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.