Microsoft One Note is a free application that is accessible to any device. It allows teachers to keep all of their materials like notes, lesson plans, homework assignments, presentations, and answer keys in one place. It can be used to distribute homework to students and for having students submit their homework. Teachers can collaborate on projects. It can be used to record audio and it can be used to draw on as well. The real advantage of this project is having everything together and easily accessible.
Although I can see the value in this program and why it would appeal to some teachers, I do not see myself using it. It did not seem intuitive to use, and I had difficulty attaching files, even a word document. I tried attaching a video and the file was too large. My classes are very hands-on in terms of music-making and there is little to no homework. I prefer paper notes and lesson plans.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Monday, August 15, 2016
Week 7 Reflection
I already engage in many of the technologies that Bauer references as ones that increase teacher's productivity. Like most teachers, I use email (although sometimes I think this wastes as much time as it saves considering how many irrelevant emails I receive), texting, and Dropbox. I have a website where I communicate important dates and I enter my grades on the computer. I use Microsoft word to make a variety of teaching materials and to communicate with parents. I prefer to use pen and paper for to-do lists and for my calendar as I tend to get tired of staring at computer screens rather quickly. I use technology to register my students for festivals and when making traveling plans. Facebook even sometimes serves as an aid in my teaching since I can reach out quickly to many other music teacher contacts with a question or an idea. Thanks to this class, I even have an RSS, which will allow me to stay more up-to-date with educational trends.
Bauer also makes some suggestions that I think could be helpful to me. Creating a database for my music library and for keeping track of musical instruments would be very helpful. Perhaps I could even have some responsible students serve as choral "managers" who could help me with the initial data entry, since it would be fairly time consuming. I also liked the idea of communities of practice. There is only one other music teacher at my school and we have different specialties. Interacting regularly with others and sharing ideas could help me to keep my teaching fresh. Unfortunately I am not aware of any specific examples. (Perhaps our blogs and PLNs are two examples.)
Technology has obviously given me aid with regard to my personal professional development; I am completing my MME completely online. It was interesting to learn of the superiority of blended learning experiences over face-to-face or online only learning, but it wasn't surprising. A disadvantage is that I would really like to work on my conducting and this really does not allow for that. One aspect that I really like the discussion boards. It's easier to articulate myself in writing rather than orally, and I like that I can learn at my own pace.
Bauer also makes some suggestions that I think could be helpful to me. Creating a database for my music library and for keeping track of musical instruments would be very helpful. Perhaps I could even have some responsible students serve as choral "managers" who could help me with the initial data entry, since it would be fairly time consuming. I also liked the idea of communities of practice. There is only one other music teacher at my school and we have different specialties. Interacting regularly with others and sharing ideas could help me to keep my teaching fresh. Unfortunately I am not aware of any specific examples. (Perhaps our blogs and PLNs are two examples.)
Technology has obviously given me aid with regard to my personal professional development; I am completing my MME completely online. It was interesting to learn of the superiority of blended learning experiences over face-to-face or online only learning, but it wasn't surprising. A disadvantage is that I would really like to work on my conducting and this really does not allow for that. One aspect that I really like the discussion boards. It's easier to articulate myself in writing rather than orally, and I like that I can learn at my own pace.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Monday, August 8, 2016
Week 6 Reflection
This week's reading on technology and responding to music caused me to reflect on what kinds of activities I am already doing that allow students to respond to music. Most of the technology I use with relation to students responding to music consists of some activity that goes along with listening to a recording or video. I expose my students to a variety of music recordings and videos and they engage in repeated listening. I have students describe the music that they hear in terms of instrumentation, dynamics, tempo, mode, etc. I have students interpret the mood of pieces and share responses both openly in class and in written form. I have also had students draw a picture of what the music reminds them of or write a short story that complements a piece of music. I also have used listening maps and notation that students follow along with on the SmartBoard. Students engage in specific movement activities that correspond to a specific sound in the music, and sometimes they simply dance freely to what they hear. They listen to music and create complementary parts. They listen to recordings of their own performances and critique them.
