opportunities to meet the needs of these music learners.
Music educators should consider the needs and cultures of the student population when designing new courses. Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) define culture as: “…the deeply learned confluence of language, beliefs, values, and behaviors that pervades every aspect of our lives.” (p. 17). When teachers consider students’ culture, as well as musical culture, it allows them to develop different and unique musical experiences for their students.
Music technology should be a focus for educators if the goal
is to give a variety of relevant musical opportunities to our students. Technology based courses are prime examples of what Williams (2011) called a “new model of music education” (p. 53). Student-centered classrooms with lower numbers are not only conducive to musical creativity and expression but are also more educationally sound (Williams, 2007; Williams, 2011). Other key opportunities include smaller class sizes, various musical styles with the consideration of students’ interests, focus on aural development instead of traditional notation, and decrease in or avoidance of public performances (Williams, 2011).
As music educators, it is our jobs to take whatever approach is most appropriate for our current student population. We all know that there are many ways to teach the same musical concept, so why not make the approach relevant to your current student body? We should not simply focus on what our music programs are building, but how and why we are making curriculum decisions.
Issues of Training Although researchers have put forth information on music
technology courses and strategies, many music educators still feel inadequately prepared to take on new courses outside of their primary field of band, orchestra, and choir. Many collegiate programs continue to practice “Western Music” traditions exclusively (Williams, 2011), admitting students into the program based primarily on “Western” auditions. This leaves many music educators without the necessary range of skills to address the growing needs of their students.
The first step is for educators to be confident and open to
change. It is important to “build on the familiar” (Cain, Lindbloom, & Walden, 2013, p. 87) when considering other options, like music technology. This will allow teachers to learn with their students (Cain,
et.al, 2013). Music technology does not have to be an entirely new course to begin with. Kelly-McHale (2016) suggests that teachers “reimagine and reconfigure” (n.p.). This could be as simple as developing technology projects within a performing ensemble or general music class.
Dammers (2012) stressed the importance of pre-service
educators receiving training in the pedagogy of technology-based music classrooms. Proper training of pre-service educators as well as workshops for in-service teachers helps avoid the lack of knowledge. It is important for music educators to take responsibility for in-service support. Many state music associations have been helping to promote change by offering professional development and workshops. However, these changes require an open mind and a willingness for change.
40
Issues of Support Another growing concern for adding music technology
courses is cost. Music technology labs involve a substantial amount of equipment, including computers, keyboards, MIDI (musical instrument digital interface) keyboard controllers, sound mixers, and large sound systems (Felder, 2015). There is also the need for music software, such as music composition software, music recording software, and music editing software. Not to mention, schools often must pay for training for their teachers to learn how to use all the equipment necessary. All of this takes a considerable amount of money that many districts and schools may not be willing to pay. Although the monetary responsibility can seem
insurmountable, Felder (2012) suggests beginning small and simple. Building a music technology lab may take some time. In Felder’s study, many teachers suggested using existing computer labs or acquiring computers that are going to be replaced. Many teachers will write a grant request for technology equipment or use fundraising events.
August/September 2018
Music educators should start small. You cannot learn everything
there is to learn about music technology in one session at your state music convention. Just as learning your primary instrument took patience and many years of commitment to learn, so does technology. However, as music educators we must always remember that we teach music, NOT music technology. Technology is simply the tool in which we use to teach the musical concept, so you should not get caught up in all the “bells and whistles”.
Below is a visual representation of the TPCK (Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model, as set forth by Mishra and Koehler (2006). According to Mishra and Koehler, “Part of the problem, we argue, has been a tendency to only look at the technology and not how it is used. Merely introducing technology to the educational process is not enough” (p. 1018). The TPCK framework illustrates how content, pedagogy, and technology should work together in the classroom. One should not simply concentrate on a single area. The model is based on the idea that “teaching is a highly complex activity that draws on many kinds of knowledge” (p. 1020).
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 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
