As technology becomes more prevalent in college music departments, efforts are being made to develop further the ways in which technology can enhance and improve our teaching. Many innovative ideas are being proposed and implemented, yet, we still find that the most common uses for music technology are drill and practice software for aural skills, and notation software (Deal & Taylor, 1997). This suggests that the average college music teacher is not using technology to its full advantage. We clearly see a need for methods by which technology can be put to more efficient and effective use in the core music curriculum.

An area which has not been thoroughly explored is the use of mediated classrooms where students as well as teachers have access to computer workstations. Some curricula such as Yamaha’s Music in Education (MIE) have provided solutions for elementary and secondary classes, but these are generally not adaptable to college theory programs. The most obvious solution is often overlooked; to use the resources of the technology lab to teach other core music classes in addition to teaching technology itself. On the face of it, this seems logical. The very reason that computer-based instruction has been said to be effective--individualized instruction--suggests that it be used mainly in one-on-one situations. We, on the other hand, have found the technology lab to be an excellent teaching environment, providing for an expansion of the goals and the content of the ear training class. It now serves to foster the integration of aural, written and keyboard skills. In this paper, we will present a case history of the design and implementation of such a class in the new Central Michigan University School of Music building. Based on our experiences and discussions with other instructors using a lab as a classroom, we will generalize and provide a model that we feel can be used by any instructor with basic computer literacy and the appropriate facilities. While we are focusing on ear training, many of the concepts presented here can be adapted to other core music courses such as theory, history, and keyboard classes.

In developing this model we found there are three main areas that must be considered: 1) the methodology used in delivering the instruction, 2) the design of the instructional materials, and 3) the physical design of the lab.

The design of the lab is balanced between the needs of the MIDI equipment and the needs of the classroom environment. In a lab the goal is to maximize the number of workstations whereas in classroom design considerations such as ease of movement, sight lines and flexibility must be taken into account. We therefore reduced the number of stations from 15 to 12 (plus an instructor’s station) with the intent of having two students using each station. We also try to foster cooperative learning by avoiding the traditional rows of desks that might impede that goal.

The choice of furniture fulfills several needs, considering first of all the type and quantity of equipment at each station. Each station is designed for accessibility, ease of use, and adequate storage of the equipment. For the classroom setting, two additional criteria require low profile furniture to improve sight-lines, and dual writing surfaces.

The layout of the lab is designed for both individualized instruction and cooperative learning, taking into account the chosen furniture and equipment. The location of the network and electrical conduits and boxes, which are located on the floor of the lab, create an additional problem, as walkways must conform to federal ADA guidelines by remaining clear of cables. Figure 1 shows the final design. While not exactly following the original plans, it meets our instructional needs. There are 5 groups of two stations which allow for group work, 3 single stations, a large (12’ x 6’) space in the center provides a space for larger group work. Sight lines are maintained throughout.

Figure 1. Lab layout (1 square = 1 foot)

Teaching in this space requires a rethinking of how the class will be conducted. Group instruction is the most often used teaching methodology in ear training courses, but the problems with this situation have been noted repeatedly over the years (Covington, 1992). The computer on the other hand is noted for its ability to provide individualized instruction (c.f. Hofstetter, 1981, Covington, 1983). Our model requires a fusion of these two facets which will result in the role of the instructor moving from lecturer towards coach.

Providing more individualized instruction is one of our primary pedagogical goals. The individual workstations and the layout of the lab allow for dividing the class into groups, each set to a different task. We now work with small groups in sight singing, while others work on dictation and fundamental skills at the computer. Instructors can assist individual students without wasting the rest of the class’s time, allowing for greater focus on intonation, improvisation and part singing. Students using the computers need not all be working on the same materials at the same time. Objectives that are to be completed by the end of the semester are established at the beginning of each semester. Students may choose which objective to work on during individual class time.

New instructional materials are required to fulfill our new teaching strategies. A combination of commercial and original CAI programs have been used as a supplement, and in some cases, as a substitute for in-class drill. While these programs are not very useful in presentation-style lessons, they are suitable in allowing students to work independently in the classroom. However, courseware that supports group instruction is also needed.

We had previous experience authoring CAI materials using programs such as HyperCard and Director. The problem with standard instructional design is the amount of time needed to create such materials. In particular, the coding of evaluation, feedback, and record keeping is very time consuming. Our solution has been to use basic music and presentation software that is easy to use, relatively quick to set up, and reliable. Some of the software we have found to be useful includes ClarisWorks, HyperCard, Overture, Band-in-a-Box, Studio Vision, and MasterTracks Pro. The materials we are developing, which are fairly simple, yet effective, are described below.

