Technologically-Enhanced Assessment

Formulating assessments that meet student needs and adequately address our curricular goals as music educators can be a daunting task. The use of technology can enhance and aid our work in this process, but still requires careful planning and judicious application. In order to take a look at the use of assessment in a more specific way, we should first define a few terms that help to encapsulate what makes a successful assessment. 

Assessment as such makes up an important part of the planning process when it comes to designing curricula. In fact, the principles of backward design call for planning assessment methods before designing the day-to-day activities of a given curriculum. Thus it is important to ensure that one's approach to assessment and the methodology behind it are aligned with proper pedagogical goals. To this end, our reading for this week highlights a number of different measures that indicate what is known as the "validity" and "reliability" of assessments (Bauer, 2014, p. 132). These measures relate to whether or not assessment methods are properly coordinated with desired learning outcomes (validity), as well as whether or not the process is an aid to student growth in the learning process (reliability). The different types of assessment can be further described by the ways they measure different aspects of the learning process and/or educational goals. For example, "summative assessment" assesses student grasp of knowledge (a "summary" of knowledge) at a given point of time in the learning process (ibid.). Meanwhile, "authentic assessments" are based on student performance of a task, rather than "a response on a paper-and-pencil test" (p. 133). 

This conceptual framework defines the purpose of the various types of assessment that educators have at their disposal. An effective use of technology can enhance and aid in the process of planning these assessments. There are three basic ways that technology can be utilized in this fashion: 1) to develop traditional assessments, 2) to adapt these assessments in novel ways, and 3) to enable entirely new approaches to assessment (p. 133). One way we took a look at in the course of this week's module that utilizes the first approach is by the use of Google Forms. We used this technology to create a traditional online quiz. This summative method of assessment would be particularly helpful in a general music classroom format. Such a tool would be perfect for my own setting, where students regularly utilize "Google Classroom" and other online resources via their school-issued Chromebook. Perhaps a more novel approach to assessment is the development of something like a student portfolio (an endeavor we are working on for next week's module). The potential provided by technology and the internet in this regard is nearly endless.  

Our work with Google Tools this week also included technology that can be an aid to our professional productivity as music educators. For example, utilizing Google Documents to create newsletters to disseminate important information to and from fellow parents and teachers is one possible approach we tested. We also took a look at Google Presentations, which is a helpful way to share presentations that we as educators might use with peer groups, administrators, parents, or community members. All of these methods have the capacity to enhance our productivity by the use of technology. 

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Intentionally Backward Design

It seems counterintuitive to suggest that something be done backward to achieve the greatest level of success. Indeed, "backward" is often used as a pejorative, denoting some kind of regressive policy or standard. But in the realm of education "Backward Design" is a highly respected method for designing curricula. At the University of Florida, our Master of Music program has an entire course dedicated to inculcating this method in the pedagogical practice of students. Our readings for this week also touched on this methodology, specifically highlighting it in terms of technological approaches to music education.  

To understand this further, we should first consider some of the characteristics of the learning process. As our text notes, “learning is active,” and people learn well in a hands-on way (Bauer, 2014, p. 147). Likewise, learning is a social process. There are social-cognitive learning theories that are characterized by the idea that “people learn by doing, by constructing their own knowledge,” particularly through activities like “modeling, observation, and imitation” (pp. 147-148).

Design strategies such as project-based learning seek to capitalize on these truths by engaging students in the learning process through active stimulation and group interaction. These sorts of projects seek to engage students in real-world problem solving, working in groups to answer complex scenarios based on real-life examples. Our WebQuest project, which we began this week, is a prime example of project-based learning in action. It is also in example of the way that technology can be utilized (and indeed be paramount) in facilitating this process. WebQuests are dependent on the internet by their very nature. They provide an “adventure” of sorts through various internet resources and multimedia outlets to complete the project.

The activity or storyline behind a WebQuest adventure is not an end in itself. It is carefully created on the basis of learning outcomes and assessment strategies. These form the basis of the instructional design process. Only after these are carefully considered and coordinated are the activities implemented into the design process. This basic format is at the heart at the Backward Design process.

Although project-based learning typically only forms a small part of instructional time, backward design can be implemented throughout the learning process. Whether it is a routine lecture or an ensemble rehearsal, all classroom time can be carefully planned using the methodology of backward design. 

There are two other areas from this week’s readings that I would like to mention at this point. The first is the benefits that technology can provide in the realm of differentiation. Students come to our music classes from diverse backgrounds and with varied educational needs and interests; technology can provide us with the tools necessary to differentiate instruction and provide unique learning paths for each student (p. 158). Utilizing technology well can equip our students for success (and better serve their needs) throughout this process. 

