This survey of a representative sample of music education software available on the World Wide Web and through commercial companies was conducted with students and teachers in mind. Music teachers–mostly general music instructors, band, orchestra or choral directors–who find themselves with a computer in their classroom need to supply software that will enhance the educational experience of their students, and only good quality software should be purchased and used. However, most music educators do not receive any instruction during their teacher training that prepares them to evaluate computer programs.

The purpose of this review was not only to review a representative sample of software, but also to provide critiques from the perspectives of educational value, pedagogy, and design. It is hoped that the music educator reading this paper will not only discover what makes a music computer program a work of superior quality, but also what makes a poor computer program a miseducative tool. The contents of this review will be presented in the following order: limitations of the review, the process in which the programs were obtained, a discussion of the review criteria, results of the review, and a discussion of implications and teacher guidelines for selecting good software.

This review is, by no means, comprehensive. Instead, the programs that were evaluated met several criteria, which will be discussed later in this paper. Intensive MIDI-interfaced composition programs were not included in this review, since many teachers who have a computer may not have a keyboard attached. This may also be true for students as well. However, most of the programs reviewed were MIDI-compatible. The programs were evaluated using a Macintosh 6200CD Performa Power Mac equipped with System 7.5.3 and 24 MB of RAM. It has been this reviewer’s experience, as both a teacher and student teacher supervisor, that most schools have Macintosh computers. However, since there are probably a number of schools that use Windows-based PC’s, every attempt was made to find software that is available for both the Mac and PC platforms.

The programs evaluated in this review are those that were easily accessible to the reviewer. An initial search on the World Wide Web revealed several websites that included music programs that were either complete as shareware or served as demos for shareware or commercial programs. Due to internet security concerns, sites that required personal information to access demos, payment, or to place a "cookie" in the computer before allowing one to download demos were not used. Overall, thirty programs were downloaded and installed, either in complete form or in demo form. After the programs were downloaded, they were installed on the computer. Due to various inexplicable reasons, however, some programs did not function properly on the computer; e.g., causing the computer to freeze, or corrupting the entire system folder or other applications. Ultimately, The programs and program demos evaluated for this study were: Band In a Box, Big Note Music Speller, Chordlab 1.5.1, Claire, Eartraining 2.5, Elements of Music, Fokus, FretPet, Functional Harmony, Harmonic Progressions, Hummingbird, Introduction to MIDI, , Kelley’s MacinSinger, Keyboard Tutor, Listen, Metronome 1.0, MiBac Jazz, , Music Flashcards, MusicFun, Music Terminology, Nightingale, PianoSim, Pitchfork 443.0, Tap It, Toney Boxes, , and Tune It. Commercial programs evaluated for this study included: Brahms Requiem, Crazy for Ragtime, Julliard Music Adventure, Morton Subotnick’s Making Music, The Musical World of Professor Piccolo, The Orchestra Instruments, and The Trout.

The review criteria were developed along the following lines: a) educational value, b) pedagogical validity, c) user-friendliness, and d) developmental (psychological and physical) considerations of the audience/user, where applicable. Educational value refers to the depth of information (too much, too little, or just enough) presented in the program, whether the program teaches a skill or concept or only reinforces a skill or concept already learned, relevance and usefulness to the user, and motivation to continue learning within–as well as outside–the program. Pedagogical validity refers to the process in which the materials are presented. Most educational psychologists agree that sequential presentation of subject material is imperative, and the skills or concepts learned earlier in a program should be built upon. Consistent, organized and sequential presentation is necessary for meaningful learning to take place. In addition, feedback and reinforcement of the learning within the program–and how it was utilized as a pedagogical strategy–was evaluated.

User-friendliness (encompassing design interface and navigation) refers to the way the program communicates visually and aurally to the user. Of primary importance to this review will be the a) interface design, b) user-control over the learning experience, c) the type of program (Beginning Music Skills & Concepts, Aural & Written Theory, Composition, Music History & Literature, Vocal Music, Instrumental Music, Rhythm & Pitch Tools) and d) function of the program (database, informational, tutorial (such as drill and practice), edutainment, and simulation).

