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.