The final point I would like to briefly mention is copyright. It is important to note, as our text does, that copyright is inherent to any composition whether it is registered with the state or not. This means that it is important for us as educators, when designing classroom content, to utilize original or public domain materials in our lesson plans.  It is important also to instruct our students as to plagiarism rules and important copyright laws and ensure their work complies accordingly as well. 

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hearing or Listening?

When it comes to music, it is common for laypeople to think of the capacity of our ears to aurally hear the sounds that comprise a given piece. But as our text for this week notes, there is a difference between the passive way we "hear" music and the active or engaged nature of "listening" (Bauer, 2014, p. 105). Passive hearing occurs when we have music on as background noise, or hear it playing in a restaurant or similar venue. With active listening, the music purveyor attentively discerns certain characteristics - the voicing, instrumentation, phrasing, and other aspects of musicianship. Indeed, it can even be said that active music listening is a creative realm of music in its own right.

One way to facilitate and develop students' ability to actively listen and respond to music is by encouraging them to keep "listening journals." This process can be utilized to help guide students through the listening journey, noting key aspects of music and how to pick up on them (and other aspects like form, meter, text, etc.). Using word processing technology and other software available to students can aid in this process from both the student and teacher perspective. Technology can also be used to show students various demonstrations of musical composition and performance, providing a listening guide of sorts, walking them through the listening process. This can be done through a combination of word processing and audio/visual presentations. Then, prompts (through the same media) can guide their own listening reflections and responses.

In some classes, I have effectively employed "sound maps," both as an aid for students who struggle with written projects, and to encourage all students to engage in a multi-faceted, multi-sensory approach to the learning process. However, these have typically been hand-drawn maps facilitated by verbal instruction. As I discussed in this week's discussion post, the idea of using "concept mapping software" and "drawing software" to further facilitate and enhance this process is something to consider(Bauer, 2014, p. 122). This would certainly be an effective tool for my middle school students, who each have access to school-issued Chromebooks, though it may be less so for the elementary students. Still, this technology could be utilized in terms of a group project of sorts, utilizing classroom feedback to create a sound map on a Smartboard or similar device, or utilizing computer lab time for individual work to this end.

Finally, we looked at software and other internet resources and learned how to evaluate and best use them for curricular and educational ends. To get a feel for how to properly evaluate music software technology, I reviewed Ars Nova's "Counterpointer." This is an example of a software that lets its users actively engage in the learning process (in this case, to develop and hone their counterpoint skills in the various species). This program demonstrated positives and negatives that I was able to effectively mete out using a product review. This is a valuable way to evaluate software for potential curricular use.

The online resource that especially piqued my interest this week was Spotify. I can certainly imagine the ways that this software could be used to guide students in the listening process. Spotify would be a valuable tool to aid students in selecting playlists that fit a certain genre or historical theme, as well as for me to provide examples to students of various concepts or historical content.

 




References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Technology in Music Performance

Technology in the context of music performance, especially in an ensemble setting, is something that might strike the reader as cognitively dissonant. But there are a number of practical applications for technology, even in the ensemble setting, which we examined in this week's module. Many of these are ones I would consider applying to my own academic setting and curricular context.


But before discussing more on technology, we should first examine the basics of musical practice, starting with the fundamental acquisition of knowledge and skills that are necessary for adequate music performance. As the text notes, "the content of early lessons is crucial" when it comes to forming solid foundation for students in music as a whole, and especially for instilling a sense of proper etiquette for performance (Bauer, 2014, p. 80). In laymen’s terms, this means inculcating the basics, particularly things like proper breathing, posture, form, technique, and the like. The text also notes the importance of modeling in this regard. As chance would have it, I happened (unintentionally) to create a bridge to this point in my PLN for this week, where I discussed the importance of modeling performance self-assessment--utilizing digital recording technology--for my students. This is an important technological asset for an ensemble instructor to consider using with the group as a whole to help students understand and realize their performance strengths, weaknesses, and potential as a whole.

But there are important technologies that can be used by students on an individual level as well. It is easy to overlook them due to their prevalence, but digital metronomes and tuners are a paramount resource for school ensembles, which should be encouraged for use both privately and as a group. Any student with a smartphone has access to a metronome at any time, as Google has a metronome function (and there are web app tuners, too). For a more intense use of technology in an ensemble setting, software like Audacity, which was a focal point of this week’s module, presents the opportunity to take digital recordings – such as those of an ensemble performance – and remix them for a variety of purposes. This could be something to incorporate into ensemble classes, providing a more accessible way to incorporate creative thought into an ensemble curriculum, which tend to be focused predominantly on musical production for concerts and the like.

