Listening to the crystal ball the future of the instrumental music curriculum

5301G Curriculum Theory Instructor: Dr. Daphne Heywood

Andrew Cohen 100412889

2 Technology has brought new possibilities and challenges to every aspect of life, including education, and including instrumental music education. Partly in response to changes in technology and the resulting social changes, curriculum theory has developed new understandings of learning and teaching, which require different approaches in the classroom. At the same time, music outside of school has gone through revolutionary changes based on new technologies. How will instrumental music educators of the 21st century change the way they teach to reflect these changes? What will the instrumental music curriculum look like in the future? I begin by discussing future trends in education in general, and then focus on three issues facing instrumental music education. I then suggest ways forward which address those issues, while reflecting on the overarching goals of instrumental music education. Some of the suggested approaches and strategies use existing technology; others project into the future, imagining possible future technologies and situations in which they may be used.

The Future of Curriculum

Technology to be specific, information communication technology (ICT) is here to stay. In fact, the changes we have witnessed over the past several decades since the Internet became accessible to the public are just the beginning. In the very near future, people will be able to access every function of a phone, media player, camera and computer using a handheld device (Merchant, 2007). Education, however, has not only failed to capitalise on technology, but has actively resisted its incursion into the classroom. There is an increasing dichotomy between the technology experienced by students in schools, and the technology they use daily beyond the walls of the classroom. As Mark Prensky states, students are being asked to dumb down technologically when they come to school (2005).

3 Merchant (2007) describes four current, ongoing trends in technology: convergence, portability, pervasiveness, and transparency (page 126). Portable devices do everything: the distinct roles of phone, camera and computer are converging into single devices; they can go everywhere; they impact every aspect of life; and they are more and more intuitive and easy to use. Combine these devices with universal urban wireless coverage (and its not just phone companies but governments who are providing this1) and cloud-based computing2, and students can now do everything they would do with a phone, camera and computer wherever they are, whenever they want. This technology is collaborative. Bull et al (2008) observes how the internet has freed up peoples cognitive surplus, giving them the opportunity and medium(s) to collaborate, communicate, and contribute to shared knowledge (e.g., Wikipedia) (Greenhow, 2008). Knowledge today, Gilbert states (2007), is collaborative, shared, group-based rather than individual. The nature of knowledge has changed, and therefore the nature of learning has changed. Previously, knowledge was something a person gained; now it is something that is shared, and is used to create something new. Learning is no longer memorisation of information (why would it be when so much information is literally at a students fingertips?); rather, learning is the mastery of knowledge to the extent that new knowledge is generated, drawing from a range of disciplines (Gilbert, 2007). The focus of education has shifted from the teacher to the student. Traditional education followed a transmission model: the teacher decided what the students need to learn, and delivered that information to students. Education has begun moving away from this model to one where students have a greater say in their learning, a model in which learning is a transaction between teachers and students. Student-centered learning gives students the responsibility for choosing how they will reach

See, for example, http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101207_wifi_in_all_us_federal_buildings/ On cloud computing, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-cloud-computing

4 clearly-stated learning objectives; they choose what they learn, how and when they learn it, and how they demonstrate that learning. Learning skills especially creativity and innovation; flexibility and adaptability; the ability to collaborate and work productively with others; and the ability to learn independently, to be a lifelong learner will be more valued than memorized knowledge. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills a US Department of Education initiative lists the following skills in its Framework as being essential for students experiencing success in a 21st century workplace and society: Creativity and Innovation Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Communication and Collaboration Information Literacy Media Literacy ICT (Information, Communications and Technology) Literacy Flexibility and Adaptability Initiative and Self-Direction Social and Cross-Cultural Skills Productivity and Accountability Leadership and Responsibility

[The] revised National Educational Technology Standards for Students (International Society for Technology in Education, 2007)emphasize creativity and innovation, communication, collaboration, research and information fluency, problem-solving and decision-making, and digital citizenship (Greenhow, 2008).

