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.