Music is sounds that are chosen and organised by an individual, in order to have meaning for them. The sounds may or may not be performed with or for one or more others in order to share the experience and the meaning of the sounds but they must be sounds, not abstract symbols, to be fully received and understood. Musical sound must, therefore, be at the heart of every music lesson.
I want my students to be able to create and organise sounds in a way that is meaningful for them and also for their audience. I want them to be able to get inside a piece of music and hear, experience and observe how it works; to understand the tools and techniques that creators use to create, organise, develop and share their musical ideas and statements – what Green (2008) refers to ‘inter-sonic meaning’– and then to use these tools and techniques in their own act of creating.
I have tended to use listening and performance as the investigation mode, while composition and performance have been the products that my students use to demonstrate their learning. My students and I can benefit from using technology as a tool to support learning in all three musical processes – creating, performing and responding to music. I can see how technology has the ability to open up composing-based investigations activities to more sophisticated and reflective level of exploration.
The use of play – playing with sounds, playing with effects, playing with interpretation and playing with ideas and meaning – are all aspects of my classroom environment that can incorporate, and be enhanced by, the use of technology. Technology allows for what composer and educator, Trevor Wishart, and others refer to as “immediacy” (Green, 2008, p. 60), an aural-based, direct contact with the music, not blocked or mediated by notation. This immediacy is not dependent on technology but it is supported and enriched by it. The computer is, indeed, an instrument – a means of giving expression to a student’s creative mind. The array of sounds and pre-recorded loops allow students to quickly and easily create relatively sophisticated pieces that mimic what they hear in their musical culture.
William (2011) expresses a common theme in the contemporary understanding of pedagogy. “The teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge, nor to facilitate learning. It is to engineer effective learning environments for the students. The key features of effective learning environments are that they create student engagement and allow teachers, learners and their peers to ensure that learning is proceeding in the intended direction” (p.50). Green (2008) refers to the experience of an effective musical learning environment as a ‘celebration’ (p. 88).
I am a learner as well as a teacher, while my pupils are teachers as well as learners. Yet the challenge from Sugata Mitra (2103) and Lucy Green (2008) that children can teach themselves and accomplish high standards of engagement and competence has caused me to re-think my approach to what constitutes an effective learning environment and embrace the concept of informal learning.
I have long held the view that all music is good music if it moves you (physically, emotionally, cognitively and spiritually). I also recognise that the effect of music is largely due to enculturation. As teachers we are expected to introduce children to the foundations of their society and culture – not in an imperialist or dogmatic way – but with a view to connecting students with the creative spirits that have shaped, recorded and reflected that culture and to assist them to understand the significance and purpose of music within its cultural and social context.
Education is also about nurturing children and young people. I believe that this involves protecting children from language, images, ideas, attitudes and actions that can harm them emotionally, socially, cognitively and spiritually – Green’s ‘delineated meaning’ (2008, p. 87). ‘Critical musicality’ (Green, 2008, pp.83-84) is about challenging students’ thinking, expanding their empathy and understanding as well as enabling them to be creative problem solvers. Music is about enjoyment but it should also nourish the spirit. Music brings individual pleasure but it has the ability to create community. Music is about self-expression but it can enable a group to speak with one voice. Music is about identity – whether individual, cultural, sub-cultural or tribal – but it is also about a wider collective identity, sometimes referred to as our shared humanity or the human condition.
The privilege of connecting children with the great minds and spirits of all ages, opening their ears to the voice of others, giving flight to their imagining of the possible, requires music teachers to be courageous and discerning in their choice of music – knowing that it won’t always be popular and it won’t always have the stamp of “a classic”. In the music classroom, teacher and pupils are all members of the audience when music is being played. But the classroom context has the ability to alienate (Hein, 2015; Green, 2008, p. 90) and the teacher must be aware and adopt approaches that counter this negative effect.
As connectors, teachers are able to make new connections for students with familiar music from the students’ own culture, by creating effective learning environments in which the students have time to ‘celebrate’ the techniques and meaning of those familiar examples. Students then learn how to apply the knowledge and skills gained, in personally meaningful examples, to novel examples. They perceive continuity between the musical examples and experience both inclusiveness and diversity in the acceptance of their culture and the culture of others.