We had been using MIDI files for dictation for some time. These collections are now being expanded to include a variety of styles from traditional 4-part chorales to contemporary popular music. The pieces are orchestrated using traditional ensembles, including rhythm sections where appropriate, as well as electronic timbres. The files are developed in Band-in-a-Box, Studio Vision, and MasterTracks. Students are given specific instructions concerning what they are responsible for identifying and notating, depending on the level of the class. By using examples that represent the full range of harmonic practice, the pieces can accommodate the varied abilities represented in the class. Beginning students are exposed to all materials, but are only responsible for identifying those chords and phrases that are within their ability. Likewise, advanced students are responsible for the identification of considerably more in the same exercise. Students are encouraged to use the keyboard when transcribing advanced materials. A complete, Director-based CAI program to facilitate transcribing these materials is currently in development.

For group instruction, electronic flash cards are used for solfege and short term memory drills. These are developed using Overture, the slide show feature of ClarisWorks, and HyperCard. The presentations are projected to the front of the classroom and briefly display a short phrase of solfege syllables or notation. Once the phrase is no longer displayed, students then sing the phrase from memory. As they improve, the phrases become longer and more difficult and the time the phrase is displayed decreases. Students can also work on these exercises individually.

To accommodate more kinesthetic learners and to reinforce the connection between ear and keyboards skills, a graduated series of call and response exercises, created using Band-in-a-Box and Studio Vision, is used. Students listen to accompanied melodies or rhythms and record their responses onto a clean track of the sequencer in real time. Band-in-Box also provides accompaniments for improvisation, scales, rhythms, and melodic exercises that are sung in class.

The use of the MIDI lab has also considerably affected class administration procedures. All class materials are provided on the School of Music server and most are in the process of being moved to our intranet. Many assignments are electronic from start to finish and are turned in without any use of paper. Grades are reported to students via e-mail, a process that is soon to be automated using a FileMaker Pro database that is in development. Sight-singing quizzes are also administered electronically. Students record the tests under supervision of an instructor or graduate assistant. The tests are graded at a later time and grades are returned via e-mail. Grading has become more consistent from class to class.

Based on the above we have developed the following model.

There should be about 20% fewer stations in a classroom/lab than in a traditional lab to allow for greater movement and flexibility.

The ratio of students to computers should be either 1:1 or 2:1. More than this will decrease individual instruction capabilities.

Furniture should be ergonomic and functional. Lower profile desks will provide for better sight lines. In particular, it is best to have the computer monitor as low as possible.

The layout should allow the instructor easy access to all stations. Where possible compartmentalize the lab to allow for small group instruction and cooperative learning.

Each work station should be equipped with a computer capable of running current versions of music software, a synthesizer and one set of headphones for each student assigned to the station. Refer to Deal & Taylor (1997) for more detailed specifications.

The instructor will function as both lecturer and coach. Some large group instruction will take place as usual. The class can also be broken down into smaller groups and be set to different tasks. Team teaching and the use of graduate assistants, where available, can also be effective. Where music technology courses are not offered or required, the instructor will also be responsible for teaching the use of the workstation.

The course objectives should be written to allow the sequence of instruction to be more learner-driven. The objectives should also take into account the additional skills fostered by the use of computer-based materials.

Commercial software should be chosen with regards to pedagogical content and appropriate instructional design. Software need not be used in its entirety. Authoring original software is extremely time consuming, but may be most efficient in the long run.

Materials should be easy to develop. Lessons should also represent an effective use of the computer. These lessons must also be appropriate to group instruction and not simply a reiteration of CAI drill and practice.

Dictation and Fundamental skills will be delivered using the computer. By providing computer-based dictation materials, the student is given control over the number and frequency of replays, thus individualizing instruction. A variety of timbres and styles is recommended. Using the computer to deliver materials will free the instructor to do more important tasks.

Other lessons should be created to take advantage of sequencing, notation and accompaniment software. Improvisation, keyboard ear training, instrumental ear training using digital audio, and practice of fundamentals are some of the areas to be explored.

Use of a file server or intranet will decrease the amount of paper used and improve the availability of materials. Providing some materials on the Internet can also be useful. Provide secure drop boxes on the file server in which students can turn in their assignments.

Where possible, use e-mail to communicate with students. Create a single mail group within your e-mail client to easily send announcements to the class. Encourage students to e-mail you.

When CAI was first explored for ear training 25 years ago, it was hoped that its use would magically transform the ear training experience. Students would learn better, be less frustrated; perhaps even like the class. While we have seen some small improvements, those dramatic results have not yet been achieved. Perhaps the problems lie not in the delivery, but in the philosophy. The use of technology in the class offers teachers the opportunity to explore alternative methods rather than repeated drill and lecture. As technology improves, our philosophy of teaching must also evolve to fully realize its potential.