encourage lifelong music making. They do so with the chal- lenge, like Ray Kinsella dreaming of the return of Shoeless Joe Jackson to baseball, that “if we build it, they will come.”
Technology at Bat. An ever-expanding group of teachers is using music technology as a strategy to reach these students. They are using laptops and tablets with software like Garage- Band, Mixcraft, and Abelton Live, to engage these “non-tradi- tional” students in ways that nurture creative performing and composing talents. Reading traditional notation and performing on traditional instruments are not, as McAllester suggested, a prerequisite—students’ ears become their guide with the music teacher as their music creativity coach.
We built the website
http://musiccreativity.org several years ago as a way to collect the stories of music teachers who were building their own music technology field of dreams; an on- line forum to share success stories working with non-traditional music students. Like those teachers implementing guitar and ukulele ensembles, the students motivated to make music through technology were discovering ways to bridge school music training with the music they enjoyed in society: rock, hip-hop, DJ mixes, mash-ups, jazz and more.
Go the Distance! In Rick Dammers’ research (Dammers, 2012), he found that some 14 percent of high schools in the nation have some form of technology-based music classes. On our website (
musiccreativity.org) you will find some 30 profiles of teachers who have been successful using technology to build programs for the non-traditional students. They often start with one class--perhaps even an after-school activity. As the pro- gram expands, the profiles show more advanced classes added in music technology, MIDI-based performance ensembles, stu- dio recording and mixing, and even student-managed recording labels. As the voice to Kinsella encouraged, “go the distance,” the success of these programs develop their own kinetic energy. Students, some academically or behaviorally challenged, gain self-confidence, increased positive attitudes, and find intrinsic reward from creating and performing music in new and novel ways.
Take the Initiative and Build It? You may be asking, as Ray Kinsella did, “What’s in it for me?” Following the belief shared by most music teachers that if music is important, it is impor- tant for everyone, creating a technology-based music class can be tremendously rewarding, both through successfully reach- ing the ‘other 80%’ student and through exploring the creative pedagogical possibilities offered by technology. Beyond these rewards, the expansion of the music program improves the pro- gram’s position within the school, since the more students that study music, the more important music will be to the school.
A perusal of the profiles on our website will show technology programs that have greatly expanded from the first class offer- ing. These programs have grown large enough with expanded student interest that the school administration begins to view them as integral to overall curriculum and are more proactive in
providing new funding and resources to ensure their continual success (e.g., profiles on our website from Greenwich H.S. in Connecticut, Brookfield H.S. in Georgia, and Lebanon H.S. in Ohio). In one high school, some 60 percent of students take at least one music technology class. Further, these teachers report that many students continue after graduation to college study in music performance, business, recording, and technology.
You may be surprised to find that your school administrator is more supportive of classes for the non-traditional music student than you think. Rick’s survey of secondary school adminis- trators (Dammers, 2012) found that two-thirds of high school principals surveyed agree that music technology classes would be valuable in their schools and 56% who offer no music tech- nology indicated that it would be feasible to offer such a class in their school.
Whether you use ukuleles or GarageBand, take the initiative and create an experience designed for the non-traditional music student. If you build it, not only the other 80% will come, but the sponsors will as well—the parents and administrators!
Dammers, R. (2012). Technology-Based Music Classes in High Schools in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 194, 73-90.
Elpus, K. and Abril, C. (2011), “High school music students in the United States: A demographic profile”, Journal of Re- search in Music Education, 59:2, 128-145.
Johnston, L.D., Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., et al (2010), Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study of Ameri- can Youth (8th,
10th, 12th Grade Surveys), database
from
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/ssvd/ studies?prefix=M. Accessed 10 September 2011.
McAllester, D. (1967) “The substance of things hoped for”, from Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium, Reston, VA: MENC, 96-99.
NAMM (National Association of Music Merchants). (2003, April 21). Gallup organization reveals findings of “American at- titudes toward making music” survey. Retrieved, Novem- ber 13, 2013, from
http://www.namm.org/news/press-re- leases/gallup-organization-reveals-findings-american-atti
NJAEP (New Jersey Arts Education Partnership). (2013, January 28). New Jersey School Performance Reports. Retrieved, February 8, 2014 from
http://njaep.org.
Williams, D. B. (2012). The non-traditional music student in sec- ondary schools of the united states: Engaging non-partici- pant students in creative music activities through technol- ogy. Journal of Music, Technology, and Education, 4(2-3), 131-147.
Rick Dammers is associate professor of Music Education and Chair of the Department of Music at Rowan University, Glass- boro, NJ. David Brian Williams, PhD., is emeritus professor of Music and Arts Technology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, and is past president of The College Music Society.
This article first appeared in VOICE of Washington Music Edu- cators in October of 2014 and is reprinted with permission.
16
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40