This connection of meaning in learning is the basis of a Relational Epistemology in which a student’s depth of knowledge is linked to the strength of the connections that they have in the learning process. These include the student’s relationship with the learning object (in this case a song or a musical skill); with the teacher who will guide and affirm their observing and creating; with the composer or songwriter through the music and with their fellow students as they perform together and for each other and join together to solve problems.
It is encouraging that technology has become a tool for creative collaboration, for communication and for creating an audience. These twenty-first century skills are at the core of music education and all are skills facilitated by technology. The twenty-first century music classroom is a place where these skills are valued and nurtured in ways that set an example of innovation and reflection for learning throughout the school and throughout life.
References
Green, L. 2008. Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Oxon: Routledge
Hein, E. (2015). The promise and perils of the digital studio. In S. A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mitra, Sugata. 2013. Build a School in the Cloud. Ted talk February 2013. Retrieved 19/01/2016 from https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud?language=en
William, D. 2011. Embedded: formative assessment . Moorabbin, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Music Education Can Lead All Education
I began this MOOC wanting to see how the pedagogy and use of technology at our school measured up. I’m pleased to find that we do pretty well on limited resources. We use a range of sequencing, recording and notation software and set our students real-life projects to complete using this technology.
Technology-based music has always been an important topic in all of our music programs and the musical skills and the multiple roles of the contemporary DJ are examples that we study. This topic is one where the “Open” nature of learning and information is evident. The range of music that my students bring to share in these lessons is testament to this, and their ability to “discover” the up and coming names in these genres is testament to their discernment. Certainly my better students are taking advantage of open learning but I sense that this is not as widespread as researchers such as David Price suggest – or perhaps it is that my definition of learning is too narrow. There is a fair degree of online interaction but the emphasis appears to be on the social rather than study, from the evidence available in class.
It also needs to be acknowledged that the “Information Super-highway” is a dangerous place to play. I came across one tutorial last year where the author spent a large percentage of time belittling viewers for even needing to ask for help with what he obviously considered was a simple task.
I think that there are still significant issues that have not been addressed in this MOOC. There is space here only to mention two of these. The first is money. Our storeroom contains the evidence of the pace at which Technology changes: sound modules and midi interfaces that are no longer required, boxes of pre-and post Mac OSX software are just two examples. Even the so-called Open-Source software such as Soundtrap is quick to offer you their Premium package – for a fee of course. The attraction of BYO, BAB and Open Source software is that this cost transfers from the school to the family.
In a recent article on improvements to student outcomes, School smarts push students on path to uni, the identified factors correlate strongly with those of John Hattie: parent involvement, goal setting, environment and the relationship between teacher and student. There is no specific mention of the BLs or any other pedagogical approaches.
I am affirmed by this MOOC in the approaches that I have taken in teaching Music and other subjects using technology and pedagogical approaches such as Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning. I have found Lucy Green’s approach to informal learning one worth investigating and pursuing. I am challenged to be more deliberate in modelling and identifying open learning amongst my students.
The false distinction between vocation, academic and personal interest subjects that has long prevailed has lost sight of the educational as well as the individual and societal benefits of studying the Arts. The leading role of music teachers in embracing technology in learning and making a meaningful connection between the students’ culture and school should be celebrated and shared.
Technology-based music has always been an important topic in all of our music programs and the musical skills and the multiple roles of the contemporary DJ are examples that we study. This topic is one where the “Open” nature of learning and information is evident. The range of music that my students bring to share in these lessons is testament to this, and their ability to “discover” the up and coming names in these genres is testament to their discernment. Certainly my better students are taking advantage of open learning but I sense that this is not as widespread as researchers such as David Price suggest – or perhaps it is that my definition of learning is too narrow. There is a fair degree of online interaction but the emphasis appears to be on the social rather than study, from the evidence available in class.
It also needs to be acknowledged that the “Information Super-highway” is a dangerous place to play. I came across one tutorial last year where the author spent a large percentage of time belittling viewers for even needing to ask for help with what he obviously considered was a simple task.
