george.hess@cmich.edu

As technology becomes more available in college music programs, one of the difficulties facing music technology faculty is how to provide students with the training necessary to effectively use the equipment. There are two basic approaches: provide an introductory course or incorporate the use of technology into the current curriculum. There are problems associated with each solution. With the new course comes the problem of finding room in the curriculum and funding for the instructors. The course could be offered as an elective, placing the burden on the students to find room in their crowded schedule. However, the students most likely to choose such an elective are the very students who need it least. The problems associated with adding technology instruction to existing courses are obvious. Many faculty members are not trained, able or inclined to teach technology effectively … nor do they have the time to add additional content to their courses, even if they are so inclined.

Recently, the School of Music at Central Michigan University, a medium-sized regional public university, was faced with just such a dilemma. The opening of a new music building provided the School of Music with extensive technology facilities for the first time. Few faculty members had experience with music technology and the degree programs were already at the credit hour limit imposed by the university.

As no obvious course of action presented itself, it was decided that more information was needed about students’ knowledge and abilities when they enter college.

A survey was administered (Spring, 1998) to students auditioning for the School of Music regarding their knowledge, exposure to computers, the internet, and music technology. Students were asked about their perceived abilities, the type of equipment they owned, Internet access, the types of software they use, the amount of time they spend on the computer and the types of training they had received.

One hundred fifty-six students participated in the survey. Of these students, seventy-one were male and eighty-five were female. While not formally part of the survey, it was observed that there was little diversity among the sample. Most were white, lower-middle to middle class and from both blue and white collar backgrounds. Each student completed the survey during the audition process. The average ACT score for the sample was 24 and the average GPA was 3.34.

The study found that 96% (149) felt they were computer-literate to some degree. Students rated their mean ability as 2.7 on a scale of five with five indicating expert and one indicating novice. Most students rated their ability at three.

There were few surprises found in the basic computer literacy questions. Computers are found in the large majority of homes and the students have some experience with them. As with the general population, 90% (126) of those with computers use some version of Windows and just over 7% (10) use a Macintosh. Four had older machines running DOS. Twenty students (13%) owned MIDI keyboards. A number of students indicated they didn’t know what a MIDI keyboard was.

Three-quarters (107) of students who owned a computer also had internet access and an email account. Of those who had an email account, only five didn’t know the account address. Of those who indicated a browser, nearly equal numbers used Netscape (25) and America OnLine (24). Four indicated they used Internet Explorer. Coupled with the AOL users (which uses Internet Explorer), IE users total 28. A surprising number (49) indicated they either didn’t use a browser or didn’t know which one they used.

Students averaged over seven hours of computer use per week. However, the median use was only four hours and a standard deviation of over seven indicates that there were a few extremely active users. Among the non-music tasks for which they used the computer were word processing (83%), games (33%), Internet (69%), programming (8%), digital video (6%), graphics (19%). Some students (11%) indicated using other software such as spreadsheets and desktop publishing programs. The median number of software programs students used—other than the internet—was two. Only 11% indicated they regularly used more than three different programs.

Just under forty percent of all students and less than half of computer users had used music software. Notation software was the most commonly used with 41 students (26%) indicating some familiarity with at least one notation program. Finale was the most used (24), followed by MusicTime (8), Noteworthy (6), Finale Allegro (3) and Overture (3). Students rated their abilities with these programs considerably lower than their overall computer abilities (2.25 on a scale of five). Fewer students were familiar with sequencing (15), CAI software (8), accompaniment programs (8) or some other software (2). Only one student indicated a familiarity with all types of music software.

Most students (78%) had taken at least one computer-related course in high school or junior high and many (21%) had taken more than one. The most common class was some type of overview class (31%). The next-most-common type of class was Keyboard Instruction (16%). Other classes included Computer Applications (11%) and Programming. Only three students indicated they had received any formal training in music-related software.

