music.  Frameworks for these explorations are not boundless.  Rather they are carefully crafted in response to curriculum content.  The teacher becomes designer and facilitator of the problems to be negotiated by students.  Organized social and individual reflection is central.

Theoretical understandings of constructivismÕs mechanics are rooted in the work of Jean Piaget.  He (1977) states: ÒThe central idea is that knowledge proceeds neither solely from the experience of objects nor from an innate programming performed in the subject but from successive constructions, the result of the constant development of new structuresÓ (p. v).  Brooks and Brooks (1993) note that, like most teachers,  Ò(constructivist) teachers want students to take responsibility for their own learning, to be autonomous thinkers, to develop integrated understandings of concepts, and to pose-and seek to answer- important questionsÓ (p. 13). They (1999) observe that constructivism is a how not a what towards that end.

Constructivist teaching situates cognitive experiences in authentic activities (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992).  Wiggins (2000) emphasizes that, in constructivist music pedagogy, music concepts must be explored with musical problem solving in the actual context of music, not as entities separate from the music.

A constructivist approach to technology integration emphasizes a technology as tool model (Nord, 2002).  This is not to imply a negation of the technology as tutor approach.  Rather, it recognizes that the computer offers us access to a variety of student-centered creative and explorative problem solving opportunities unavailable elsewhere.  The computer is seen as a tool for music making.  As in all good teaching, an appropriate balance between approaches to technology integration is undoubted the best way to maximize student opportunity.

Figure 1 illustrates a generic overview of what a constructivist lesson might look like.  It should be noted that this is not intended represent a ÒmethodÓ or ÒrecipeÓ.  Rather, it is meant to highlight some of the features of a constructivist approach, and a possible progression of those features.  In technology-assisted music instruction two information strands are actively accounted for, technology and music.  Here they are suggested as Steps 1 & 2.  Naturally the progression and balance between these two will vary with the curriculum.

Generic lesson overview template

 

Step 1:  review or introduce new music concept

 

Step 2: review or introduce new tool

                        ÒplayÓ--lowering technologyÕs cognitive overhead

 

Step 3: present problem

 

Step 4: work time—

            assistance as requested/required

                        share/collectively solve roadblocks

 

Step 5: present ÒresultsÓ (perform,   

           critique, analyze, etc.) as appropriate to context

Figure 1. Generic lesson overview

Experience suggests the following:

¥ Teach technology in a context of musical inquiry.

 

¥ Teach the music by keeping the technology as transparent as possible. 

 

¥ As necessary, isolate and focus on the technology so as to minimize its cognitive overhead when confronting the music learning.

           

Invest the time to avoid step by step Òhow toÓ handout sheets.   Sheets help produce great typists but donÕt do much to produce technology competence or independence.

 

Curricular examples

At Willamette University, a constructivist approach is currently being used in four technology -assisted courses: Music Theory and Music Fundamentals labs, Creating Music with Technology (non-majors), and Digital Music Techniques.  The titles themselves may provide some insight into the balance issues described above. 

            Music Fundamentals is class for pre-majors It serves students who may have sufficient performing skills to enter the program, but are lacking in the sight-singing and/or theory preparation necessary for the departmentÕs core theory sequence.  Figure 2 outlines the aims and goals of Music Fundamentals.

Aims: 

¥ musical and technological literacy (Ò2 strandsÓ)

¥ deepen conceptual understanding

¥ increase musical and technological skills

¥ attitudinal-

            -connect music theory to music

            -foster an inclination for musical thinking

            -build confidence

Goals:

¥ Students will use classroom theory materials in various technology-assisted             problem-solving activities.

¥ Students will pass a Finale proficiency exam.

¥ Students will efficiently use CAI.

Figure 2: Music Fundamentals Aims and Goals

 

The course seeks to address music theory concerns, NASM (2001) guidelines, and the departmental desire that all students be Finale (music notation program) competent.