5 Paramount among 21st Century learning skills listed here and elsewhere is creativity: not just gaining knowledge, but using knowledge to create new understandings (Gilbert, 2007), being innovative, thinking outside the box. Knowledge used to be power, but in a world where everyone has access to huge amounts of information, simply knowing something isnt enough: its being able to create something new with that knowledge that counts. Elliott Eisner claims that education can learn new ways of thinking from the arts, many of which are related to the creative nature of the arts. Using critical thinking to determine what is meaningful and worth keeping during the creative process; being flexible in ones purpose, and allowing for unexpected outcomes; allowing for different ways of expressing ideas; working within the parameters of a genre or creative form; and appreciating the intrinsic value of creating or learning (Eisner, 2002a) all are ways of thinking generic to the arts, and to creative thinking in general. The role of education is no longer to equip employees for jobs, but to develop the whole person cognitively, socially, and morally: character education is now a central aspect of the curriculum. One of the goals of the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on educational Goals for Young Australians a key document which informed Australias new national curriculum is that students become confident and creative individuals who develop personal values and attributes such as honesty, resilience, empathy and respect for others, and active and informed citizens who act with moral and ethical integrity (MCEETYA, 2008, page 9). Curriculum is no longer simply a list of objectives to be met; rather, it deals holistically with the development of students as future world citizens and members of society.

Issues Facing Music Education

I will focus on three issues: an outmoded teacher-focused, transmission of knowledge style of instruction common in music education today; the dichotomy between school music and music outside of school; and the lack of integration of technology in music education. Teacher-focused learning Instrumental music education is rooted in a transmission curriculum orientation. Teachers choose what is to be learnt, and deliver it to the students. Teachers select music to be learnt from a canon of masterpieces. There is a strong heritage of focus, even dependence, on the master-teacher; some private instrumental teachers trace their musical lineage back to great teachers of the past. Rote learning (Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge) and repetitive practising play a significant role in learning an instrument. Progress is assessed through performance, mainly through live solos performances in front of a class. Students have little say in what they learn, how they learn it or how they demonstrate their learning. In Band classes, students are expected to subvert their individual creativity to that of the band director; many models of band-leading advocate firm leadership, which allows no room or time for dissent or independent thought or action. One band leader advocates a model where students do not pause from playing for any more than 10 seconds at a time, allowing no leeway for student decision-making, discussion or dispute (Allsup & Benedict, 2008). The exceptions to this approach are in those schools that use technology effectively, especially to teach composing. Students tend to work individually, at their own pace, and with a greater degree of selfdirection than in regular music classes. The teacher adopts the role of facilitator and technician, rather than the source of all knowledge (Cain, 2004). However, this model is the exception rather than the rule.

7 At a time when students in other disciplines are being encouraged to have a greater say in their learning, music educations reliance on a teacher-focused model of learning is at odds with much of the rest of students experience of schooling. This may be endemic to teaching of certain disciplines which involve the development of gross- or fine-motor control music, athletics and dance spring to mind but there may also be more student-centered approaches or elements within the music program which can be taught in this way, while still fostering such development. School music vs. real world music There is a significant dichotomy between music in schools and music in the real world. The types of music heard in schools, the way that students learn music, and how music and recording technology is used (or not used) in schools bear little relation to how most professional musicians operate. Many instrumental music programs focus on concert band repertoires, genres of music that have a limited following within the spectrum of professional music. When instrumental music programs were being established in schools across the US (which drives trends in music education across North America), there were excellent reasons for adopting these instruments and the models of education that go with them: it was the age of the big band, and there was a clear connection with music outside of school. That is not the case today. Similarly, recorder ensembles are rarely heard outside the walls of the elementary school classroom. Again, these instruments (student versions, at least) are affordable, portable and durable, and students who have mastered the recorder find the transition to other woodwind instruments easier than those who have not. However, there are options available today other than band instruments or recorders, options which connect more with how music is made professionally and which open up broader creative opportunities for students. I will explore these options below. Suffice to say there is a clear disconnect between the instruments students use in a classroom and the instruments they listen to and see in the hands of performers outside of school.

8 Professional musicians work with music in a completely different way to how music is taught and learnt in schools. Most musicians working in commercial music (pop, rock, and similar styles) combine a thorough knowledge of theory chord structures, harmonic progressions, scales and rhythmic patterns with powerful aural acuity. Students, on the other hand, are taught to read music in order to be able to play it. In short, although they know the notes and what they mean, professional musicians in the commercial realm play by ear a lot more than music students do. It can be argued that learning to read music is best done through playing, and combining the two activities reading music and performing is the logical way to do this. However, there seems to be little room for developing an entire aspect of music making (playing by ear), one which dominates real-life music. Jonathan Savage (2005a) conducted an in-depth interview with Alex, a commercially successful modern day composer, and found that his experience of formal music education at best was a total irrelevance (and at worst it failed him completely). Savage concludes that something is missing from music education if someone who effectively ignores it completely goes on to make a career in music. Students are avid consumers of music, perhaps more continuously than in any previous generation. Recent technological developments and the increasing impact of the media mean that listening to and creating music constitute a major and integral part of many young peoples lives (Nilsson and Folkestad, 2005, page 21). They are immersed in a musical world its just a world that bears little or no resemblance to that of their music classes, partly because the technology students use on a daily basis, like most music technology, has failed to make it past the classroom door (Prensky, 2005). (Non) integration of technology Music technology has transformed the way music is composed, recorded, produced and distributed. Composers have embraced technology for decades, and used it push the boundaries of what music is. The modern composer will work at a computer as much as with acoustic instruments. This is especially

