In the fall of 1997, the University of Oklahoma School of Music received a three-year Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) grant from the US Department of Education. The grant allows us to study ways to bring technology into the music classroom. We work with Oklahoma music teachers in fourth grade through college classrooms in a combination of on-site teaching and evaluation, hub-site workshops, and distance education via the Internet. Our primary goal is to find the easiest methods for the non-technologically minded music teacher to use technology as a curricular tool. Participating teachers came armed with a keen interest in technology but most had little or no experience using computers or MIDI. We've learned several lessons about realities and goals and how the two rarely overlap.

This paper will first note our goals and outcomes from Year One and then cover the modifications made in our second year. Many of the problems we've encountered are universal. How to bring a non-technologically trained music teacher up to speed in the functional operation of a computer and MIDI equipment without turning them away from the whole field via a series of frustrations is a formidable goal.

Our grant specifically addressed a set of standards in Oklahoma that are based on national MENC standards for music in the classroom. The Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) provide a set of abilities for each grade level of music study. They include such skills such as "Demonstrate growth in the ability to sing or play music from notation," "Compose simple music using traditional and/or non-traditional sound sources, including electronics," and "Experiment with and demonstrate understandings in variations in tempo, dynamics, and phrasing." Our project helps teachers meet the two types of skills that are generally least well covered … and perhaps the most well-suited to technological enhancement: improvisation and composition.

All of our participating teachers are required to have a computer with Internet access, a MIDI interface, an–at the very minimum–a single sound module. In some cases, we have provided them with entry-level sequencing software purchased by our university as part of the grant. Requiring equipment solved several problems at the outset. FIPSE will not cover the purchase of any equipment, so we would have needed to seek funding from other sources for that. But also by verifying that our participants already had equipment, we knew there was a vested interest at their schools in bringing technology into the classroom.

Because we view technology in this situation as a tool in a larger curriculum of understanding music, we decided to shape our project to each individual teacher's method. Rather than providing specific examples or exercises of our own design, we hoped to work with each teacher in developing new materials molded to their particular needs.

At the beginning of our first year, we visited each participant's classroom. We discovered that–though they all had a computer and MIDI equipment–no one had them connected together! In fact, in workshops and conferences we've attended, we've made a point to ask the teachers what the state of their equipment is. Inevitably, when a room of music teachers is asked how many have a computer, perhaps 60 to 75 percent raise their hands. When that same group is asked about MIDI equipment, over a quarter of them mention having some. But, when asked how many have the computer connected to the MIDI equipment, only one or two hands go up. While we may be tempted to wonder what's wrong with them, the more prudent question is "How can we change that?"

The first thing we did with our participating teachers was to connect their computer and MIDI equipment. We trained the teachers in basic Internet and e-mail skills when necessary. According to evaluation procedures administered by an independent evaluation team, the participating teachers began the year at a 4.5 (on a scale of 1 to 10) in terms of computer knowledge and we increased that to a 6.75. Not bad, but not terrific by any means.

We spent a great deal of time trying to teach them how to troubleshoot, how to sequence, how to do the bare necessities of volume and velocity changes. We taught them about general MIDI and standard MIDI. We tried to get them to spend time with their equipment and fashion sequences that would help them teach composition and improvisation and work toward the ultimate goal of doing this activity in the classroom with student participation. In all but two cases, this approach failed. On a scale of 1 to 10, when asked about their knowledge of MIDI programs and programming, we found they began the year at an average of 2.48 and increased to only 4.03. Unfortunately, our two success stories accounted for most of the increase.

Other goals shared the same dismal fate. We planned to conduct a large percentage of our communication via e-mail. The advantages are numerous, the most obvious of which is that it bypasses the problem of connecting two teachers with unpredictable schedules on the phone. In this area, we failed miserably. We found it very difficult to retrain someone to send an e-mail rather than to pick up the phone.

We planned to have regional and full meetings of the participants. We discovered scheduling nightmares, though this was certainly no surprise. Music teachers, as we all know, always have something extra to do, e.g., taking an ensemble to a competition or giving a concert. We managed one year-end meeting and only 3 of our 12 participants attended.

As the year progressed, many of our participating teachers lost interest in learning something new in favor of just getting through a busy year. Classroom music teachers are overworked. They don't have the time or energy to delve deeply into learning new technologies and developing a new curriculum. We did not crack that barrier in very many cases.

We were successful, though, in two instances. A vocal music teacher in a middle school has used the computer to enrich her curriculum well beyond preparing pieces for concerts. Now her choral students learn to improvise, rehearse occasionally with MIDI accompaniments to concentrate on specific aspects (e.g., tempo changes), and have a growing facility with a sequencer. This semester they will compose short melodies, evolving into a short–but complete–piece. As a direct result of working with an instructor at Southwestern Oklahoma State University, the Music Department built a small MIDI lab with four workstations, and they introduced a course entitled "MIDI for Performers and Educators." These two participants had a certain inherent aptitude for computers and while we're happy to see where they've gone with technology, our more explicit concern is helping those whom we didn't reach in Year One.

We planned a much more structured curriculum for our participants and we asked them to sign a contract (non-binding, of course). The contract states that they will complete three assignments and attend a workshop each semester. As an added incentive, we asked each participant to have their principals sign off on the contract, and to give them an extra comp day each year. This ensured at a minimum an awareness of the teacher's extra work if not more tangible support for their efforts. We got this idea, by the way, at last year's Technological Directions in Music Learning conference.

We held a meeting at the beginning of the year on our campus. It was much better attended than one at the close of the year. At that meeting, we handed the teachers a Standard MIDI file with a complete lesson on improvisation. Later, for those who needed it, we helped them take the file into their own software using their own equipment. The reasons for this are clear. They spend as little time as possible on technological tasks and a proportionally much greater time using the lesson as a tool in the classroom.

With each subsequent lesson during the year, we ask them to do more work on the Standard MIDI file, weaning them into the process of sequencing their own. But again, this is not rooted in the bottom layer of learning the ins and outs of their equipment. Instead, we concentrate on certain aspects of the software applicable to their lessons. This might mean manipulating certain controllers, transposing, changing patches, etc.

While we were attracted to this field to some degree by the possibilities inherent in sequencing and notation programs as a compositional tool, to many others sequencing is like being asked to re-copy a Mahler symphony in order to listen to it in a class. It is tedious, difficult, and without an apparent end in sight … and there are easier ways to do it. What we hope to show the teachers is that the result makes the work worthwhile. When technology is used to enhance the learning experience and the results show significant improvement among the students, there is a good reason to spend the hours necessary in preparation.

While we may seem to be working at a trivial level, the population with which we are working requires it. They don't need to know the most sophisticated and elegant way to accomplish a task. They need speed and simplicity. Sometimes those categories overlap but often they do not.