            Using the five-step template (see Figure 1 above) and some explanatory notes for each, I will share some constructivist lessons from Music Fundamentals lab.  The first of these, used in our second class meeting, addresses simple and compound meter, and some of FinaleÕs basic tools.  The music content builds on activities done in the classroom with another professor[2] The technology strand represents studentsÕ first hands-on work with Finale.  For the overwhelming majority, this is their first experience with any notation program.            Step 1 has them ÒteachingÓ me about concepts learned in their classroom.   Examples are student generated and performed on the lab keyboards using free choice or assigned pitches.  Step 2 has two sections, a demonstration (via Network Assistant) of the tools, followed by some free experimenting time.

Step 1: Review- solicit definitions.  Solicit and, as a group, play some examples on

              Kybds using assigned pitches.

 

Step 2: Using Network Assistant,  review Finale simple entry tool +mass mover

            -show meter tool, text tool, repeat tool

            -everyone experiments

           

Step 3: open templates on desktop, model solution with NA

 

Step 4: Stop and share as necessary.

 

Step 5: In the theory classroom Share answers for parts 1 and 2.

            Analyze and perform part 3 compositions.

Figure 3: Week two lesson

Discoveries, tips, or frustrations are shared.  In step 3 students open a prepared template with three composition problems.   Each one allows an increasing amount of freedom.  Students are then given the remainder of the class period to work on the problems.  Step 4 is a collective part of the work process.  As students make discoveries, confront problems, or just want to share, the class breaks to look at these issues together, collaboratively solving problems and exploring issues presented.  As is perhaps obvious, the instructor will need to find a balance between student sharing time and uninterrupted work time.  Step 5 is completed in regular classroom as indicated. 

            A week four lesson (see Figure 4) is aimed at rhythmic recognition and reading.   Students have been working with Òoffset rhythmÓ-pieces in two parts where there is no common placement between the two parts.

Step 1: Review offset rhythm pieces read in class.

 

Step 2: Using Network Assistant, demonstrate Finale layers tool, articulation tools.

                       students play with tools

Step 3: Create two 8 bar offset rhythm pieces using eighth, quarter, or half notes

-       One in simple, one in compound meter. These should be in 2 layers on a

-       single staff.  Be sure to include articulation indicators.

-        

            Prepare a transparency for class.

 

Step 4: Stop and share as necessary.

 

Step 5: In the theory classroom sight-read the pieces from the transparency.

Figure 4: Week four lesson

A week eight lesson (see Figure 5) addresses melodic and harmonic intervals.  Students have been presented with a hard copy template for an interval quiz.   They then create their own content based on this template.  As indicated in Step 5, they then assume several roles in the use of that quiz.

Step 1: Review melodic and harmonic intervals.

 

Step 2: Using Network Assistant, show Finale page layout, resize (%) and staff attributes tools to create a quiz template.

           

Step 3: Using the example provided as a model, create 2 versions of an interval quiz.  Version one will be printed and given to a fellow student in theory class.  Version 2 will be identical but for the inclusion of an answer key.

 

Step 4: Stop and share as necessary.

 

Step 5: In the theory classroom exchange randomly exchange quiz with others, take the quiz,

randomly grade a completed quiz, take back your original to proof graderÕs work

Figure 5: A week 8 lesson: defining intervals/make and give a test the lab section.

A final example (see Figure 6) is from week one of the second semester of Fundamentals of Music.  It begins the process of exploring minor scales.

Different from the lessons described above, this instance finds the music content being initially introduced in lab, rather than the classroom.  It also differs from the prior examples in that it starts with a review of Finale tools used in the previous semester.  This review takes the form of class participants taking the role of teacher in getting a (real or imagined) new class member familiar with FinaleÕs basic tools.

