Technology Assisted Music Learning Development: Module 7

For this week’s blog, I will take an alternative approach. Among the assignments for this module were to create a quiz using Google Forms, create a newsletter, a presentation, and a calendar using Google Drive, with the focus being music assessment and administrative and personal productivity tools.

After completing the given assignments using Google tools, I found myself searching for additional Google tools that may be useful for me. The reason being that these were all so easy to use, accessible, and would not only assist me with assessment, but make a huge impact on my personal and professional productivity. I am seasoned enough to remember well how difficult it was for teachers to gain access to copying technology – pre-copier days! While in elementary school, I helped teachers by using the mimeograph machine, and the distinctive odor of the chemical mixture. In the past 10-15 years, I have largely ignored the personal and professional productivity tools available, mainly due to my assumption that such tools would be cost-prohibitive, as they once were.

This week’s blog is necessarily brief because of time constraints. I have two meaty projects due, a late start on both of them, and one of the three days remaining before these projects are due already committed to traveling.

I feel compelled to comment on the evolution of my personal attitudes toward this course. From the very outset of the course, the necessity to learn a multitude of new software became apparent. During a discussion with my dearest friend who is the same age as I am, I remember making the comment that “I am too old for all of this!” with her reply empathizing with my mindset. In my younger years, I embraced any new technology to which I could gain access, but as I became more comfortable with the knowledge base I had acquired, at a certain point new tools seemed more of a burden than of a benefit. In particular, the advent of the Blackberry and the prevalent use of it for calendar purposes by most of the professional parents of my students is memorable. My calendar was a simple unzip, open, and view or write; theirs was a series of navigation on a tiny device that took them a great deal longer to record an event than did my device.

Practice at a given task causes one to become more facile with the task. So it is with learning new software or internet tools. My attitude of “not four more programs to learn!” has morphed into an attitude of eager anticipation. I am truly excited about using Google Classroom to manage my class piano teaching! What an excellent tool that will be; and three months ago I never would have dreamed that it would be so very easy to do. Instead of the technology being more cumbersome and time-consuming, as it was in the first years of the Blackberry, the available technology is not only far more user-friendly, but is either free or very low cost. After a brief hiccup of more than a decade, I’m welcoming myself to the 21^st century.

Technology Assisted Music Learning Development, Module 6

This week’s learning objectives were:

•    Discuss how learning is contextual, active, social, and reflective, and how technology can facilitate these attributes.

•    Explain how project based learning can be utilized as a model for instructional design that includes technology.

•    Describe how backwards design facilitates coherency in instructional design through the alignment of learning objectives, instructional activities, and assessments.

•    Utilize technology to differentiate music learning

•    Discuss the use of assistive technologies in music education.

•    Differentiate between copyrighted, public domain, and Creative Commons media and materials that may be used in technology projects and lessons.

•    Design a lesson that includes the use of technology.

•    Design a WebQuest.

The activities to support these learning objectives were (a) reading Chapter 7 of the text, (b) explore and read on the topic of Creative Commons, (c) learn how to create a website using Google Sites, (d) begin the WebQuest project, create and submit an outline for the WebQuest project, (e) discussion, and (f) this week’s blog entry.

Most of the learning objectives were addressed by reading the textbook (Bauer, 2014) thoroughly. In addition, I researched some of the items referred to in the text – specifically the ones with which I was not familiar. First was the “Framework for 21^st Century Learning” website (Partnership for 21^st Century Skills, 2011) where I read about the project as well as an article by J.C. Kaufman (2014) regarding measuring creativity. I found it interesting that this approach lists arts in the listing of “core subjects”. Also, the main chart that maps this approach includes  “Learning and Innovation Skills – 4Cs” as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. In fact, creativity and innovation are interwoven with all of the other aspects of 21^st Century Learning. Kaufman’s article discusses the fact that “Creativity measurement is creativity’s Achilles heel.” This also aligns with a recent conversation I had with Peter Webster regarding the measurement of creativity and what he believes is essential to the field.

Bloom’s revised taxonomy has been referenced in prior courses in this program, but until this chapter, I had not taken the time to read about it. Here we see again the emphasis on creativity as the revised taxonomy places creating as the end goal (Wilson, 2013). The revised version uses verbs in place of the original which used nouns.

Some of the material in this week’s assignment was introduced in the course in Instructional Design. However, the incorporation of technology in designing curricula was new in this material. The reading included excellent practical methods of utilizing various technologies when planning units.