I think that there are still significant issues that have not been addressed in this MOOC. There is space here only to mention two of these. The first is money. Our storeroom contains the evidence of the pace at which Technology changes: sound modules and midi interfaces that are no longer required, boxes of pre-and post Mac OSX software are just two examples. Even the so-called Open-Source software such as Soundtrap is quick to offer you their Premium package – for a fee of course. The attraction of BYO, BAB and Open Source software is that this cost transfers from the school to the family.
In a recent article on improvements to student outcomes, School smarts push students on path to uni, the identified factors correlate strongly with those of John Hattie: parent involvement, goal setting, environment and the relationship between teacher and student. There is no specific mention of the BLs or any other pedagogical approaches.
I am affirmed by this MOOC in the approaches that I have taken in teaching Music and other subjects using technology and pedagogical approaches such as Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning. I have found Lucy Green’s approach to informal learning one worth investigating and pursuing. I am challenged to be more deliberate in modelling and identifying open learning amongst my students.
The false distinction between vocation, academic and personal interest subjects that has long prevailed has lost sight of the educational as well as the individual and societal benefits of studying the Arts. The leading role of music teachers in embracing technology in learning and making a meaningful connection between the students’ culture and school should be celebrated and shared.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
An ABC of Technology
In the MOOC, Music in the Twenty-First Century Classroom, we have been set a challenge to share our thoughts about the place of media in the music classroom. I think that I would have been happier presenting a list of pros and cons but we have been asked to be creative. I thought of writing a song or a rap but somehow a line such as, "When it comes to synthesizers, midi and technology, I am the very model of modern music pedagogue" is possibly too embarrassing on many levels. Anyway, I hope that the following contains some of my thoughts about technology in an entertaining and creative way. As well as my own thoughts, I've included some comments from speakers featured in the MOOC videos and some other reading that I've done. I've updated this since the original posting.
The ABC of Technology in Education
A is for app., appealing and accurate.
No matter how appealing an app may be, if the content is not accurate it is of no educational value.
B is for brain, baby and behaviour.
Ban all screen time for children under the age of two to prevent poor brain development and disrupted learning behaviour.
C is for creativity, collaboration and critical thinking.
These are three essential twenty-first century skills that are supported by using technology in the music classroom.
D is for digital natives.
Digital natives live in an instant world where technology is the status quo (Prensky, 2001). However, sometimes they forget that they are also explorers and will stare forlornly at the screen wondering where to go next.Cue teacher.
E is for encouragement, enquiry and epistemic games.
Encouragement and enquiry (“Wow, how did you do that?”) are grandmotherly methods that promote perseverance and understanding in digital learners. Epistemic games immerse children in real-life situations and ask them to solve real-world problems.
F is for Flipped Learning
Flipped Learning is no guarantee that homework won’t be boring.
G is for GarageBand.
GarageBand turns bedrooms into studios and classrooms into hit factories. However this is not a guaranteed formula. The real equation is: musician+GarageBand≠guaranteed instant hit. The secret for success remains as mysterious as ever.
H is for Hybrid Learning.
Hybrid or blended learning combines, or blends, classroom and online learning. This is a familiar practice in many schools. It provides for balance.
I is for individualised, informal and idiosyncratic.
Three important pedagogical approaches supported by technology in the music classroom.
J is for JITT (just-in-time technology).
To make better use of limited devices, schools have adapted the industry just-in-time model, preferring to manage limited resources rather than overstock with technology that may not meet their needs (McKenzie, 2003).
K is for know, knowledge and know-how.
Is knowledge obsolete? We no longer need to know, we just need to have the know-how to locate, evaluate and apply the knowledge available online. However, knowledge comes in handy for a dad to beat his daughters in online trivia games.
L is for loops.
Loops are counter-intuitive. Despite the potential to create monotony and homogeny, musical loops seem to be the wellspring for endless variety.
M is for Mobile learning.
Mobile learning means learning where you want and when you want using technology. However, learning in the physical presence of others and hearing an effective speaker live are still powerful modes of learning.