Step 1: Review Finale tools--teach the ÒnewbieÓ

 

Step 2: review major scale (melodic) interval  structure (i.e. WWHWWWH)

            -students play keyboards from a-a (white keys) and share observations

            -students define interval structure in a-a ÒscaleÓ

            -students write out 2 similar scales starting from new pitches (their choice)

            -ÓWhat can you tell me about the sharps/flats used in the scale, and the key signature of major scalesÉÉ..

 

Step 3: Using Finale, create a singable 16-bar melody in natural minor key of your choice.  Use eighth, quarter and/or half notes.  Include rests.   Prepare a transparency for class sight-singing.

 

Step 4: Stop and share as necessary>

 

Step 5: In the theory classroom sight-sing pieces from the transparency.  Begin consideration of other minor scales.

 

Figure 6: Week 1, second semester: Tool review, minor scales

 

Reactions to the Pedagogy

            Consistent with all good teaching, the curriculum is in a constant state of development.  As part of my own ongoing processes of evaluation and reflection, students and their classroom professor were given a written questionnaire.   The student version was confidential.  Reactions from the students and classroom professor have been primarily, though not exclusively, positive.  Student reactions are summarized in Figure 7. 

 

In what way(s) has the lab been most helpful to you?

                        -hands-on use of concepts learned in class

                        -learning how to work with finale

                        -keeps it interesting

In what way(s) has the lab been least helpful to you?

                        -lab wasnÕt always in sync with classroom work

                        -not enough creative freedom

In what way(s), if any, has the lab helped you understand concepts covered in the regular classroom?

                        - allows us to apply concepts in our own work

                        - see and hear whatÕs going on

In what way(s), if any, has the lab confused you about concepts covered in the regular classroom?                 

                        -lab sometimes covered material not covered in class

What has been your favorite activity in lab?  Why?

                        -composing

                        - concrete application of concepts, rewarding, creative outlet

Figure 7: Student reactions

            Clearly, compositional activities were a favorite.  They also present something of a dilemma.   The level of engagement, meaning, and pride in the compositions led to some frustration with the limits placed on the compositional exercises.  Some students felt constrained in their ability to be fully expressive within the boundaries of the curriculum content driven scope of the exercises.  Naturally this frustration is rooted in a variety of factors.  Once more, finding a balance appropriate to the context (a Fundamentals of Music class) is key.  One simple solution, aimed at nurturing studentsÕ creative impulses is the suggestion that two versions be created.   One version navigates the constraints of the (curriculum driven) assigned problem, the other uses the problem as a point of departure for more extensive exploration.

            The classroom professorÕs reactions are summarized in Figure 8.  Once more creative problem solving figures as a success.  The challenge of two professors teaching the ÒsameÓ class in two different settings arises as earlier, suggesting the need for careful communication, if not a single instructor.  The latter point represents perhaps both the message and the ideal to aim for in the future.  That ideal is a circumstance in which technology-assisted learning is not done  Òover in the lab by the other professor,Ó but is one of the routine ways of doing business in most music classrooms.

In what way(s), if any, has the lab been most helpful to the Fundamentals students?

            -Working in a group. Osmosis can be a powerful "infiltration" tool.

            -Using materials creatively. Using these materials to compose is a vast         improvement over simply drilling.

In what way(s), if any, has the lab helped the students understand concepts covered in your classroom?

            -an immediate application for the concepts presented.

            -Using the materials in a problem-solving mode, pushing the students beyond the rote-phase

In what way(s), if any, has the lab confused students about concepts covered in your regular classroom?

-use of different terminology without emphasizing that these are different ways of talking about the same thing

            -being out of sync with classroom content

What kind of activities would you like to see next semester?  How do you

 imagine that they will help with the classroom work?

- Ò I like it when students make up their own tests and assignments.  The best example from last semester was the interval quiz.  I find that it is invaluable to place students in the position of "teacher."  This is one of the best ways to learnÓ.

What has been your favorite activity carried over from lab to the classroom?  Why?