I also reflected on if I should be incorporating more technology into the way I have students respond to music. Certainly I am already taking advantage of the abundance of music available to me at the click of a button via internet resources such as YouTube, Spotify, Grooveshark and that is a huge advantage current technology affords music education. What more is really doing to improve the quality of my teaching? Aren't I already having students adequately respond to music? Can technology really enhance what I am already doing or does an attempt to integrate more technology distract from the "meat and potatoes"? Could the integration of more technology take away from some of the more simple and organic responsive experiences? Or am I just subconsciously making excuses because I'm too busy and stressed to burden myself with more responsibility?
There were some ideas in this weeks reading that sound promising, and there are many I had never heard of before. I like the idea of using software to create graphical representations of music. (I already do so to some extent with some YouTube.) I wasn't aware that programs like Audacity could create spectrograms of music. I am not familiar with SoundCloud at all, but it sounds promising as a source for listening maps.I am particularly interested in the music theory and aural skills websites like Teoria and MusicTheory.net. It is easy to become overwhelmed with the amount of resources available, but I am glad that I am receiving some direction in our text, and these three seem like a good place to begin.
I also reflected on if I should be incorporating more technology into the way I have students respond to music. Certainly I am already taking advantage of the abundance of music available to me at the click of a button via internet resources such as YouTube, Spotify, Grooveshark and that is a huge advantage current technology affords music education. What more is really doing to improve the quality of my teaching? Aren't I already having students adequately respond to music? Can technology really enhance what I am already doing or does an attempt to integrate more technology distract from the "meat and potatoes"? Could the integration of more technology take away from some of the more simple and organic responsive experiences? Or am I just subconsciously making excuses because I'm too busy and stressed to burden myself with more responsibility?
There were some ideas in this weeks reading that sound promising, and there are many I had never heard of before. I like the idea of using software to create graphical representations of music. (I already do so to some extent with some YouTube.) I wasn't aware that programs like Audacity could create spectrograms of music. I am not familiar with SoundCloud at all, but it sounds promising as a source for listening maps.I am particularly interested in the music theory and aural skills websites like Teoria and MusicTheory.net. It is easy to become overwhelmed with the amount of resources available, but I am glad that I am receiving some direction in our text, and these three seem like a good place to begin.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Week 5 Reflection
In
general, this week’s reading on assessment left me feeling a bit glazed over,
as these kinds of readings always have. I always tend to get concepts like
validity and reliability mixed up, even if I studied them and got them correct
on assessment in college. The concepts of formative
and summative are familiar and
straight forward and I include both types in my teaching. In my general music
classes, I use a combination of written tests and performance tests that I
grade with a rubric. I use fewer performance tests because they are extremely
time consuming, even though I think they are very valuable.
I am
overwhelmed by all the ways to use technology in assessment and left feeling
discouraged. There are certainly many possibilities, but my time is very
limited, and our school has a limited amount of technology and even less
support. I would be trying to navigate all of these assessment tools on my own,
and there would inevitably be glitches. I suppose the key is to take baby
steps.
I like
the idea of using Google Forms to create online quizzes that can be graded
automatically, even though with our limited number of computers, it might be difficult
to have access to computers to complete these kinds of assessments. The idea of
using clickers in student response systems is appearling. I
would like to be able to see how many of my students understand with the safety
of anonymity. The challenge is, again, lack of technology. We simply don’t have
enough computers to make this a normal part of instruction, and in our school,
students are not permitted to use cell phones. I also like the idea of using
technology to assess musical performance. If I could assess pitch and rhythmic
accuracy outside the classroom, this would save considerable time correcting
errors in class and it could motivate students to achieve benchmarks at a
faster pace.
I
already use some technology for assessment, so perhaps I shouldn’t be too
discouraged. I use video and audio
recording so that my students can observe and evaluate their own performances,
although this is more informal. Also,
the students and parents in my school have access to their grades at all times
via our district-wide gradebook that they can access online.