N is network.
Technology allows students and teachers alike to create their own network of peers, mentors and instructors.
O is for Open Source Software
Offering an alternative to proprietary software, Open Source Software builds equity into digital access ahead of equity on the NASDAQ.For the music classroom, these include Soundtrap and Noteflight.
P is for personalised.
Personalised learning offers the opportunity for differentiation and tailoring learning to individual needs. But education is more than an individual pursuit. Emphasising a personalised approach can lose sight of the benefit the community or society also receives.
Q is for questions.
Learning should be about the big questions.
R is for remote
“In nine months, a group of children left alone with a computer in any language, even in a remote Indian village, will reach the same standard as an office secretary in the West.” – Sugata Mitra.
S is for SOLE
Self-organised learning environments combine Broadband, collaboration and encouragement.
T is for teacher.
Technology is no substitute for the relationship between teacher and pupil. What technology does mean is that these roles are continually interchangeable.
U is for unknown.
Much is unknown about the future but technology will have a major role to play in jobs of the future.
V is for virtual.
Virtual manipulation allow learners to play around with ideas, adjust small variables and view or hear the effect.
W is for wonder.
“We need to design a future of learning by supporting children to tap into their wonder and their ability to work together.” – Sugata Mitra
X is for Xavier.
Francis Xavier, Sydney based DJ/Producer/Engineer/Musician/Party promoter/Label owner/Synth hoarder, is testament to the fact that there is more than one way to get into music.
Y is for YouTube.
Forget Wikipedia, YouTube is the “go to” information site for twenty-first century learners in Australia,
Z is for zero.
Technology promises zero boredom in classrooms but there is no guarantee.
References not mentioned in the MOOC
McKenzie, J.(2003, January). Just in time technology. In From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 12(5), January Retrieved 21/01/2017 from http://fno.org/jan03/jitt.html
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5)October. NCB University Press. Retrieved 20/01/2017 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
The ABC of Technology in Education
A is for app., appealing and accurate.
No matter how appealing an app may be, if the content is not accurate it is of no educational value.
B is for brain, baby and behaviour.
Ban all screen time for children under the age of two to prevent poor brain development and disrupted learning behaviour.
C is for creativity, collaboration and critical thinking.
These are three essential twenty-first century skills that are supported by using technology in the music classroom.
D is for digital natives.
Digital natives live in an instant world where technology is the status quo (Prensky, 2001). However, sometimes they forget that they are also explorers and will stare forlornly at the screen wondering where to go next.Cue teacher.
E is for encouragement, enquiry and epistemic games.
Encouragement and enquiry (“Wow, how did you do that?”) are grandmotherly methods that promote perseverance and understanding in digital learners. Epistemic games immerse children in real-life situations and ask them to solve real-world problems.
F is for Flipped Learning
Flipped Learning is no guarantee that homework won’t be boring.
G is for GarageBand.
GarageBand turns bedrooms into studios and classrooms into hit factories. However this is not a guaranteed formula. The real equation is: musician+GarageBand≠guaranteed instant hit. The secret for success remains as mysterious as ever.
H is for Hybrid Learning.
Hybrid or blended learning combines, or blends, classroom and online learning. This is a familiar practice in many schools. It provides for balance.
I is for individualised, informal and idiosyncratic.
Three important pedagogical approaches supported by technology in the music classroom.
J is for JITT (just-in-time technology).
To make better use of limited devices, schools have adapted the industry just-in-time model, preferring to manage limited resources rather than overstock with technology that may not meet their needs (McKenzie, 2003).
K is for know, knowledge and know-how.
Is knowledge obsolete? We no longer need to know, we just need to have the know-how to locate, evaluate and apply the knowledge available online. However, knowledge comes in handy for a dad to beat his daughters in online trivia games.
L is for loops.
Loops are counter-intuitive. Despite the potential to create monotony and homogeny, musical loops seem to be the wellspring for endless variety.
M is for Mobile learning.
Mobile learning means learning where you want and when you want using technology. However, learning in the physical presence of others and hearing an effective speaker live are still powerful modes of learning.