            - ÒMy favorite activity carried over from the lab to the classroom was undoubtedly the rhythm composition.  This was the assignment in which the students composed pieces with different rhythmic articulations on different parts of the beat.  The students really enjoyed the assignment, and they wrote some creative stuff.  Hiroshi's assignment was the best of all, I thought.  He used the tools of Finale particularly effectively to create an imaginative, full-textured piece that we all enjoyed performing.  The students performed the rhythm, and I played the pitches.Ó

What kind of activities would you like to see next semester?  How do you

 imagine that they will help with the classroom work?

- Ò I like it when students make up their own tests and assignments.  The best example from last semester was the interval quiz.  I find that it is invaluable to place students in the position of "teacher."  This is one of the best ways to learn.

 Figure 8: Professor reactions

Final Thoughts

This paper is ultimately about reinforcing the notion that teachers, not machines, teach. Constructivist practice emphasizes a technology as tool over a technology as tutor model. Constructivist practice balances teacher roles between providing information, devising problems inviting diverse solutions, and facilitating a problem- solving classroom environment. Balance is the key.  Your curricular goals, aims, and the students youÕre teaching should guide you in finding the proper proportions between technology as tool and technology as tutor strategies.

The curriculum experience described is consistent with a great body of practice and literature in its advocacy of a constructivist approach to technology-assisted instruction.  At its core is the belief that students learn most deeply, and like doing so, in the context of ÒsituatedÓ and creative problem solving.

With specific regard to music, much of the story remains to be written. We need more teacher education, aimed at all levels, specifically addressing music technology and classroom practice.  Those of us who accept the notion that we end up teaching much like we ourselves were taught should be particularly deliberate in what we do.  We can start by modeling constructivist practice in our own classroom. 

It is hoped that this paper will stimulate interest in filling the current research vacuum in this particular area.  Comparative studies might prove particularly useful.  Finally, it is hoped that readers for whom these ideas are something new will begin experimenting and refining the approach in their own classrooms. 

 

REFERENCES

 

Berz, W.L. and Bowman, J. (1995).  An historical perspective on research cycles in music computer-based technology.  Bulletin of The Council for Research in Music Education  12 ( 6) Fall,  15-19.

Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993).  In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.  Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999)  The courage to be constructivist. . Educational Leadership 56, (November). 18-24.

Deal, J.J. & Taylor, J.A. (1997).  Technology standards for college music degrees. .  Music Educators Journal, (84) 1 July p.17-23.

Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D.  H.(1992).  Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a Marriage?.  In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 45-55).  Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moore, B. (1992). Future Technology Working for Education.  Music Educators Journal, 79 (3), November, 30-34.

NASM (2001)  National Association of Schools of Music 2001-2002 handbook.  Reston, Va.: National Association of Schools of Music.

Nord, M. (2002).. Curriculum, Competence, and Confidence: A 3C Approach to Teacher Preparation for Technology-integrated Practice.  In  SITE 2002 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference: Nashville.  (In Press)

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures.  (English language translation).  New York: Viking Press.

Phillips, D.C. (1995) The good, the bad, the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.  Educational Researcher, 24 (7), 5-12.

Tabscot (1999). Educating the Net Generation. Educational Leadership 56, (February). 7-11.

Vincent, M.C. & Merrion, M. (1996).  Teaching music in the year 2050. .  Music Educators Journal  82 (6)  May, 38-42.

Webster, P. (2000).  Reforming Secondary music teaching in the new century.  Journal of Gifted Secondary Education 12 (1).  Electronic reprint: Academic Search Elite

Wiggins, J. (2000).  Teaching for musical understanding.  McGraw-Hill: Boston.


[1] see PhillipsÕ (1995) excellent review of constructivismÕs theoretical and practice dimensions. .

[2] In our case, I teach the lab-based classes, while a colleague, Professor Marva Duerksen, teaches classroom based components.  While weighted to the former, this 2 professor arrangement has both pros and cons.