Introducing Technology-Based Music Instruction

Abstract

Mrs. Jones has 14 years of teaching under her belt. She received her music education degree from an excellent state university program and completed a master’s in music education early in her career during the summers. After teaching at several levels, she has settled in a good junior high school position in an upper middle-class neighborhood. The music department—she and two other teachers—is a collaborative group that consistently turns out strong performances for the school and community. About five years ago, Mrs. Jones noticed that technology was becoming an increasingly important part of many of the school music programs she considered to be on par with her own. She had introduced some technology in her orchestra class—she used notation software to create warm-up exercises and often played listening examples for the students that she stored on her iPod. So, with the same enthusiasm that she approaches most of the parts of her job, she approached her principal about funding a computer lab for the music department. Her request was met with excitement. The principal agreed to set up a lab dedicated to the music department and to schedule a class for Mrs. Jones to teach called Music Technology for the following fall. There was no established curriculum for the class, but Mrs. Jones would have the summer to assemble the curriculum and lesson plans, in consultation with the principal and the other music teachers. They all recognized that starting this class would bring new students to their excellent music department and could only draw more public attention to their good work. The lab would have 15 student stations and an additional station for the teacher. None of the music teachers or the school’s administrators had any expertise in designing computer labs, so they left that task up to the district’s architects. The information technology (IT) department was enlisted to set up all of the hardware and software and to make appropriate network and server connections, with enough time for Mrs. Jones to get used to the lab before the school year would begin.

Digital Natives Unplugged: Challenging Assumptions of Preservice Music Educators’ Technological Skills

“…In the fourth section, we asked students’ views toward technology for teaching with statements based on Lei (2009), such as “Technology can help me teach better.” Participants responded to items addressing their views toward using technology for teaching using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree , 5 = strongly agree ). In the fifth section, we explored participants’ music technology skills based on Webster and Williams’s (2012, 2014) categories and our review of contemporary music technology textbooks and curricular resources (Bauer, 2014; Dorfman, 2013; Freedman, 2013; Manzo, 2016; Watson, 2011). We designed the music technology section to reflect general categories and to be understandable by those with little to no experience with music technology.…”

The classroom culture of a middle school music technology class

“…So, that’s always good” (focus group discussion). Confusion with mechanics of software platforms can impede students’ progress with creating and refining creative works, resulting in frustration, loss of motivation, and even failure to complete a project (Dorfman, 2013; Watson, 2011). In Gerard’s technology-based music class, peer support with technology was found to be especially helpful in avoiding these negative consequences.…”

Playing to learn or learning to play? PlayingRocksmithto learn electric guitar and bass in Nordic music teacher education

“…The theoretical starting points for our study are play theory (Huizinga, 1955; Nachmanovitch, 1990), game studies (Juul, 2004; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, Mäyrä, 2008), and the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model of teacher's knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; see also, Shulman, 1986; Dorfman, 2013; Bauer, 2014). Huizinga's (1955) play theory is often used as a point of departure for discussing the pedagogical significance of entertainment games (Juul, 2004; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Miller, 2012), despite having been criticised in gaming literature (Woodford, 2008; Consalvo, 2009; Calleja, 2012).…”

“…The TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; see also Shulman, 1986; Dorfman, 2013; Bauer, 2014) sets out to identify the kinds of knowledge required from educators who integrate technology into their teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The model highlights ‘the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology’ (Ibid., p. 1025) in light of the ‘complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge’ (Ibid., p. 1014).…”

“…Our study expands Ideland's argument, but also changes the focus to how music teachers’ professional competence develops during pre-service training. Using as a reference the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model set out by Mishra and Koehler (2006) on the basis of Shulman's (1986) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) model, we are interested in interrelationships between three kinds of music teacher's knowledge: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge (see also Dorfman, 2013; Bauer, 2014). We claim that the relevance of these domains is not only limited to the cognitive mapping of what can be learned when studying music education, but that they can also be understood as learner positions that student music teachers can take during their studies.…”