9 true for composers who write for film or other multimedia works. Most commercial musicians in the field of popular music have access to their own recording equipment. Todays recording equipment is significantly more affordable and portable than that of even 10 years ago (Savage, 2005). Professional recording engineers and producers now work almost exclusively in a digital format, using computer programs to capture, modify and master recordings. Music is distributed online, allowing unprecedented access, and allowing composers to collaborate from opposite ends of the world. Little of this technology is seen within the walls of todays music classrooms (Cain, 2004). Some students use simple computer programs to compose and arrange music; a lucky few take sound engineering classes in high school. In most music programs, however, current technology is more noted for its absence.

The Future of Music Curriculum

The goals of music education In keeping with Stenhouses approach to curriculum as a process, it is important to ask what the purpose of music education is; we ask the question Why are we teaching this? so as to guide the questions What should we teach? and How should we teach it? The first goal of music education is to develop musicality: the ability to discern and manipulate musical elements (such as pitch, rhythm, dynamics, tone, articulation, texture, and form) to create meaning. This involves cognitive and aural development the ability to think and perceive musically and technical development the ability to produce and control musical elements.

10 Students who develop musicality then have the opportunity to pursue music throughout their lives to become lifelong learners as they wish. This may mean pursuing a career as a musician; being involved in amateur music; or being a patron of the arts. The second goal of music education is to develop creativity: the ability to generate and order new material in innovative and original ways. Vygotsky stated that creativity is an essential condition for existence (2004, page 11). The exact nature of creativity is a source of much debate (for example, see Csikszentmihalyis concept of flow); but it is generally agreed that it requires several elements: Exposure to thought-provoking ideas, material, music, art, poetry, writing, life experiences Freedom to explore and experiment Time to reflect on and refine the creative ideas Sufficient control of a medium in which the creative process takes place, and through which the creative product is transmitted (Andrews, 2004; Lapidaki, 2007) Students who develop creativity will be the innovators who push music forward. More than that, however, they will develop an ability that is both elusive and highly-sought in the 21st century. Sir Ken Robinson argues that creativity should be ranked as highly as literacy and numeracy in our schools3, such is the demand for innovative thinking in our world today. Gilbert (2007) suggests that knowledge is now no longer merely knowing information; it is drawing together realms of information from diverse sources and creating new understandings, new knowledge from them. In a sense, talking of developing skills in students seems to align more with a view of curriculum as product rather than as process. However, this dual goal of musicality and creativity is very general, and a far cry from the detailed objectives of Bobbitt and Tyler. The development of creativity is especially

Do Schools Kill Creativity? Address at 2006 TED Conference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

11 suited to curriculum as a process, as students will most successfully explore their creativity at their own pace, in their own style, and with some degree of autonomy in how they proceed. Music education which has these two goals could also be seen as an example of curriculum as praxis, as one aspect of the greater good is freeing students to develop, utilize and enjoy their musical and creative abilities. How can music educators continue to develop musicality and creativity in their students in the 21st century a time when technology continues to transform our world, and the teacher-driven transmission style of education in general gives way to student-centred learning? I will suggest possible ways of addressing the three issues outlined above; some are achievable today or in the very near future, while others are further over the horizon. Taking the focus off the teacher How can instrumental music be made more student-centered? How can teachers give students the freedom to explore and direct their own learning? One way is by using project-based and problembased learning (PBL). Below are three examples of this kind of learning: one from the literature, and two from my own classroom. One model is presented by Lucy Green (2005). A group of Grade 10 students were asked to work out a familiar popular song without the sheet music. The students demonstrated a (surprising) degree of focus in achieving a musical goal. Their dialogue in fact, their entire experience in this project was also remarkably similar to that of professional musicians. Furthermore, it required a high level of collaboration.