One of the assignments this week was to create and submit an outline for our WebQuest project, the entirety of which is due at the end of next week. However, I failed to complete that assignment. It was difficult to locate a computer to use during the four days that I was out of town (I do not own a laptop). Once I located one, I realized that I did not have my password memorized. It took an additional 24 hours to acquire access to my password. After this frustration, the computer available to me was a Windows based computer, an unfamiliar platform for me. I had difficulty finding the cut and copy function, as silly as that sounds! The end result was that I actually missed two assignments because of my absence: the WebQuest outline and the first response to the week’s discussion was late. It simply did not occur to me that I would be unavailable from the time I awoke on Saturday to the time I arrived home at about midnight.

I must add that the attending the research conference was well worth the cost, the frustration, and the overall difficulties that I faced. It was just tough to be able to do. The sessions presented by the editors – as well as a couple of authors – of the music education research journals were invaluable. The research presented by Dr. Duke, et al, included findings and approaches that I may find useful in refining my own research that – hopefully – I will be able to begin conducting this coming Fall Semester. (I’m still awaiting response from my IRB.) In my somewhat unconventional view of the world, ‘celebrity’ is not something that I have ever associated with television or film stars; celebrities for me have always been writers. So to meet celebrities of the music education research field, having been immersed in the literature for almost a year and a half, was thrilling - and enlightening.

On a very personal note, during the almost 2 hour shuttle from Warner Robbins (1.5 hours north of Tifton) to the Atlanta airport, I learned that my 37 year old sister (with whom I am very close) had a series of strokes because of an infection that made its way to her bloodstream. From what I understand, this type of infection can either manifest itself in the brain - as a stroke, or it can migrate to the heart and cause heart attack(s). I was able to speak with my sister (who lives in Portland, Oregon) during my stay in St. Louis during one of the poster sessions. Even so, I did make the rounds in each poster session, speaking with some researchers and simply asking for abstracts from others so that I can delve into them on a deeper level at my leisure. What was immensely helpful to me is how a 'poster session' is conducted. Now that I've seen one, I need not be wary of submitting a poster presentation proposal to a conference. Honestly, I found many poster presentations - and one live presentation session that were far inferior to what I would have presented as a novice. (The presentation on distance learning was truly disappointing! How in the world could they have NOT placed a simple phone call to the director of each program? That would have given them much more information, more accurate information, and would have taken them far less time than navigating a website, possibly missing much data.)

On the positive side, after I finished the phone call with my sister, I met an individual who is a PhD candidate in Oklahoma. Lani and I became friends during our tenure at the conference and found many mutual interests.  She gave a poster presentation in which I was initially uninterested, but she 'sold' her research to me as I was passing by. Subsequent to our dialogue about her research, we spent much time together for the duration of the conference.

The connections made, the new people met - although some I already partially knew through their writing, the ample information that prodded ideas for my research, and the emotional rollercoaster  that I experienced at the music education research conference, the aggregate of which - immediately and over a long period of time - will assuredly prove to be formative for me.

_________

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, J. C. (2014, April 7). Measuring creativity – The last windmill? Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/news-events/p21blog/1385-kaufman-measuring-creativity-the-last-windmill

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills (2011). Framework for 21^st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Wilson, L. O. (2013). The second principle: Beyond Bloom’s – cognitive taxonomy revised. Retrieved from http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/

Technology Assisted Music Learning Development, Module 5

The objectives for Module 5 were:

•      Discuss research and best practices related to the development of music listening skills and general musical understanding.

•      Describe the affordances and constraints of a variety of technologies that may facilitate human response to music.

•      Make connections among curricular outcomes, pedagogies, and technologies relevant to human response to music.

•      Identify types of music software and discuss how to evaluate software titles.

•      Explain ways in which internet resources can be used for music learning.

The activities to support these objectives were: (1) reading Chapters 2 and 5 of the text; (2) interacting with my PLN and tweet about music; (3) complete a music software evaluation project; (4) complete a social bookmarking project; (5) this week’s discussion; and (6) the weekly blog entry.

Until the course on Creativity, listening to music had never formally been presented to me as a skill. Although it was clear through my own experience and my teaching that purposeful listening could be developed as a skill, I had not viewed listening to music as something other than part of performing, practicing, or creating music. Even though these aspects of experiencing music cannot be approached as separate and apart from each other, we often discuss music and music teaching in terms of performing, practicing, or creating. However, integral to each of these, and to the sum of these, is practiced and intentional listening. Approaching listening to music as a disparate skill is new to me.

Some interesting statements in the reading of the textbook (Bauer, 2014) this week included “Music is a natural and essential part of being human, capable of invoking a variety of responses in people” (p. 105). That music is uniquely human remains a part of my everyday teaching. The discussion that music retains the capability of evoking emotional responses in addition to evoking an infinite array of additional experiences occurs more infrequently in my teaching. Although my daily class piano discussion inevitably includes the end goal of creating beautiful (or whatever the intended ‘sound’) music, the underlying reason for doing so is too often left unsaid, I believe.