While the text, as referenced above, notes the importance of teaching the fundamentals in early lessons, there are many students who did not have this luxury. We still want to reach them with our music programs. Another way to incorporate technology into the performance-ensemble setting is through the use of strategy that was discussed in the literature this week is the use of a MIDI ensemble. This can aid students who did not have exposure to instruments from a younger age. For students such as this, a MIDI ensemble (which utilizes electronic instrumentation rather than a particular grouping of instruments) has the potential to provide the structured benefits of an ensemble setting without the requirements usually necessitated in terms of instrumental experience. But as the text says, this ensemble type can appeal to "traditional and non-traditional music students" alike, meaning that the ensemble would also be enhanced by the presence of more seasoned musicians from the student body (Bauer, 2014, p. 90).

For my own setting, I was struck by the possibility of an Internet-based ensemble. The potential for cross-pollination of ideas and picking up new and innovative pedagogical strategies is intriguing in this regard. My institution is part of a confederation of private schools situated across the U.S., which would make something like the Internet ensemble well-suited for my context. With regional music programs already in existence, why not try something on the national level? Groups from across the country could display one another on PowerPoint screens in auditoriums while performing on stage below them, as pictured here.

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nurturing Student Self-Efficacy in Composing

A resounding theme in this week’s readings and discussions was the ways that we as music educators can engage with the “other 80%,” or students who do not participate in musical ensembles or traditional music classes. A related component of this is the interplay between non-music students and their peers  who are engaged in traditional music programs. And, in a more general sense, how we might reach out to both simultaneously. Technologies like the one we explored this week, Soundtrap, allow us as educators to instruct students from a variety of musical backgrounds using the same pedagogical medium. While the program itself does not change, Soundtrap is equipped to cater to the needs of expert musicians and novices alike. In my own experience with the program, it allowed me to dabble in a more modern compositional method (which is not my forte) for this week’s project, while at the same time imagining a number of classical applications for my own personal use.

This hearkens to another area discussed in this week’s literature, or the diversithy of thought on compositional pedagogy. On a basic level, there is some agreement on the benefits of composition in school curricula. Our reading cites five different rationale that make up these benefits, ranging from expanding children's understanding of the world, to developing direct understanding of musical concepts through experience, to encompasing a full breadth of musical knowledge in "a proccess that allows the child to grow, discover, and create" through "meaningful engagement with sounds" (Bauer, 2014, p. 59).

But academics are divided when it comes to how to instruct students in compositional theory. There are two basic schools of thought, one of which advocates the use of standard musical notation in composition as a demonstration of basic musical literacy. The text uses the anlogy of whether or not one can be said to be proficient in a language if he or she cannot read or write in that language (ibid.). Conversely, others advocate for composition without notation, specifically with the “other 80%” in mind. Resources like Soundtrap, as I discussed above, have the potential to reach out to both schools in providing an avenue for composition that can make use of both traditional theory and more sound-based methods. Still, it does not make use of notation, which may be a drawback for traditionalists.

A final aspect of this week’s module touched on the nature of MIDI and Digital Audio. This was particularly relevant in constructing our composition for this week using Soundtrap, as these were two of the three mediums available (and required) for use in our compositions. MIDI simply refers to stored information in binary that informs MIDI-capable devices of a specific sound or sets of sounds to be played. This file-type is utilized by sequencers to create musical sounds. Digital audio, in contrast, denotes an actual digitized recording of a musical performance, captured with a microphone or other recording equipment and transmitted as an audio file.

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Creativity and Technology

When it comes to the extant literature on the subject of creative thinking, researchers have identified a "creative process" that consists of a number of stages, which vary depending on the source. Our text cites Wallas’ four-fold model of preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification as a standard (Bauer, 2014, p. 49). In this context, the preparatory stage of the creative process involves the acquisition of the basic knowledge necessary to adequately develop a unique creative idea. Tying this into improvisation, for example, this means that one must understand basic aspects of music theory in order to be equipped to create a sensical melodic and/or harmonic progression.

In my own case, while I have had a grasp on music theory for some time, improvisation has been one of the weakest areas of my musical proficiency. To be honest, it is an area in which I have had little experience, which is why I have considered it a weak area. However, since beginning my course of study at the University of Florida, I have been encouraged to venture outside of my comfort zone and engage in all areas of creative musicianship, including improvisation. Last semester, I actually had the opportunity to make improvisation the focus of my final project for a course dealing with the area of creativity in music education. The exercises and process I undertook in completing that project expanded my outlook on improvisation as such and encouraged me to incorporate improvisation into my pedagogy. I even took the opportunity to work improvisation exercises into my curriculum, exploring improvisation with my students as I worked on the project.

Another area of creativity I mentioned above is composition. This week’s course of study had us taking a look at a number of different vehicles for musical notation, including software and web-based approaches. As someone who has “grown up,” as it were, using Finale, I was a bit outside of my comfort zone this week. But I quickly grew fond of both MuseScore and Noteflight, finding their interfaces both intuitive and, in some cases, easier to use than Finale. It was valuable to explore these resources, as they open the door to possibly using these tools with my students in the future. Tools like these would them to engage in creative compositional pursuits. 