12 While much of my teaching is still rooted in the past, there are several activities my instrumental music students do that reflect a more student-centered approach. Both involve significant collaboration to achieve a group performance goal; both are in the nature of problem-based or project-based learning. Change it Up! Students work in groups of about 5 (self- or teacher-selected). Each member of the group works out a short melody, based on a common group of notes. They perform the melody to the group. As a group they select one of the melodies, and all learn it. Using the melody, they create a short piece in theme and variations form, by repeating the melody, each time altering various musical elements such as rhythm, tempo, dynamics, articulation, instrumentation, and texture. They notate the piece, using traditional music notation (notes, rests, etc.) or graphic notation of their own devising. Finally, they perform the piece for the class, and complete a short reflection piece, including some selfand peer-assessment. On the Record Students work in groups of 3-6 (self-selected). They prepare a short (1-2 minute) ensemble piece, provided by the teacher (some choice is given, based on the students playing and reading abilities). They then record their parts individually, using a simplified recording studio set up, and mix the parts into a unified whole. Some instruction in using the technology is given initially; ideally, the need for teacher assistance diminishes during the project. Students create a take-home recording of the final product, and complete a short reflection piece at the end, including some self- and peerassessment. Although student-centred learning is most effective when it encompasses the entire curriculum, all three projects share large degree of autonomy (within clearly set parameters) and self-direction on the part of the students. As 21st century collaborative thinkers, they work in groups. At the end of the project, they reflect on their own learning and that of their colleagues. This style of learning helps

13 develop initiative and creativity, and gives students a greater degree of say over their own learning than traditional approaches. Bridging the school/real world gap There is currently a gulf between students musical experiences in and out of school. This lack of cultural relevance only harms music education. For the sake of self-preservation, if for nothing else, music teachers will recognise the need to bridge this gulf. Music education has long treated popular music with disdain, in favour of classical music classical in the sense of its worth having been proven over time. In the future, the musical abilities of professional performers and composers of all styles of music will be more widely acknowledged, leading to greater connection between the classroom and students own musical experiences. Song-writing, playing in a band, public performance, will all have a place in the curriculum. Teachers can give students problem-based learning tasks with real-world connections - for example: Compose music for a graduation ceremony Choose music to be used in an advertising campaign Select and perform music for a wedding (or a funeral) Take the raw mix that exists at the end of a bands recording session, and produce a finished recording Nominate a local artist for an award Music education tends to follow the development of music in the real world just several generations later. For the past 100 years, classical composers have been exploding the definition of music. 20th Century classical music included these explorations:

14 Dissonance as the norm (Stravinksy et al) Extremes in all musical elements brevity, dynamics, instrumentation, etc. Rejection of the 12-semitone division of the octave (use of quarter tones, indeterminate pitches) Sound from the human environment (e.g., John Cage, 344) and natural environment (e.g., Messiaen) as music Composing and/or performance guided by chance, or with chance elements Rejection of Western tonality and harmony in favour of a mathematical-based system (Serialism) Use of repetition (Minimalism) Synthesis of a wide range of musical styles historical (Medieval, Baroque, Classical, etc.), popular (jazz, rock, folk), and multicultural Use of non-instruments (e.g., radios, found objects) as instruments

Few of these innovations have found their way into the classroom, other than as oddities in a study of music history, with one exception: the use of found objects, as popularized by Stomp and other similar groups (e.g., Blue Man Group). Students are rarely equipped or encouraged to explore redefinitions of music. In the future, definitions of music will continue to broaden, and this will filter into the music classroom. Students will be asked to define music, and then to redefine it, creating music in new ways. Integrating technology Technology can be used within the classroom in a myriad of ways. One possible use which could further help build connections with students musical experiences is to use technology to bring relevant, highquality, educational music into the classroom.