Bauer (2014) states that

the ability to listen is often considered to be the preeminent musical skill. All musicians and musical participants – performers, composers, conductors, audience members, audio engineers – need to listen, often in a very sophisticated manner. (p. 106)

A mere six months ago, this statement would have caused me great concern and challenge. However, upon the introduction of the idea of listening included as a creative product, I engaged in ample reading and thought on the subject. Bennett Reimer continues to enthrall me with his assiduousness in asserting his personal philosophies regarding music education. In a compilation of selected essays, Reimer (2009) makes these bold statements:

I have long championed the cause of making the single most practiced role in music, that of the listener, as central to our professional responsibilities as it deserves to be in the face of a long history of resistance to that need. (p. 221)

Listening to music with absorption, imagination, discernment, understanding, feeling, and caring, is as active as reading a book when all those characteristics are being manifested energetically. (p. 231)

Perhaps the hardest of all roles in which to succeed in [the goal of achieving optimum levels of active involvement], unfortunately, is in the teaching of listening. Unfortunate because it is the most pursued musical role of all, involving far more people than all the other roles put together. (p. 232)

Perhaps listening can be recognized, finally, as a genuine, precious role in and of itself, not only as a means to other ends. As with every other way to be musical, but more urgently given its primacy in our musical culture, the role of the listener deserves the full devotion of our energies and intelligences, to face its dilemmas, devise useful means to surmount them, and position ourselves thereby to make the fullness of contribution our culture deserves from us. (p. 234)

Peterson attempted to configure an argument for listening to music as a creative product in her 2006 article. When laying the groundwork for her argument, Peterson addresses the importance of developing the skill of listening to music:

Music education is not just about learning to perform with voices and instruments; it is about guiding students toward understanding music, what it is, how it works, and what it does to and for us as human beings. (p. 15)

There’s that being human stuff again. Peterson also states:

Although listening is included as one among a list of other activities, listening is really at the heart of all musical activity, because musical activity of any kind invariably involves attention to sound through listening. (p. 15)

Because of the unbiquitousness of shared opinion regarding listening to music as the most important skill a human can acquire – among all of the aspects of engaging in music – I changed my teaching practice accordingly.

Utilizing technology affords integration of a vast variety of listening experiences with my students. Although I now include the use of CDs and YouTube in my teaching, there must be caution exercised here. There is no true substitute for listening to live music. For example, with the repetition of playing a single phrase and asking the student if they hear the right hand playing legato while the left hand is non-legato, it takes many iterations before the student is able to detect the subtle difference between legato in the left hand and a gentle non-legato in the left hand. Only after acquisition of the listening skill is a student able to then emulate the same sound. If the student cannot hear the error, they cannot correct the error.

I found the Diigo assignment quite frustrating. After spending several hours over a period of days, reinstalling my browser, restarting my machine, and a futile search for an answer of how to accomplish the task, I still am unable to utilize the toolbar in Diigo. Even with the diigolet, I am unable to view the tools while on a web page other than the Diigo webpage – which means I am unable to highlight or put sticky notes on a web page. For my personal purposes, this ability seemed to be the most valuable when researching. The use of a different browser produced no new results, either.

The software evaluation project proved enlightening. The program that I eventually chose was one that challenged even my reading skills. I learned that there is a significant difference in my ability to name bass clef notes as fast as I can read treble clef notes. I already knew that there was a discrepancy, but until I used the note naming program several times, I did not know the extent to which the discrepancy existed. Since I have always maintained a high level of sight reading ability, this surprised me.

________________

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, E. (2006). Creativity in music listening. Arts, Education, Policy Review, 107(3), 15-21.

Reimer, Bennett. (2009). Seeking the significance of music education: Essays and reflections. Lanham, MD: Published in partnership with MENC: The National Association for Music Education by Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Technology Assisted Music Learning Development, Module 4

This week’s objectives were as follows:

•    Discuss research and best practices related to the acquisition of knowledge and skills for music performance.

•    Describe the affordances and constraints of a variety of technologies with application to musical performance.

•    Make connections among performance curricular outcomes, pedagogies, and technologies.