In the
reading on instructional design, I was particularly struck with the idea of
backward design, and would like to use this more in my teaching. I have heard
of this before and it makes so much sense as an educational model. Yet I tend to go about it as teachers often do—first
with learning activities, then with a desired outcome, then with an assessment.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Chromatik vs. SmartMusic
Chromatik is an online program for musicians that is
designed to help them practice, perform and share music. It can be used on Web,
Android, iOS, and Amazon devices and there are not currently any options to
print or download music. It offers a free catalogue of reference tracks, annotation tools, and
recording options. The basic version is free, but there are frequent ads that
are of minor annoyance, and one only has access to three “plays” or pieces of
sheet music per day. There is an option to upgrade to Chromatic Pro, which
allows for an ad-free experience and unlimited access to their music. If you
are unable to find a piece of music, you can make a request for that piece,
although there is already a variety of music styles already available for many
different instruments. There are lead sheets with lyrics and chords, guitar
tabs with intro-to-guitar information, as well as easy versions of pieces for
beginners. There is an option to find scales, but this was sub-par. For
example, the “advanced” piano scales included no bass clef and included no
fingering, but these could be annotated. Perhaps the greatest advantage of this
program is that students can record and share their music with others and
receive feedback. One weakness is that there are not many help features.
Fortunately, navigating the website is fairly intuitive. For example, if you
are looking for classical music to play, you can click “Classical”, and then
select your instrument. Below is a link to piano classics.
https://www.chromatik.com/piano
SmartMusic is another online sheet music library with many other
features. It is larger than that of Chromatic, and it is geared more
specifically to music educators and their students. Students can play a piece
of music in context of the ensemble with professional accompaniments. They
receive immediate feedback as the program lets students know of pitch or
rhythmic inaccuracies, which will inevitably save time in lessons. In addition,
students can record themselves for their teachers who can listen to the
performance on a mobile device or computer and give feedback. Students can send
recordings of their performances to family and friends. Portfolios can be
created of individual students performances, and there are other options for
music educators like assignments and assessments and rubrics, that can be
tailored for specific instruments and students. In addition, there are many
exercises including scales, intervals, arpeggios, vocalises, and more. There
are also practice tools such as a metronome, tuner, on-screen piano, and
digital recorder. There are online training classes that users can take for a
fee that will help them navigate the program. There is a free trial for
educators, and there is an annual fee for students and music educators. See the "Discover SmartMusic" video at the link below for more information.
http://www.smartmusic.com/
Both
of these programs have implications for music education. Chromatic is seems to
be geared for more informal study that motivates students. Being able to access
the library for free is also a benefit of Chromatic. SmartMusic, while
requiring an annual subscription fee, is
tailored more specifically for music educators with its capacity for creating
assignments, assessments, and for grading performances. Its ability to helps
students recognize their own errors without assistance from the teacher is of
enormous benefit and has the potential to save a great amount of time in
lessons and large group ensmebles, freeing the director to focus on other
aspects of musicianship.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Week 4 Reflection
In the section of
"Other Media", in this week's reading, I mostly encountered material
that I was already familiar with, some of it more relevant to my teaching than
others. Graphics seemed the least relevant to my teaching. I already use videos
in my classrooms, mostly short videos from Youtube for instructional purposes.
The idea of video editing is a bit daunting, and I don't see much need to use
it for instructional purposes. It has potential use for recording and editing
student performances so that they can self-evaluate. It might be nice to embed
some of these videos on a school website for my students.
As I read through the section on "Instructional
Software" I reflected on what I already use in my teaching and I thought
about which category some of the programs I have learned about would be
categorized. The four types were tutorial, practice, creativity, and games.
Smartmusic and Chromatic appear to be examples of practice instructional
software since prerequisite knowledge is required and these allow students to
practice their instrument and learn about areas where they need to improve.
Soundation is an example of creativity instructional software. I use tutorials
more than any of the others, mostly because my students are beginners. However
I see a lot of potential and value in some of the others, especially creativity
software. Games can be fun and have potential to reinforce previous knowledge
in a fun way, but I think they should be used sparingly, maybe at the end of
the school year, when it is particularly difficult to maintain student
interest.