N is network.
Technology allows students and teachers alike to create their own network of peers, mentors and instructors.
O is for Open Source Software
Offering an alternative to proprietary software, Open Source Software builds equity into digital access ahead of equity on the NASDAQ.For the music classroom, these include Soundtrap and Noteflight.
P is for personalised.
Personalised learning offers the opportunity for differentiation and tailoring learning to individual needs. But education is more than an individual pursuit. Emphasising a personalised approach can lose sight of the benefit the community or society also receives.
Q is for questions.
Learning should be about the big questions.
R is for remote
“In nine months, a group of children left alone with a computer in any language, even in a remote Indian village, will reach the same standard as an office secretary in the West.” – Sugata Mitra.
S is for SOLE
Self-organised learning environments combine Broadband, collaboration and encouragement.
T is for teacher.
Technology is no substitute for the relationship between teacher and pupil. What technology does mean is that these roles are continually interchangeable.
U is for unknown.
Much is unknown about the future but technology will have a major role to play in jobs of the future.
V is for virtual.
Virtual manipulation allow learners to play around with ideas, adjust small variables and view or hear the effect.
W is for wonder.
“We need to design a future of learning by supporting children to tap into their wonder and their ability to work together.” – Sugata Mitra
X is for Xavier.
Francis Xavier, Sydney based DJ/Producer/Engineer/Musician/Party promoter/Label owner/Synth hoarder, is testament to the fact that there is more than one way to get into music.
Y is for YouTube.
Forget Wikipedia, YouTube is the “go to” information site for twenty-first century learners in Australia,
Z is for zero.
Technology promises zero boredom in classrooms but there is no guarantee.
References not mentioned in the MOOC
McKenzie, J.(2003, January). Just in time technology. In From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 12(5), January Retrieved 21/01/2017 from http://fno.org/jan03/jitt.html
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5)October. NCB University Press. Retrieved 20/01/2017 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Popular music in the classroom
Popular Music in the Classroom
The programming of popular music in secondary classrooms is not new. However, the MOOC, Music in the Twenty-first Century Classroom presents a research-based approach to the use of popular music to improve the interest and engagement of students in the classroom. But does this mean a total re-writing of the music curriculum?
In the course, Richard Gill presented the useful analogy of a balanced diet when it comes to classroom repertoire. The NSW BOSTES syllabuses provide for such a balance in every stage. It is an important foundation for the wide listening approach that students need to have to succeed in the HSC aural skills exam. The ability to appreciate and learn from a variety of music also promotes deeper musical and cultural understanding.
Popular music has a place in the music curriculum, not just to promote engagement with the musical material but because its interest for the listener derives, in part, from the effective employment of musical concepts. However, even using examples from the students’ own musical culture is not a guarantee of successful learning. As Professor Lucy Green observes, teenagers often focus on the words of their favourite songs and it takes a skilled teacher to introduce students to the techniques and terms that will allow them to identify, analyse and employ the musical features of the repertoire.
It’s also important that the use of repertoire from students' own musical culture is authentic. The music should be recognised for its musical merit, not just seen as a sugar coating for the theory pill or a stepping-stone to the study of “real” music. I think this is entirely in keeping with the philosophy outlined by Richard Gill, as well as the approach advocated by Francis Xavier and Adam Maggs in the course videos and the LiveStudio syllabus. Having the students choose their own music, as suggested by Lucy Green, helps in recognising the authenticity of the music.
My final comment is that a balance of established and new material that represents contemporary culture, is also required to save over-burdening teachers. The present system that requires teachers to document, in detail, every curriculum decision and teaching practice is a disincentive to innovation. Managing the “new” by balancing it with the established curriculum and repertoire makes innovation possible.
The programming of popular music in secondary classrooms is not new. However, the MOOC, Music in the Twenty-first Century Classroom presents a research-based approach to the use of popular music to improve the interest and engagement of students in the classroom. But does this mean a total re-writing of the music curriculum?