The activities to support these objectives were: (1) interact with out PLN and post at least one item learned from our PLN on the Digital Musicking Google+ Group; (2) Tweet at least twice about music, etc., including the hashtag #UFME; (3) View seven chapters in the area of Digital Audio Principles on Lynda.com; (4) watch the tutorials through Lynda.com and follow the exercises; (5) Complete two Audacity projects – bart and ma na ma na; (6) Learn how SmartMusic and YouTube can be used for music performance and other types of music learning; (7) this week’s discussion boards; (8) read Chapter 4 of the text; and (9) the weekly blog entry.

As my classmates noted in their discussion posts for this week, the amount of information included in Chapter 4 was intense and compressed. In other words, there was a great deal of information included in just a few pages – for the un-initiated in the world of technology for music learning.

As Bauer (2014) wrote in our text, “The performing musician utilizes knowledge and skills from across the psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains” (p. 79). This is of particular interest to me as I am constantly reminding parents of the immense value of music study for children. On my front door, I have mounted a quote of Robert Duke’s from his presentation at the GoldLab Symposium (2011). Duke said “There is no activity that engages more of the human brain than music.” I believe that every music teacher’s job includes the education of not only their students, but of the students’ parents. Of course, the education of music students’ parents contains entirely different content than does the student’s content. The content of parental education includes, but certainly is not limited to, how to listen to music, the value of music study – especially for children, practice strategies and approaches, and how to be a good audience member.

Regarding practice, Bauer (2014) states that when learning to “play an instrument, these procedures [the acquisition of motor skills] have both physical and mental components” (p. 80). I found many passages in the text that I repeat almost every day to one student or another. One passage, in which Bauer states “Such practice is hard work and people don’t always enjoy the process. However, without it, a high level of musical performance cannot be achieved” (p. 81). When discussing practice with students, I tell them quite frankly that efficient and effective practice is not fun. I relate my experience with practice, talking about the frustration of playing a measure and a half a bazillion times, starting excruciatingly slowly, feeling like I’m stupid for having to play it so very slowly, then creeping the tempo using the metronome, by only one notch at a time. The alternative is that the student plays a piece from beginning to end, without separating difficult passages and working them separately and differently, and never achieving mastery of the tough part, even with many iterations. Although certainly a mentally easier approach, the satisfaction of complete mastery is never achieved.

When discussing the importance of regular practice over a period of several weeks as opposed to attempting to “cram” for class piano juries with my college students, I advise them several times during every semester that there is no such thing as “cramming” for a piano jury. It is impossible for them to master their repertoire pieces over a period of a few days, even if they practice eight hours each day for those few days. Not only do their muscles need to be trained over a longer period of time, but their unconscious mind must process the music during sleep cycles. Bauer (2014) refers to this in the text:

Distributed practice, or spreading out one’s practice over a period of time, is better than massed practice – practicing many hours in one sitting (Proctor & Dutta, 1995). While the value of distributed practice has been acknowledged for some time, recent brain research has further substantiated this approach. The brain needs time to solidify newly developed neural networks; frequent breaks and adequate sleep are important in this process. (p. 81)

In fact, for my private piano students, I require them to practice four to five different days during a given week. I often give them the example that to practice one day for four hours doesn’t provide nearly the learning that twenty minutes a day over a period of four days does. I also discuss mental practice – exactly how to approach it and the effectiveness of it.

I discussed modeling and the use of CD accompaniments with my students on the discussion boards this week. However, I did not include comments regarding my concern for the use of CD accompaniments for choir or other ensemble performances. Although the use of CD accompaniments has become widespread and mostly an accepted practice, I cringe whenever I am in the presence of such. How is it that Karaoke has become an acceptable method of what is supposed to be performance of serious music? It is my opinion that Karaoke is better left to the myriad of bars in Japan. Even with such strong opinions on the matter, I have to admit that I’ve been party to one such performance. The very small church at which I play piano wanted to perform a Christmas ‘Cantata’ with a CD accompaniment. Since there was no role for me as an accompanist, they asked me to rehearse the choir and conduct the performance. I am honestly at a loss as to how to diplomatically answer the inevitable next such request.

The tutorials on Lynda.com are wonderful! They cover topics thoroughly, efficiently, and make the subject matter accessible to anyone. Through these tutorials, I have learned much that I will put to use when setting up my studio. Thank you, Dr. Bauer!

My ongoing complaints about the discussion boards will now cease for the remainder of this class. For me it has been a perfect balance of small groups and entire class discussions for the various topics. Hopefully, I will be able to take more advantage of the discussion boards in the remaining weeks of this class. My time has been so limited during the past three weeks that I am guilty of not being a student who contributes much; that bothers me – a lot.

The Ma-Na-Ma-Na remix project was fun!