A final area we explored this week was the realm of MIDI. As the text explained, MIDI simply stands for "musical instrument digital interface" (Bauer, 2014, p. 26). MIDI is something I have had familiarity with since I was a young child exploring the novelty of the internet. Its application in the realm of music education is manifold. For example, MIDI is used in the compositional software discussed above. It is also featured in sequencer programs, which allow students to explore different musical sounds and patterns and the ways they interact.

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to devote a significant amount of time to the study of creative areas like improvisation and composition in the context of institutional curricula that are predominantly focused on performance and/or mastery of the fundamentals. And even on a pragmatic level, we may find it difficult as instructors to justify spending precious classroom time on improvisation when our students cannot even identify basic rhythms and note names. Still, this program has shown me the importance of incorporating a healthy balance of all of these aspects of musical pedagogy where and when possible. A multi-faceted approach will garner results and a more balanced understanding of musicianship as a whole in the minds of our students.

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bicycle Built for Two

Noteflight is a convenient web tool, which opens the world of music notation to a variety of people who might not otherwise have access to expensive programs like Finale. It is also convenient in that it does not require a personal computer to download, unlike other softwares that are free for use. The easy-to-use interface is helpful for those who might not be particularly adept when it comes to using the aforementioned software. Most of the locations of tools were intuitive; I did not have to study the tutorial materials for long, and a quick google search garnered fast results when a question arose. This is an excellent application that I would consider using with my students, who have access to school-issued Chromebooks.

The Flat World

The title of this blog post alludes to a reference made in the inaugural reading for Module 1 of "Technology Assisted Music Learning" (MUE6696), a graduate course at the University of Florida. In the text (Music Learning Today), Bauer (2014) cites Thomas Friedman, who contends that technology is a major contributing factor to what he calls the "flattening" of the world (p. 4). Not to be confused with the polemical "flat earthers," this notion of a flattening world posits the idea that the historic barriers that geography (manifested in space and time) posed to human civilization are vanishing as a result of the ever-expanding technological advances of the same. The advent of affordable, user-friendly hand-held computers (masquerading under the auspices of "phones") and the ubiquity of the internet have made it so that the average person can have access to nearly the full wealth of human knowledge at any time and in almost any place.

Individuals born into this context are referred to in the text as "digital natives," while those born before this period are "digital immigrants" (p. 5ff). While there is some dispute concerning what constitutes the so-called Digital or Information Age in terms of starting date, if we are strictly speaking of the ubiquity of the information available on the internet, one might say that I was born on the cusp of this epoch. I can remember a time before having a computer in my home, then going through the period of "dial-up" and snail-speed internet access. Still, some of my earliest and formative experiences are from the Internet. I regularly engaged in online debate forums from about age 9, and have been a frequent computer user ever since.

But I did not have a smart phone until well into my college years. And many of the social networking platforms utilized by my students are foreign to me. Keeping abreast of the media used by the younger generation today is a real challenge in this regard, and ensuring technological resources remain relevant is something I have spent time thinking about to this end. This provides a sort of segue into the next area discussed in module 1, which is the role of technology in education.

From the time I started middle school, my teachers have made use of SmartBoards for educational purposes. In elementary school, these were often used ineffectively (occasionally, as backgrounds for overhead projectors!) due to their novelty. But by high school, nearly all of my teachers used them regularly for multimedia presentations. Having grown up with this standard, I have naturally incorporated it where appropriate in my pedagogy as well, fine-tuning it to accommodate the specific content at hand. Unbeknownst to me prior to viewing the lecture video for this module, there is actually a model called TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) that deals with the intersection of area-specific content, pedagogy, and the effective use of technology.

To use a more pointed example, I would submit the Incredibox application we utilized in this week's module as a way to examine TPACK in action. Effectively utilizing this application in a classroom setting would require an instructor to possess basic content knowledge pertaining to musical areas like form and rhythmic groupings. The instructor's pedagogical knowledge would have to be such that he or she could effectively communicate not only these basic principles, but also how to effectively use the application to demonstrate and enable his or her students' self efficacy to create their own mixes incorporating these ideas. Finally, the instructor would have to make sure that the application fits into the curriculum agenda and goals for his specific context  and is able to be utilized with the technological resources at hand.For my own part, I can readily envision utilizing the application in such a way.

To wrap up this module 1 blog post, I would like to make note of the new Personal Learning Network (PLN) that I have established as a part of this course. While I am an avid user of social media, Twitter is not a medium I have ever considered in a professional context. It has been interesting over the course of the week to view my classmates' posts and see how "tweeting" can be an effective way to collaborate and share strategies. I look forward to seeing its application in the weeks ahead.

References

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York City: Oxford University Press.

Inaugural Post

Welcome to my blog! I hope you enjoy.