In the course, Richard Gill presented the useful analogy of a balanced diet when it comes to classroom repertoire. The NSW BOSTES syllabuses provide for such a balance in every stage. It is an important foundation for the wide listening approach that students need to have to succeed in the HSC aural skills exam. The ability to appreciate and learn from a variety of music also promotes deeper musical and cultural understanding.
Popular music has a place in the music curriculum, not just to promote engagement with the musical material but because its interest for the listener derives, in part, from the effective employment of musical concepts. However, even using examples from the students’ own musical culture is not a guarantee of successful learning. As Professor Lucy Green observes, teenagers often focus on the words of their favourite songs and it takes a skilled teacher to introduce students to the techniques and terms that will allow them to identify, analyse and employ the musical features of the repertoire.
It’s also important that the use of repertoire from students' own musical culture is authentic. The music should be recognised for its musical merit, not just seen as a sugar coating for the theory pill or a stepping-stone to the study of “real” music. I think this is entirely in keeping with the philosophy outlined by Richard Gill, as well as the approach advocated by Francis Xavier and Adam Maggs in the course videos and the LiveStudio syllabus. Having the students choose their own music, as suggested by Lucy Green, helps in recognising the authenticity of the music.
My final comment is that a balance of established and new material that represents contemporary culture, is also required to save over-burdening teachers. The present system that requires teachers to document, in detail, every curriculum decision and teaching practice is a disincentive to innovation. Managing the “new” by balancing it with the established curriculum and repertoire makes innovation possible.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Technology in the Classroom
Provocation is an appropriate word for the 2014 EduTECH talk by Professor Stephen Heppell(EduTECH talk by Stephen Heppell on teaching technologies on the cusp). Heppell’s closing statement that every child should have a mobile phone, even from the age of five, was born of his observation of the role of technology in the twenty-first century and his own granddaughter’s positive and creative use of the technology. For a person involved in academia, however, it seemed to ignore studies that question the educational effectiveness of technology and highlight the dangers of unsupervised access for children and young people to the Internet.
This article from The Guardian, Could Steiner schools have a point on children, tablets and tech? reports similar findings to that of recent studies of the educational performance of Australian students: 2016 Naplan results show that literacy and numeracy have flatlined
Even Heppell’s example from the music industry of the influence of technology could be questioned. While many musicians have embraced, if not conceded, that digital downloads and YouTube have denied them an income from their recorded music, the live music “experience” in the twenty-first century is also evolving. On one hand, there is the proliferation of devices at concerts. Take the time to observe the growing number of audience members preferring the small screen view to actually soaking in the performance with their own eyes.An adult example of the Childhood at Risk suggested by Steiner-Waldorf education, when the natural learning of children is replaced by technology.
(Source: https://uniquelytoronto.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/i_mother_earth_august_2014-croppped.jpg?w=830)
The importance of live performance to a musician’s income is also increasing pressure on opening hours and the resulting social and medical problems arising from prolonged alcohol consumption.
This is not to dismiss technology all together but its place in education has to be considered and effective. Of more significance for educators than a growing ownership and use of technology is Heppell’s fundamental question, “What makes for good learning?”
In the preface to Music Learning Today (2014), Bauer says something similar. “The decision on whether or not to utilise technology for learning, and the specific techniques that might be best suited for a particular learning context, should begin with a consideration of the curricular outcomes (music subject matter) (William I. Bauer, 2014. Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing and Responding. New York: Oxford University Press. Preface, page xii)”.
As Steve Collis, Director of Innovation at Northern Beaches Christian School suggested in video one, the use of technology should support learning. That is not to say that learning only takes place within the classroom. Music teachers, perhaps more than other teachers, know that learning about music is about being immersed in the subject matter and inspired and guided by a range of musicians and mentors in a range of contexts away from school. The music classroom is the context in which students can be challenged as creators, performers and audience members to develop reflective and critical thinking skills. Skills which expand their understanding and engagement with a wider world of imagination, cultural identity and the human condition. Experiences that will, in turn, foster the desired twenty-first century attributes of empathy, inventiveness, connection and storytelling, set out by Virginia Moller from Kamaroi Rudolf Steiner school.