_________

…philosophers tend to have a great mixture of responses to everything, simplicity being anathema to their characters. (Reimer, 2009, p. 16)

_________

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Duke, R. (2011). How we learn…and how we don’t. Presentation given at GoldLab Symposium 2011. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtjzqDN4hNk&feature=youtu.be

Reimer, B. (2009). Seeking the significance of music education: Essays and reflections. Lanham, MD: Published in partnership with MENC: The National Association for Music Education by Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Technology Assisted Music Learning Development, Module 3

The objectives for Module 3 were as follows:

(1)          Discuss research and best practices related to the acquisition of knowledge and skills for creating music, with a particular focus on composition.

(2)          Describe the affordances and constraints of technologies with application to musical creativity.

(3)          Make connections among creative curricular outcomes, pedagogies, and technologies.

(4)          Compare and contrast MIDI and digital audio.

To support these objectives, we were assigned to read part of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 in the textbook, interact with our PLN, tweet at least twice about music, set up an account at Lynda.com and watch 5 videos, discussion, the weekly blog entry, and complete a composition using Soundation.

In last week’s blog, I included discussion on the topic of not only improvisation, but composition. Last week’s focus was intended to be on improvisation; this week’s on composition. However, there were certain aspects of teaching composition and utilizing technology to facilitate the teaching of composition that I did not discuss in last week’s blog that I would like to discuss here. As I stated in my discussion post this week, there is a fine line when using technology in music teaching between using technology to teach composition and using technology to create the impression that composition was taught. I believe that, as Dr. Dammers states in the website “Music Creativity Through Technology”, there must be music before technology. Bauer (2014) states my concern with pointed language when he wrote this:

However just because notes and rhythms are properly formatted on the page doesn’t necessarily mean that the notation represents quality musical ideas, that there has been musical thinking behind its creation. (p. 66)

I will continue to assert my concerns during discussions with my classmates for the simple reason of repetition: repetition creates deeper understanding. Music teachers must be wary of using technology in creating music.

There are three guidelines for music teachers in utilizing technology with students creating music in Bauer (2014, p. 61). The first of these three guidelines is the importance of aural skills for student composers. It has only been in recent years that I have acquired a true understanding of the importance of aural skills in my own teaching. For many years, I held a firm viewpoint that my role was to teach students to be able to read music well enough so that no prior hearing of any given piece was necessary in order to be able to play it – and play it well. It was a rare instance when I would model even a small section of a piece for a student before they attempted their own study of the piece. I viewed the Suzuki method for the piano to be a terrible disservice to a student. I inherited many piano students who had studied Suzuki, but because they couldn’t read music, their parents, and many times the student themselves, would be distraught because they lacked the skill of reading and could only play by ear. With these students, I was rarely successful in my attempt to teach them to read music.

A few years ago, I adopted a new approach for students who studied with me who could play by ear but could not read music. I taught them in two distinct and separate methods. To provide the student with satisfaction of playing a piece at their level of playing ability, they always had one piece that they were learning by rote. At the same time, they were obligated to learn three to five short and easy pieces each week to increase their reading ability. This approach was more successful, but only with a little over half of these students.

I have experimented with some students by using method books that are accompanied with CDs. The student can practice with or simply listen to the pieces they are assigned each week on their CD. With some students, this method worked astoundingly well. My concern was that the student would be playing more by ear than by reading the music. However, I assigned relatively easy pieces and several of them each week to avoid this potential issue. This has worked so well that I have expanded my use of CDs for student practice. With literature that does not have a professional CD accompaniment, I have begun to make my own CDs for my students.

Most recently, I have experimented with audiation in various ways in my teaching. This change has come about because of what I’ve learned through this Master’s program. With my college class piano students, I have used audiation to assist with sight reading. Although all music majors are enrolled in a separate sight-singing and ear training class, one of the purposes of class piano is to support and enhance theory and sight-singing skills. For example, this past week I asked a class to play by ear the Happy Birthday song. Once the students were able to play the melody, we determined the basic harmonic structure using the voicing of their cadences. Another example was in my private teaching when I had a student who had difficulty memorizing a simple piece at the piano. After several repetitions of one two-measure phrase, asking her to repeat exactly what I played, and she was still unable to remember the notes, I asked her to sing the melody with me. Even though she was reluctant to sing, I assured her that I would sing louder than she, but that she did have to sing with me. After three repetitions of singing the melody, she was then able to play it on the piano from memory. I found a new tool for memorizing! All of this is to relay my recent discovery of the importance of audiation in music teaching.