Based on this survey we can develop a profile of the typical student applying to the School of Music at CMU with respect to computer literacy. This student

1. owns a Windows-based computer;
2. uses the computer regularly for less than an hour per day (mostly for low-level tasks such as email and word processing);
3. uses the internet browser that was most accessible (the browser found at school or the library was the largest influence on that choice);
4. has had one or two introductory computer classes that focused on business applications … and, perhaps, the internet;
5. probably doesn’t own a MIDI keyboard; and
6. has, at best, limited knowledge of a music notation program

The popular notion that most young people have advanced computer skills is not supported. Less than 10% of the students possess the combination of skills, knowledge, and amount of use that would be found in the stereotypical computer "nerd." In fact, our typical student would be considered a relatively unsophisticated computer user. One possible reason for this may be the time required to become an accomplished musician.

While our student does come to school with basic computer literacy, it is clear that, at present, students do not begin college prepared to use music technology effectively. The student arrives with no understanding of MIDI, little experience with music software, and no real use of advanced software of any kind. Without early intervention, these students will be at a decided disadvantage both in school and later in their careers.

Based in part on this survey, an introductory class in music technology was developed, refined and submitted for review through the university’s curriculum process. Upon approval, the course was then proposed as a required addition to all music degree programs by the music theory area. This was also approved. All music majors will be required to take Introduction to Music Technology beginning with the Fall 1999 semester. Students majoring in Theory/Composition and Keyboard Performance have additional music technology course requirements.

• Unit 1- Using the Music Technology facilities in the School of Music;
• Unit 2 - Introduction to MIDI;
• Unit 3-Accompaniment software;
• Unit 4-CAI/Multimedia software;
• Unit 5 - Notation Software; and
• Unit 6 -Sequencing.

With computer ownership almost universal among college-bound music students, it appears that we, as music educators, are missing an opportunity. It is obvious the word is not getting out about the potential of music technology. If 90% of our students own computers, why are they not using CAI software prior to matriculation? High school and college music departments, as well as private instructors, must make better efforts to identify those students who are planning on further music studies and ensure that these students begin using CAI software in the home as early as possible.

Nearly all the students using music software claim to be learning it on their own. While that type of motivation is gratifying to see in our prospective students, we must take responsibility for the needs of college-bound music students. This problem is central to discussion of the role of music education in our schools. Students in other areas—science, math, computers, etc—are being prepared for college. Yet, for the music student, playing in the band is considered sufficient. The steady decline in the number of music theory classes being offered at the secondary level means that college preparatory instruction must come from other sources. One option is to de-emphasize performance in band and choral classes, providing a more well-rounded curriculum that spends more time on the academic music subjects. There is another possible solution. Music technology, with its potential to reach many more students than just college-bound musicians, could lead the way to the re-emphasis of music in the curriculum. Technology-based general music classes can not only provide training in music history, theory, and composition, but can lead to developing advanced computer skills and critical thinking ability.

College music departments must also increase their efforts to encourage students to develop music technology skills prior to college. Acknowledging that the resources of public schools may be limited and that adding additional secondary music courses may not be forthcoming, colleges must help bring music technology awareness to music students and their parents. A list of recommended software programs and equipment should be included early on in the recruiting process. Distance learning, on- and off-campus workshops, sequencing contests, and electronic music ensembles are just some of the ways to engage high school students.

The battle for operating system superiority is over. Windows is the dominant operating system. Even though many music schools still use the Macintosh—CMU among them—many students’ computers were purchased before the student decided which music school to attend … perhaps even before they decided to pursue music. While once a critical issue, the choice of computing platform is now of little importance. Increasing similarities in operating systems and the expanding Windows-based and cross-platform music software selections mean that just having a computer is what important, not which one. As such, those schools with Macintosh installations may want to consider using software that is cross-platform, allowing students to purchase the same software to run on home computers. Finally, schools adding labs may want to consider installing Windows-based machines to build upon students’ knowledge.

This study was necessarily limited to one school and region. It is also limited as to diversity. It is suggested that this survey be repeated in schools of differing sizes and with students of different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.