Simply supplying the technology is not enough. The role of the teacher in a technology-rich classroom is as a guide and mentor, rather than as a keeper of information, as Natalie See from Hilltop Public School explained. The challenge for teachers is to need to know how to effectively design, support and evaluate the use of technology to maximise learning (Bauer, 2014, p, xi).
This article from The Guardian, Could Steiner schools have a point on children, tablets and tech? reports similar findings to that of recent studies of the educational performance of Australian students: 2016 Naplan results show that literacy and numeracy have flatlined
Even Heppell’s example from the music industry of the influence of technology could be questioned. While many musicians have embraced, if not conceded, that digital downloads and YouTube have denied them an income from their recorded music, the live music “experience” in the twenty-first century is also evolving. On one hand, there is the proliferation of devices at concerts. Take the time to observe the growing number of audience members preferring the small screen view to actually soaking in the performance with their own eyes.An adult example of the Childhood at Risk suggested by Steiner-Waldorf education, when the natural learning of children is replaced by technology.
The importance of live performance to a musician’s income is also increasing pressure on opening hours and the resulting social and medical problems arising from prolonged alcohol consumption.
This is not to dismiss technology all together but its place in education has to be considered and effective. Of more significance for educators than a growing ownership and use of technology is Heppell’s fundamental question, “What makes for good learning?”
In the preface to Music Learning Today (2014), Bauer says something similar. “The decision on whether or not to utilise technology for learning, and the specific techniques that might be best suited for a particular learning context, should begin with a consideration of the curricular outcomes (music subject matter) (William I. Bauer, 2014. Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing and Responding. New York: Oxford University Press. Preface, page xii)”.
As Steve Collis, Director of Innovation at Northern Beaches Christian School suggested in video one, the use of technology should support learning. That is not to say that learning only takes place within the classroom. Music teachers, perhaps more than other teachers, know that learning about music is about being immersed in the subject matter and inspired and guided by a range of musicians and mentors in a range of contexts away from school. The music classroom is the context in which students can be challenged as creators, performers and audience members to develop reflective and critical thinking skills. Skills which expand their understanding and engagement with a wider world of imagination, cultural identity and the human condition. Experiences that will, in turn, foster the desired twenty-first century attributes of empathy, inventiveness, connection and storytelling, set out by Virginia Moller from Kamaroi Rudolf Steiner school.
Simply supplying the technology is not enough. The role of the teacher in a technology-rich classroom is as a guide and mentor, rather than as a keeper of information, as Natalie See from Hilltop Public School explained. The challenge for teachers is to need to know how to effectively design, support and evaluate the use of technology to maximise learning (Bauer, 2014, p, xi).
Friday, December 23, 2016
The Place of Music in Twenty-first Century Education
I have just begun a MOOC designed by Dr James Humberstone from the Sydney Con. which looks at the place of technology in music education. I am learning a lot that is relevant to both of my present school roles. It's important to draw out, from examples such as Northern Beaches Christian School, principles and pedagogical approaches that can be applied even when your school infrastructure and funding doesn't run to multiple JamHub studios and 1:1 devices.
What I have seen so far is the implementation of principles and practices set out in more general texts on technology in education, such as, Leading a digital school, Edited by Mal Lee and Michael Gaffney, and obviously the texts cited by Dr Humberstone, such as Music Technology and Education: Amplifying Musicality by Andrew Brown. I am also learning new terminology for old practices such as "setting the benchmarks for productivity and creativity". I'll leave you to work out what that means.
I know that may sound as if I don't think I have much to learn and that is far from the case. I have great admiration for Stephen Harris, the principal at NBCS, with whom I used to work. He has set a benchmark for educational innovation, especially the use of technology, but also in other areas related to learning, some of which have been covered in the opening videos. I am pleased to see what Brad Fuller and Peter Orenstein have done with the opportunities given to them and, so far, satisfied that I am moving - though somewhat more gradually - along the same trajectory regarding the use of technology. It is as important to be affirmed in what you are doing as it is to be challenged to be innovative in the way we meet students' needs.
What I do look forward to discovering, is ways to move into the Re-definition level of the SAMR model. So far, I would argue, the examples shown are really only replacing or augmenting older practices and experiences with technological substitutes. You might have other opinions.