________

 

No activity within the domain of music requires a more varied palette of experiences and understandings than does composition. Composers work at the vast frontier of music – a place where knowledge and possibility are always twisting and turning in elaborate dance. In the act of creating music, the composer draws upon all prior musical learning to construct works that uniquely represent perspectives on and in music. (Kaschub & Smith, 2009, p. 7)

______

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaschub, M. & Smith, J. (2009). Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical thinking. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education

Technology Assisted Music Learning Development, Module 2

The objectives for Module 2 are as follows:

•    Discuss research and best practices related to the acquisition of knowledge and skills for creating music, with a particular focus on improvisation.

•    Describe the affordances and constraints of technologies with application to musical creativity.

•    Make connections among creative curricular outcomes, pedagogies, and technologies.

•    Describe MIDI and its connection to technologies for music learning.

Key concepts are: creativity, improvisation, composition, audiation, and instructional constraints. The activities to support these objectives and concepts are (1) reading the remaining section of Chapter 2 and all of Chapter 3 of the text; (2) interacting with my PLN, tweeting at least twice and posting on the Digital Musicking site at least once; (3) complete a Musescore project; (4) complete a Noteflight project; (5) participate in this week’s discussion; (6) explore the textbook’s companion website for additional resources related to this module; and (7) complete a blog entry.

Chapter 3 in the textbook (Bauer, 2014) was on the topic of Creating Music. For such an immense topic, I believe that Bauer did a superb job of condensing information, while at the same time providing a comprehensive description of general theory and pedagogical implementation on the sub-topics of creativity, improvisation, and composition. I found key elements in the text that I believe to be of particular importance to today’s K-12 music teacher.

When introducing the general topic of creativity in music, Bauer refers to the 1994 MENC National Standards when he says this:

Some teachers, however, have found these creativity standards challenging to implement since their personal background in improvisation or composition was not strong. Many music educators have also been uncertain about the pedagogy for effectively helping students learn to improvise and compose. (p. 46)

In the discussion portion of our work for this module, many of my classmates responded to the query regarding why it is that we don’t include more improvisation in our every day teaching with various forms of Bauer’s statement. Historically, in most undergraduate music education programs, improvisation is not included in the curriculum, nor is it emphasized, and to many never introduced, by professors of applied or ensembles. Reimer (2009) refers to this very American tradition when he states “that American music education from colonial times to the present has focused largely on teaching performance” (p. 252) in his argument from 1991 to include composition as part of undergraduate teacher education. If what Duke (2012) says is true about music teaching, “The real goal – the meaningful, substantive, far-reaching goal – is for students to become superb musicians, doing all of the things that superb musicians do, irrespective of what is being played or sung at the moment” (p. 29), then we as music teachers must include creative exercises and training as an axiomatically integral part of teaching music. In fact, Bauer (p. 47) refers to the inability to ‘separate’ creativity when he says “Separating creative music outcomes from performing or responding outcomes is somewhat artificial.” How, then, do we as music teachers effectively argue that we have ‘time constraints’ or that we’re ‘uncomfortable teaching improvisation’ and continue to assert that we are providing a well-rounded music education?

Although the overall topic of Chapter 3 of the text (Bauer, 2014) was that of creating music, our focus in this module was to be on the sub-topic of improvisation. I believe that the inclusion of the Kratus (1996) model for development of improvisational skills to be an excellent pedagogical guide for in-service teachers. The importance of the focus on improvisation in this model deserves more study. A functional MRI study by neurologists Charles Limb and Allen Braun (2008) provides incontrovertible evidence of the difference between improvising and performing memorized music. Beckstead (2013) concludes the following:

It appears that we access the region of the brain associated with sequence, planning, and problem solving when we play memorized or read passages. During improvisation, we deactivate this region and switch to cognitive processing associated with meditation, daydreaming, and complex, long-term multitasking. (p. 70).

The implications of this study for the music teacher are astounding, simply profound. Beckstead addresses this:

 While some may feel that more traditional performance settings offer much in the way of creativity, from a cognitive standpoint, it may well be that improvisation is a much more creative endeavor, at least insofar as the parts of the brain being accessed. Considering the surprising finding that there seems to be little difference, cognitively, between complex and simple improvisation, we need not be reluctant to provide our students, even the older ones, with uncomplicated improvisational activities. (p. 71)

Indeed, the voices in the literature continue with their crescendo of demanding that creativity be more of a focus in our music classrooms. When Hickey (2009) called for free improvisation in our schools, she stated her belief that “True improvisation cannot be taught – it is a disposition to be enabled and nurtured” (p. 286). In her conclusion on page 296, she asks the requisite question of the end goal of our music teaching:

…a goal to enable students to be lifelong creative improvisers and to give them a sense of freedom when doing so? If it is [this goal], then we have work to do as teachers and professors in teacher training institutions to figure out how to balance structure and freedom in our classrooms in order to motivate and inspire students to be free thinkers and improvisers in a way that will serve them for a lifetime.