I was a bit
overwhelmed by the reading on pages 76-78, where a day in the work life of a
band teacher named Michael is described. It would to me years to learn how to
work all of the technology that he is using, and who has time to spend hours
after work learning new technology? Although I think some of the technologies
described in this section, like recording students with audacity, can enhance
instruction, I think we need to guard against how too much technology in the
classroom. I think it also has the potential to
distance us from our students. One thing that was particularly appealing
to me (mainly for personal reasons) was when Michael discusses “the purchase of
an electronic mute system that will allow her to practice in the apartment
where she lives without disturbing the neighbors” (p. 78). I live in an
apartment and my skills are definitely suffering because I can’t practice there
without disturbing others.
Another excerpt
from our reading that stood out to me was where Bauer discusses accompaniment. “Researchers
have found that students generally prefer to practice with accompaniment” (p.
82). This is consistent with my own experience. However, when I am teaching, my
attention is divided between playing the accompaniment and listening to my
ensembles so that I can give them feedback. It’s really difficult to do both
things well. I think the best solution is to hire an accompanist, but this is
not very practical financially for many schools. Technology offers wonderful
solutions for this.
After reading
the section on SmartMusic, I was impressed with its potential for aiding band
students but left wondering if it was relevant to the choral practice room. The
most appealing thing was that it “can be used to sing one’s part along with the
other accompanying instruments, including a full ensemble or piano
accompaniment” (p. 83). I am also
curious about how it works with regard to sight reading. Is this software
expensive, and are there free alternatives that can do what I want since I
probably won’t use the full range of features on the program with my general
music and choral classes?
Friday, July 22, 2016
Soundation Composition
https://soundation.com/user/mwood349587/track/myfirstdawscomposition-1
This was my first experience with Soundation
and I really enjoyed creating a composition with it. My composition was not
representative of any story. With only a week to create it, I knew I would need
to work on it for several hours at a time, so I chose sounds that weren’t overstimulating.
My goal was simply to create a relaxed ambience that could serve as background
music. With all of the electronic
sounds, this program lends itself well to creating a hypnotic effect so I
attempted to achieve this with the loops. I attempted to create variety by
varying the melody with the MIDI.
The software inspired creativity. I
have always enjoyed improvising and composing on a variety of instruments. I am
naturally fairly creative, but sometimes when I am creating music, everything I
create begins to sound the same. It was nice to listen to the pre-composed
loops. I chose ones that I liked and then those served as inspiration for
adding other sounds and for creating melodies. After I found the first loop
that I wanted, this started a “workflow” and I began adding new loops and then
improvising melodies.
My biggest limitation was lack of
time. I would have liked to have “cleaned up” the melody I added with the MIDI,
if I could have done so easily without compromising other parts that I wanted
to keep. I wanted to erase a note without having to cut out time. It’s possible
to cut out sections of time with the scissors tool, but what I wanted was a
tool that could erase the sounds without impacting the timing. I chose to just
leave them in rather than risk losing a part. Also, I would have preferred to
have more options with the MIDI sounds, but considering that this was a free
program, I think it is fairly good. I assume that with the premium packages,
there would be more variety.
This
program offers wonderful possibilities for my students, and I think they would
really enjoy it, particularly “the other 80%” of students who may not be
particularly strong with notation or who lack formal music education in the
form of private instrumental lessons. It offers more ways to enjoy the creative
process. I intend to use this with my
middle school general music students. I want to avoid causing stress for my
already-stressed-out students, and instead to simply offer a chance for them to
be inspired and to enjoy their own creativity. I would probably begin with showing
them some basics and having them listen to the compositions of others. Then I
would allow them considerable time just to explore, and
then culminate the experience with a project similar to this one. I would only
require them to use a small number of loops, and have them add audio or MIDI if
they wanted to for extra credit. The goal would be to give them a taste that
would leave them wanting to create more on their own. I think they would enjoy
it.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Week 3 Reflection
In our reading for this week, Bauer suggests that working with digital audio is made easier by having a basic understanding of acoustics. This connects to what I am teaching now. Even though I haven't taught with any digital media (yet), my students gain a basic understanding of acoustics in the the 5th grade. I teach a sound unit along with the science teacher in which are students explore frequency and amplitude. They learn about how matter in the air vibrates to create sound and then they determine what category instruments belong to based on what causes the first vibration. (For example, drums are membranophones because the membrane is the first thing to vibrate and cause the air to vibrate). The students also look compare models of sound waves and determine what will have a higher frequency and amplitude.