Developmental considerations refer to the psychological and physical learning characteristics of the users. Since this review was concerned with music education software for schools and home, the future users would most likely encompass the ages of 3 years to 18 years of age. The criteria developed were based upon developmental psychological and motor research of numerous psychologists, education and curriculum specialists … both in and outside the field of music. For young children (toddler to age 5) the criteria stressed: type of response required of the child(clicking a mouse cursor on a large picture as opposed to a small one), degree of visual & aural stimulation, simplicity of the concepts presented, simplicity of activities of short duration with immediate feedback, amount of use of discovery-learning, degree of use of large, colorful screen images, development of discrimination skills, and simplicity of information transfer to the child.

For children aged 5-8 years, the criteria stressed: expanded criteria of the above with the inclusion of large, clear and uncluttered interface design, increased use of numerical, spelling or musical skills, level of concept or skill development and the degree of overlap in these levels (where applicable), use of feedback, use of short musical examples and activities, realistic or contrived musical samples, and available tutoring or help. For ages 9 and older, the previous criteria was built upon with the addition of the following additions: visually uncluttered but more sophisticated interface, clear navigation, learner, teacher or program control over learning, and use of fine motor, verbal & aural skills, and concepts.

Results of the survey revealed that most music education software evaluated for this survey was specifically for theory drill and practice, followed by music history and literature, composition programs, basic skills programs, and tools. There were no programs that existed solely for the purpose of training the singing voice or provided instruction on how to play instruments other than the keyboard. Concerning function of the programs, most of them were either entirely of–or included components of–drill and practice and simulations.

The best programs for all age levels were found to have 1) attractive, easily navigated interfaces, 2) evidence of pedagogical considerations, 3) clearly defined audiences, and 4) enough tasks and materials that were intuitively grasped and maintained user interest. Crazy for Ragtime, Ear Training 2.5, Introduction to MIDI, Morton Subotnick’s Making Music, Metronome, The Musical World of Professor Piccolo, Pitchfork 443.0, and The Trout were found to meet these criteria beyond acceptable limits. In addition, Functional Harmony and Harmonic Progressions were added to this list for older, more sophisticated music students in high school music classes who may be considering careers in music. Several programs were designated "Grow With (GW)" programs, meaning that the reviewer believed that parents could get these programs for their young children, and as the children grew and learned more about music, more of the program’s offerings could be expanded and utilized. Indeed, some of these programs could carry a child right into adulthood. Ear Training 2.5, Morton Subotnick’s Making Music, and The Musical World of Professor Piccolo were designated GW programs, with the singing/instrumental program Claire included with the stipulations that 1) it cannot teach one to sing, but can assist one to learn to sing or play an A440, and 2) that it should be used by older children and adults, due to considerations in vocal development.

The weakest programs were those that had 1) poor functionality and navigation, despite an attractive interface, 2) little or no indication of pedagogical considerations (e.g., making too many large leaps from one level of a concept or skill to another), 3) presented materials and tasks not grasped intuitively and requiring extensive reading of lengthy, complicated directions, and 4) neither identified an audience nor gave any clue to the reviewer for whom the program was intended. In addition, some programs tried to encompass too much, resulting in confusing, unorganized programs. The best examples of this were those devoted to Theory and Music History & Literature.

This reviewer found that most of the programs reviewed had some serious flaws concerning the method of presentation of material in a pedagogical and sequential manner. This means that future music education software developers need to research how children (and adults) learn at various levels and ages, and take these finding into consideration when designing programs. Most music programs seem to be created by non-professional educators who are very talented, professional performers and/or private teachers. Generally, most of these individuals do not receive training during their education in developmental and educational psychology or learning processes. However, there were some programs by college professors that were strongly theoretical but very impractical, i.e., they were obviously written by individuals who knew a tremendous amount about music and learning processes, but lacked training in interface design and functionality. Also, some programs had gorgeous, functional interfaces, but lacked any educational value or pedagogical considerations. Therefore, music education specialists, professional musicians, and professional instructional designers need to work together to create effective, educational and practical programs. Music teachers who decide to use computer programs to enhance their teaching should look for programs that show evidence of this kind of collaboration.