Is the essence of the meaning of our music teaching heuristic – or does the meaning lie within the realm of the ability of our students to properly re-create/perform standard literature? I believe that Eisner (1987) said it best:

One would think, given the importance of imagination, that it would be regarded as one of the basics of education. As you know, it is not on anyone’s list of basics, at least not in any national report on the state of our schools that I have read. We are far more concerned with the correct replication of what already exists than with cultivating the powers of innovation or the celebration of thinking. Perhaps a little parity among these educational goals would be appropriate. (p. 27)

____

Regarding the second objective, to describe the affordances and constraints of technologies with application to musical creativity, it is my opinion that there is ample reason for concern when utilizing the available technology. The concern arises when the music teacher views a young child exploring a GUI based music software and labels it ‘composition.’ I do believe that musical literacy includes the ability to read and notate in standard music format. Just as the successful pop musician who cannot read music senses a lapse in their musical literacy, a concert pianist who cannot improvise owns an equally debilitating lapse in their musical literacy. When we attempt to circumvent the process of reading and writing music in standard notation by using technology to bypass the necessity of being able to read and write music, I believe that we encourage our young students to believe that they are capable of creating meaningful music without having to ever read or write it. The end result can be that we mistakenly teach our students that they can become musically literate without reading or writing. Bauer (2014) states another potential dilemma:

The symbol-to-sound approach of being able to instantly play back what has been notated, rather than notating what is being heard in one’s mind – a sound-to-symbol method – may inhibit the development of audiation.  To guard against this, teachers will want to be sure that they are including activities that require students to develop their ability to audiate. (p. 66)

I believe that to utilize the available technology in creative undertakings in music, the teacher must be wary.

On the positive side, I believe that, given basic skills and knowledge, technology can indeed facilitate faster learning in music. Immediate feedback, the ability to hear a composition without having to gather live musicians, and the vast resources that are now available because of technology (such as professional composer feedback to young composers) incontrovertibly empower students in a profound manner.

_____

The activities this week included re-creating music scores in two online free music notation products. Musescore, being a freely-downloadable product, does not require an internet connection. This aspect of the software may be important when my internet connection is not working. My experience with Musescore was fairly straight-forward. My method was to open the series of YouTube videos on one side of my screen while Musescore was on the other side of my screen. I simply followed the series of tutorial videos to re-create the given score. I found the program easy to use with features adequate to most of my professional needs.

The second online software was Noteflight, a web-based music notation program. Because of limited time, when I began the Noteflight assignment, I began with the same approach as the Musescore – watching the tutorial video. However, after about three minutes into the tutorial, it seemed to me that it would be faster to simply attempt re-creation of the given score without assistance. I found the program quite easy to use and intuitive. Many of the features and methods of entry were similar to both Musescore and Finale (the software I typically use for notation). There were only two directionals for which I searched in the help guide for assistance. I was able to complete the project in less than an hour. The only difficulty was to embed it into this blog, a task at which I was ultimately successful:

________

My discussion group is limited to five classmates, which is personally disappointing. This week, no one posted their initial discussion until Friday, including me, and one classmate posted her initial discussion on Saturday, the last on the following Monday. While I can empathize with the mindset that causes this phenomenon, I have experienced the epitome of discussion among my peers. When the discussion board is open to all students in a given section, there are typically five to six students who post early in the week and post many times. This type of interaction with my peers has allowed me to acquire knowledge and insight that I would not have otherwise gained. Instead of looking forward to reading what my peers have to say on a particular topic and continuing the opportunity to discourse over a period of several days, the design of this course – dividing the section into small groups – has left me feeling apathetic. I must say that there have been two courses that were far worse, in my opinion. My classmates in my smaller-than-this-course group did not post until the last day, sometimes later, and there was not a great deal of substance to the ‘discussion.’ In addition, there was absolutely no input from the instructor of the given section (this happened in two of my courses), which I though to be very unprofessional – just my opinion. On the positive side of the discussion board, it seems that my classmates are willing to continue some parts of the discussion beyond the time frame of the module and my professor is giving good feedback. Those two facts may cause our discussion board to evolve in a positive manner. My postings this week were the minimum required. I believe that it is incumbent upon me to change my interaction before complaining too much.

______

On a personal note, although I thoroughly enjoy the topics of this module’s focus, I was disappointed that I could not spend more time on it. My personal obligations have been simply overwhelming. However, after this coming Saturday, those other obligations will be at a pianissimo for several months, allowing me to spend more time on that which I love – learning new stuff.