The reading on analog versus digital and audio file types clarified and refreshed some familiar concepts that I have read about before, although I have always found this subject a bit dense. I had a vague notion that analog represented "real sound" and digital was code on a computer. I still get confused when thinking about reproductions of sounds verses "actual sounds". If I can hear it, isn't it a sound? It's helpful to think about how with digital information, not all of the sound is captured, and it is converted to binary data, whereas with audio recording, there is a "physical depiction of the sound" (p. 30). I was also reminded that audio can be converted to digital through an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and these can be greater and smaller qualities. One disadvantage of analog is that every time it is copied, the quality lowers. With digital audio, it is possible to make copies without losing quality.
Although I was familiar with the names of various audio files and that these files can be very different in size, the ideas of using codecs and the different compression types was new to me. I learned that codecs are processes to shrink the size of files, and that with lossless compression all of the original sound can be recreated and with lossy compression, some sounds are permanently removed. WAV files are examples of lossless and MP3s are examples of lossy.
It was interesting to read about approaches to teaching composition and relate it to my own teaching. Like many other music educators, I find it more comfortable to teach with a notation-based approach, since I have so little experience with DAWs. I think creativity and composition are so important and I incorporate a great deal of them in my teaching, beginning with exploration and improvisation. This is challenging for students and it makes sense that "the other 80%" tends to be more attracted to non-notational composition through technology. I am excited about our project for this week and I'm hoping to increase my comfort level with this technology so that I can incorporate it in my teaching.
It was helpful to read about how to critique our students during the compositional process. I think my own tendency is to give too much feedback to students all at once and overwhelm them. I like Bauer's idea of the the "compliment sandwich", or of giving a positive comment, then a suggestion, then another positive comment. Also, I learned that students are more receptive to feedback earlier in the process. This makes sense since they would be less invested in it. I often find it overwhelming to work with students on composition projects because of the number of kids, and the beginning stages are often the most overwhelming. I tend to spend too much time with individuals and run out of time to give all students the help they need in the beginning stages. Remembering the "compliment sandwich" will help me not to get held up with one student while others are waiting.
The reading on analog versus digital and audio file types clarified and refreshed some familiar concepts that I have read about before, although I have always found this subject a bit dense. I had a vague notion that analog represented "real sound" and digital was code on a computer. I still get confused when thinking about reproductions of sounds verses "actual sounds". If I can hear it, isn't it a sound? It's helpful to think about how with digital information, not all of the sound is captured, and it is converted to binary data, whereas with audio recording, there is a "physical depiction of the sound" (p. 30). I was also reminded that audio can be converted to digital through an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and these can be greater and smaller qualities. One disadvantage of analog is that every time it is copied, the quality lowers. With digital audio, it is possible to make copies without losing quality.
Although I was familiar with the names of various audio files and that these files can be very different in size, the ideas of using codecs and the different compression types was new to me. I learned that codecs are processes to shrink the size of files, and that with lossless compression all of the original sound can be recreated and with lossy compression, some sounds are permanently removed. WAV files are examples of lossless and MP3s are examples of lossy.
It was interesting to read about approaches to teaching composition and relate it to my own teaching. Like many other music educators, I find it more comfortable to teach with a notation-based approach, since I have so little experience with DAWs. I think creativity and composition are so important and I incorporate a great deal of them in my teaching, beginning with exploration and improvisation. This is challenging for students and it makes sense that "the other 80%" tends to be more attracted to non-notational composition through technology. I am excited about our project for this week and I'm hoping to increase my comfort level with this technology so that I can incorporate it in my teaching.
