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/