______

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Beckstead, D. (2013). Improvisation: Thinking and playing music. Music Educators Journal, 99(3), 69-74.

Duke, R. A. (2012). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, Texas: Learning and Behavior Resources.

Eisner, E. W. (1987). The celebration of thinking. Educational Horizons, 66, 24-29.

Hickey, M. (2009). Can improvisation be ‘taught’?: A call for free improvisation in our schools. International Journal of Music Education. 27(4), 285-299.

Kratus, J. (1994) Relationships among children’s music audiation and their compositional process and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 115-130.

Limb, C. J., Braun, A. R. (2008) Neural substrates of spontaneous musical performance: An fMRI study of jazz improvisation. PLoS ONE 3(2), e1679.

Reimer, Bennett. (2009). Seeking the significance of music education: Essays and reflections. Lanham, MD: Published in partnership with MENC: The National Association for Music Education by Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Technology Assisted Music Learning Development, Module 1

This week's objectives were as follows:

•  Describe the significance of technology in today's world and people's lives.
•  Discuss the role of technology in general education.
•  Provide examples of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in music education.
•  Establish a digital Personal Learning Network

The first three objectives are the same objectives as in the textbook for this course in Chapter 1 (Bauer, 2014). Therefore, they were covered in one of our reading assignments this week. What I found most interesting in this reading was the discussion of the nature of teaching; the fact that there is no prescribed method of teaching any subject, and certainly not music. Inclusion of technology in teaching music, therefore, remains an ineluctably continuous evolution of process and acquisition of content based on a ever-changing audience, setting, and access to tools. Bauer states that

Teaching environments are contextual and always changing. Recipes or algorithms for teaching, step-by-step approaches that are guaranteed to work for all students, in all classroom environments, and at all times, simply do not exist. Instead, skilled educators constantly adapt and adjust classroom activities "in the moment" as they monitor and react to the ongoing dynamic of the teaching-learning process. (p. 10)

Continuing in this vein, Bauer (2014, p. 12) introduces us to "Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)" as developed by Mishra and Koehler (2008). In general terms, TPACK represents the overlapping of technology, teaching strategies, and content knowledge as they are applied in everyday teaching. For the music teacher, Bauer states the following: "Due to the protean nature of technology, an essential component of TPACK is a disposition of adaptive expertise for the integration of technology into music teaching and learning" (p. 16). Although I believe it is true that technology continues to evolve at an exponentially rapid rate, the environment of teaching in public schools in the U.S. remains in a constant state of flux in many aspects, and music itself remains perdurable, perhaps even in the larger sense of seeking meaning in life. A persistent state of transformation remains axiomatic when discussing TPACK.

The fourth objective, establishment of a digital personal learning network (PLN), has been a tool that I have needed for some time. When I first began this assignment, I followed the steps listed. I reached the step of reading an article by Bauer (2010). I used this article as my step-by-step instructions of how to establish my PLN. However, when I reached the point in the article in which it describes using Google Reader (p. 39), I learned that Google Reader was discontinued. So I went in search of an RSS reader for my iMac. The three that I attempted to use would not work on my preferred browser (Firefox), so after reaching a high level of frustration with this assignment, I posted a question on the ‘General Discussions’ board asking which RSS reader others who use Macs are using. Dr. Bauer, our professor, pointed me to Feedler. Indeed, if I had continued reading the instructions included in the course materials provided, I would have immediately found the statement that since Google Reader was discontinued, he recommended that we use Feedler.

Unfortunately, the approximately three hours per day for three contiguous days that I spent trying to resolve this issue before I learned of Feedler caused me to become behind my appointed homework schedule for the week. In other words, it was quite a bit of wasted time during a week during which I had no flexibility. Needless to say, I chastised myself for not reading all of the directions before beginning the assignment.

Once my PLN was established, I found myself addicted to the veritable plethora of information at my fingertips. Again, I found myself spending an inordinate amount of time perusing various topics, websites, and blogs. I reverted to my former severely un-self-disciplined self and ignored professional and personal responsibilities. After my discussion with Dr. Bauer on Sunday afternoon, I remembered that I am capable of self-discipline when I wish to be. Nevertheless, the remembrance came just a bit too late.

Typically when I write blogs for coursework, I ponder and incubate during the course of the week’s work, jotting notes of ideas that I want to explore further in my blog and such. Even though I did have that discipline of blogging for coursework in the back of my mind during the course of working through assignments this past week, it was far less formal that it typically is, and the resulting product is not what I wanted it to be. I’m sure that my blogging assignments will improve after my experiences this week.




__________
References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical knowledge. In AACTE (Eds), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group fr the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.