It was helpful to read about how to critique our students during the compositional process. I think my own tendency is to give too much feedback to students all at once and overwhelm them. I like Bauer's idea of the the "compliment sandwich", or of giving a positive comment, then a suggestion, then another positive comment. Also, I learned that students are more receptive to feedback earlier in the process. This makes sense since they would be less invested in it. I often find it overwhelming to work with students on composition projects because of the number of kids, and the beginning stages are often the most overwhelming. I tend to spend too much time with individuals and run out of time to give all students the help they need in the beginning stages. Remembering the "compliment sandwich" will help me not to get held up with one student while others are waiting.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Monday, July 11, 2016
Week 2 Reflection
This week's reading in chapter two helped me to freshen up my knowledge of MIDIs. I remember using them in college for theory and orchestration assignments. We had keyboards connected to to Mac computers and we used Sibelius. Usually I found it easier just to manually write in the note I wanted, so I did not use the MIDI that much. From this week's reading, I learned that a MIDI controller isn't necessarily a keyboard; there are guitar controllers, and drum controllers, among many others. I also learned that there is technology available to allow an acoustic sound to be converted to MIDI.
If the resources and space were available, I think a simple MIDI set up could help my students with compositions. As Dr. Bazan, pointed out in this weeks lecture, it can be time consuming for students to write their compositions on manuscript paper using pen and pencil, and they can't immediately hear what they have written. I remember struggling to figure out how to work the MIDI with Sibelius, so in order for me to integrate this kind of technology, it would need to be a program that I could figure out how to work on my own, that is easy to navigate, and one that was not too difficult for my students to use.
I love that in our chapter three reading, Bauer talks about "the other 80%" (pp. 46). These are the students who are not involved in formal music instruction like band or orchestra, and yet "have strong musical interests and untapped creative potential. Most of my teaching day is spend with this "other 80%". In my school, the program is divided into band and general music; students who do not elect to take band, take general music, which is what I teach. Bauer describes a students named Katie who has had no formal training, but who can play a few chords on a guitar and figure out how to play songs. She took a music technology course and became very enthusiastic and involved with the technology she learned in this class, like GarageBand. Since this is my demographic, I think it is especially important for me to explore ways to engage my students with technology for composition and creativity. I think it will help students who do perhaps do not think of themselves as musical to tap into their musical creativity.
If the resources and space were available, I think a simple MIDI set up could help my students with compositions. As Dr. Bazan, pointed out in this weeks lecture, it can be time consuming for students to write their compositions on manuscript paper using pen and pencil, and they can't immediately hear what they have written. I remember struggling to figure out how to work the MIDI with Sibelius, so in order for me to integrate this kind of technology, it would need to be a program that I could figure out how to work on my own, that is easy to navigate, and one that was not too difficult for my students to use.
I love that in our chapter three reading, Bauer talks about "the other 80%" (pp. 46). These are the students who are not involved in formal music instruction like band or orchestra, and yet "have strong musical interests and untapped creative potential. Most of my teaching day is spend with this "other 80%". In my school, the program is divided into band and general music; students who do not elect to take band, take general music, which is what I teach. Bauer describes a students named Katie who has had no formal training, but who can play a few chords on a guitar and figure out how to play songs. She took a music technology course and became very enthusiastic and involved with the technology she learned in this class, like GarageBand. Since this is my demographic, I think it is especially important for me to explore ways to engage my students with technology for composition and creativity. I think it will help students who do perhaps do not think of themselves as musical to tap into their musical creativity.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Week 1 Reading Reflection
This week's reading brought to my attention the fact that my teaching is not "technology-based". Bauer quotes Dorfman, defining "technology-based music instruction (TBMI)" as instruction in which "technology is the major medium by which music concepts and skills are introduced, reinforced, and assessed" (Bauer, 2014, xiii). He also writes that the implication is that students are more engaged with the technology "rather than simply with the "products of technology work that the teacher has prepared" (xiii). The technology I have used tends to fall more in the latter category. We are not equipped with a music lab with digital audio workstations (although I'm thinking of purchasing some kind of equipment that I could store in the facilities I already have). I do use the Smartboard to introduce new concepts and show videos, but for the most part, what I do tends to fall into what Dorfman called "teacher-prepared" rather than students interacting more directly with it. The most "technology-based" project I had my students engage in was a project in which that had to create a chord progression on a free program called "jam studio" in which they could enter their chord progression and then add instrumentation, and different styles to it.