(Image from Cathy Shrock's Guide to Everything)
If the SAMR model is new to you, then you might like to find out more about it here:
SAMR and Twenty-first century learning
In the meantime, I thought that I might brazenly take this opportunity to share something of my own work. This is a link to information about a teaching kit for the Song Cycle, Compassion by Lior and Nigel Westlake.Below is a link to one of many YouTube clips of movements from Compassion.
Compassion Teaching Kit
What I have seen so far is the implementation of principles and practices set out in more general texts on technology in education, such as, Leading a digital school, Edited by Mal Lee and Michael Gaffney, and obviously the texts cited by Dr Humberstone, such as Music Technology and Education: Amplifying Musicality by Andrew Brown. I am also learning new terminology for old practices such as "setting the benchmarks for productivity and creativity". I'll leave you to work out what that means.
I know that may sound as if I don't think I have much to learn and that is far from the case. I have great admiration for Stephen Harris, the principal at NBCS, with whom I used to work. He has set a benchmark for educational innovation, especially the use of technology, but also in other areas related to learning, some of which have been covered in the opening videos. I am pleased to see what Brad Fuller and Peter Orenstein have done with the opportunities given to them and, so far, satisfied that I am moving - though somewhat more gradually - along the same trajectory regarding the use of technology. It is as important to be affirmed in what you are doing as it is to be challenged to be innovative in the way we meet students' needs.
What I do look forward to discovering, is ways to move into the Re-definition level of the SAMR model. So far, I would argue, the examples shown are really only replacing or augmenting older practices and experiences with technological substitutes. You might have other opinions.
If the SAMR model is new to you, then you might like to find out more about it here:
SAMR and Twenty-first century learning
In the meantime, I thought that I might brazenly take this opportunity to share something of my own work. This is a link to information about a teaching kit for the Song Cycle, Compassion by Lior and Nigel Westlake.Below is a link to one of many YouTube clips of movements from Compassion.
Compassion Teaching Kit
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Teaching ICT
This year I've been putting my ETL323 skill into practice teaching ICT to a 4/5 class. I began by using the Cybersafety course from Google. http://www.google.com/educators/digitalliteracy.html
I found the set-up of the activities better than ACMA Cybersmart. The Google videos, for example, go very quickly but the students do catch on. This works better than the text dialogue boxes on the ACMA site (which have a sound version, which gets very noisy).
However, when the videos stop on YouTube a page comes up which includes some less-than-helpful images that are almost examples of the very things the video has said to avoid. I shall be contacting Google or YouTube (who host the videos) about this. The Google site has presenter aids (images and text) and workbooks. In the end, I took bits and pieces from these that would work with my age group and left out the sections which were for older learners.
I did use the Cybersmart Quiz at the end and issued the successful students with a Cybersafety licence and a letter that reminds of the consequences of breaching the guidelines that they have learnt.
This term, I'm using ideas from the Student Blog Challenge to use with the students setting up their own blogs through kidsblog.
http://studentchallenge.edublogs.org
In future I would finish Cybersafety earlier and enrol my group into the March session of the challenge.
I found the set-up of the activities better than ACMA Cybersmart. The Google videos, for example, go very quickly but the students do catch on. This works better than the text dialogue boxes on the ACMA site (which have a sound version, which gets very noisy).
However, when the videos stop on YouTube a page comes up which includes some less-than-helpful images that are almost examples of the very things the video has said to avoid. I shall be contacting Google or YouTube (who host the videos) about this. The Google site has presenter aids (images and text) and workbooks. In the end, I took bits and pieces from these that would work with my age group and left out the sections which were for older learners.
I did use the Cybersmart Quiz at the end and issued the successful students with a Cybersafety licence and a letter that reminds of the consequences of breaching the guidelines that they have learnt.
This term, I'm using ideas from the Student Blog Challenge to use with the students setting up their own blogs through kidsblog.
http://studentchallenge.edublogs.org
In future I would finish Cybersafety earlier and enrol my group into the March session of the challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)