A confusing interface can severely interfere with functionality. For example, poor interface design is evidenced by lack of "help" buttons, buttons placed seemingly randomly on the interface, buttons that change location or appearance on each screen, a lack of a "home" button to get back to the main screen, and no indication of how to exit the program. Music teachers must make sure, when evaluating programs, that the tasks required of students are not too confusing nor too difficult. It is especially important that the help screens in the young children’s programs be read out loud by the computer for those who do not yet read. In drill and practice programs, the student should always have the option to pause and think about an answer, should be allowed to correct oneself if a mistake is made (instead of just being told one is wrong), should be able to adjust the degree of learning difficulty, and should be able to exit the program easily.

The percentage of the screen used was also considered important. Young children need large pictures with large clickable areas. Unfortunately, programs authored with earlier versions of Hypercard or other similar programs allowed only part of the screen to be used and did not accommodate young children’s needs very well. Programs for young children should use the entire computer screen to provide the requisite larger images.

All of the programs encountered and available for this review were concerned with Western music. There were no programs dealing with music of non-western cultures. Composition-style programs could be created to utilize and experiment with musical sounds, ensembles, and musical forms of non-western cultures, such as an Indonesian gamelan or an African drum ensemble. This is an area that needs further investigation and development.

Most of the composition programs were also simulation programs (e.g., Band in a Box) that relied solely on established forms of Western popular music. It is not known at this point if there are programs suitable for instruments such as the bassoon or oboe, which are utilized within the Baroque idiom more often than in the pop idiom. Composition/simulation programs based upon the minimalist techniques of composers such as Philip Glass, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and John Adams, or concerned with serialism could yield some very interesting results for young composers.

Programs addressing the history, concept and skills required for conducting were also lacking. A program that turns a computer into a virtual conductor to help very young musicians practice their conducting skills could enhance learning and understanding of the concept of meter.

Future music education software also needs to provide more checks for learning–primarily through small quizzes and evaluations–that could be formatted as games. Although none were reviewed for this paper, this reviewer was aware of some music skill development programs that utilize these kinds of quizzes and readjust the activities for the learner. Such flexible drill programs (e.g., Ear Training 2.5), are too few in number … more are needed, especially in written & aural theory. Developers may also want to consider having a graduated series of steps within a comprehensive program. Most of the programs in this review did so, but in name only … not in pedagogical and sequential presentation. Future graduated programs may take the user several years to complete. Usability testing results should also be available to parents and educators.

Vendors that sell software need to make sure that when demos of software are available, there should be enough documentation included to fully explain the program. A number of program demos reviewed for this project had woefully little, if any, information that would be useful for a teacher. The reason for this concern is that demos can be manipulated to highlight the very best aspects of the program, but upon purchasing and buying the entire program, major flaws could be revealed. Having adequate information before purchase or recommendation would be especially important for those teachers who cannot easily get to conferences or stores where they can try out complete programs. On-line help, program documentation, and support also must be available. Music teachers should never purchase any software that 1) has insufficient information concerning how the program was tested for effectiveness and 2) that they cannot try out themselves first.

Finally, the developers of programs that claim to "teach" must 1) seriously review what "teaching" actually encompasses and 2) reassess their program’s pedagogical approach to clearly define whether it is really teaching new material or just drilling the student on material presented by a human teacher. In addition, the developers need to define, and music educators must look for evidence of 1) the specific audience for which the program is designed, 2) what exactly is to be taught (or drilled), 3) how it will be presented pedagogically, and 4) why it will be presented in this manner.

Most of the following internet sites have downloadable software, freeware, or demos of commercial programs and can link you to other vendors. Sites that deal with music but did not have downloadable materials require extensive information or payment to be accessed, or request permission to place cookies on the user's computer are not included.

The author wishes to thank Dr. Robert Appelman of the Indiana University Department of Instructional Systems Technology and Dr. Gary Wittlich of the Indiana University School of Music, both of whom served as advisors and invaluable resources for this project. In-depth reviews of software can be obtained by contacting Valerie Trollinger at vtrollin@indiana.edu.