Apparently my situation is not unique; I learned in chapter one about a "technology integration gap". It is an integral part of our lives, but there are barriers that prevent it from being more integrated in the music classroom like "a lack of computers, inadequate technical support, and insufficient professional development to acquire the pedagogical understanding necessary for effectively integrating technology" (p. 9)". Of these, barriers the two latter ones impact me the most; Although I could probably acquire the technology, maintaining it would be one of the most significant barriers. I would love to acquire my own music lab with GarageBand, but the tech company that maintains our equipment now already can't keep up and teachers may wait for several weeks before a technological problem is resolved.
Although it does not seem like we are at this point yet (at least not in music classrooms), as with any new trend, there is a danger of taking it to an extreme. If our students are already so immersed in technology, how much really benefits them in the music classroom? I support the use of technology in the music classroom to some extent, but I think there is a real danger of becoming "alone together", an environment where everyone has their eyes on their own screen with their headphones on, not to mention, a very sedentary one. I think there is a real and growing need for authentic connection with others and movement and in some ways, too much technological immersion is causing this. I think the beauty of the general music classroom is that we can make music together, or dance, or speak together in real space in real time; We can connect to others and our own humanity by making music together in the physical world. Although technology can and certainly has enhanced our muscial creativity and experiences, we must be careful that it doesn't supplant some of the more organic experiences that are part of our essence.
Even with these apprehensions in mind, I would still like to integrate more "technology-based music instruction" primarily as a means for student composition. As Bauer mentions, "traditionally, music composition has been taught with manuscript paper and a pencil, and sometimes has involved experimentation with an acoustic instrument such as a piano (p. 15). I have attempted (with some success) to do this with my general music classes, and it can be difficult and overwhelming considering the limited musical knowledge that they have to first create a musical idea, and then to write it down. I think the technology could be used in this circumstance to allow students exercise their creativity, get the general idea of how writing music works, but have the computer do the hard work of writing out the music, without having the students get frustrated. I also really like the idea of having students create loops since these seems accessible and I would really like some easy ways to incorporate this. Perhaps a tablet of sorts would be appropriate for my general music classroom.
Apparently my situation is not unique; I learned in chapter one about a "technology integration gap". It is an integral part of our lives, but there are barriers that prevent it from being more integrated in the music classroom like "a lack of computers, inadequate technical support, and insufficient professional development to acquire the pedagogical understanding necessary for effectively integrating technology" (p. 9)". Of these, barriers the two latter ones impact me the most; Although I could probably acquire the technology, maintaining it would be one of the most significant barriers. I would love to acquire my own music lab with GarageBand, but the tech company that maintains our equipment now already can't keep up and teachers may wait for several weeks before a technological problem is resolved.
Although it does not seem like we are at this point yet (at least not in music classrooms), as with any new trend, there is a danger of taking it to an extreme. If our students are already so immersed in technology, how much really benefits them in the music classroom? I support the use of technology in the music classroom to some extent, but I think there is a real danger of becoming "alone together", an environment where everyone has their eyes on their own screen with their headphones on, not to mention, a very sedentary one. I think there is a real and growing need for authentic connection with others and movement and in some ways, too much technological immersion is causing this. I think the beauty of the general music classroom is that we can make music together, or dance, or speak together in real space in real time; We can connect to others and our own humanity by making music together in the physical world. Although technology can and certainly has enhanced our muscial creativity and experiences, we must be careful that it doesn't supplant some of the more organic experiences that are part of our essence.
Even with these apprehensions in mind, I would still like to integrate more "technology-based music instruction" primarily as a means for student composition. As Bauer mentions, "traditionally, music composition has been taught with manuscript paper and a pencil, and sometimes has involved experimentation with an acoustic instrument such as a piano (p. 15). I have attempted (with some success) to do this with my general music classes, and it can be difficult and overwhelming considering the limited musical knowledge that they have to first create a musical idea, and then to write it down. I think the technology could be used in this circumstance to allow students exercise their creativity, get the general idea of how writing music works, but have the computer do the hard work of writing out the music, without having the students get frustrated. I also really like the idea of having students create loops since these seems accessible and I would really like some easy ways to incorporate this. Perhaps a tablet of sorts would be appropriate for my general music classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)