15 One aspect of developing musicality is being exposed to lots of music. However, the development of musicality will be enhanced if the musical choices made by teachers and students have these features: high levels of technical skill and musicality in the performance the possibility of a connection being made between the student and the music often, this is in the story or meaning of the music clear instances of manipulation of specific musical elements for example, the use of dynamics in the 2nd movement of Beethovens 3rd Piano Concerto, or the change in styles in Queens Bohemian Rhapsody something which provokes the listener to engage with the music in a meaningful way that is, they are listening rather than simply hearing Teachers can make better use of current technology to bring this kind of music into the classroom, and into students lives outside of the classroom. For example, teachers can simply use mp3 players in the classroom, combined with readily available amplification. Teachers can easily prepare playlists of music to go with a specific lesson, and flick quickly between pieces to make a point or demonstrate a musical element. Teachers can also write blogs and add links to school web pages with suggested listening ideas. Web hunts based on the many effective and appealing websites of professional orchestras4 can guide students through a wide range of listening experiences in a short time Technology can give immediate feedback to students as they perform, compose, learn theory and develop aural skills. Smart Music is a program which visually tracks a students progress through a piece;

See www.dsokids.com (Dallas Symphony Orchestra); www.sfskids.com (San Francisco Symphony); www.nyphilkids.org (New York Philharmonic)

16 notes that are in time and in tune turn green; red notes indicate deviant pitches and/or timing. Portable digital recorders and computer-based programs such as Audacity, Cubase and ProTools record and play back performances. Finale, Sibelius and Logic are just three of many score-writing programs which play notes as the student enters them, and then play back the piece, using the instruments of the students choosing. Game-based drill programs such as MusicAce teach and test theory and aural skills. The immediate feedback on their performing, composing and learning motivates and directs students powerfully. Some of these kinds of programs are already available as apps for smart phones; it seems likely that students will have mobile access to all of these functions and more in the very near future. Mobile devices are becoming more powerful, converging functions previously performed by separate devices phone, camera, computer into one portable device (Merchant, 2007). Assuming personal computing devices become standard classroom items, there are almost countless individual uses for this immense pool of technology in music classes (see Prensky, 2006). Here are just a few ideas: Keyboard labs, using piano lesson apps Portable recording Sound and video editing Metronomes Sampling found sounds to use as the basis for compositions Performance currently focuses on playing traditional instruments. The ability to manipulate musical elements, to demonstrate musicality, is tied to the ability to play an instrument. This physical ability and it is physical, as it involves breath control, precise shaping of the lips and mouth (embouchure), and finger dexterity should not limit students ability to make music.

17 Similarly, teaching compositing in schools still often focuses on using traditional notation, which is a significant hurdle for many students. In music classes for younger children, students will create music without notation, usually by improvising in groups. Once students begin creating individual pieces of music that are intended to be kept, however, music teachers turn to music notation as a means of not only preserving the piece, but as the means of composing as well. Thus, a students ability to create music is tied to his ability to read and write music, using a universal notation that is 400 years old and (this is how rooted in tradition music education is) requires a certain degree of fluency in Italian. In the future, definitions of performance and composing will broaden, allowing all students to make and invent music, with less dependence on technical skill or theoretical knowledge. Computer-based manipulation of musical elements will become more widely recognized as a valid expression of both performance and composing. This could take several forms: Computer-based composing through digital interfaces with existing instruments (MIDI), beginning with keyboard, but extending to other instruments. This technology not only already exists (Cubase, ProTools), but is the norm in commercial music; it has found its way into some schools. Manipulation of musical elements using symbols other than standard music notation. Again, this technology exists, and has been used in some schools around the world, especially with younger children: o Tseng & Chen (2008) outline research based on one of the more popular of these programs, Hyperscore o In 1996, the Norwegian Network for Technology, Acoustics and Music (NOTAM) developed a Java-based program called DSP which allows students to use graphic notation to compose; Rudi (2007) explains that students need no theoretical knowledge

18 to use the program; it resembles professional sequencing programs such as ProTools; and it lends itself to student-centred learning, as students can work through the program at their own pace and in their own direction o Gall and Breeze (2008) describe effective use of a program called eJay, which allows students to manipulate pre-recorded blocks of music to create larger musical pieces Loop-based composing (Garage Band, Acid): students choose from a bank of short pre-recorded musical phrases which can be repeated and modified to build a piece of music; loops are organized by instruments and style; further loops can be downloaded or shared via the internet Sound Engineering/ Music Production working to arrange and shape music during and after performance, including choosing which recorded takes to keep, considering the overall form of the piece of music, guiding performers to create the best overall sound, balancing the different parts (instruments and voices), adding effects like reverb, aligning parts rhythmically, and removing aural blemishes. This technology is found in every professional recording studio. It is generally more expensive and complicated; however, simpler versions do exist, and have been used in schools, albeit infrequently. Producing a piece of music calls on a wide range of musical skills, and involves significant critical thinking. One of the exciting developments of the internet has been the rise of collaborative creativity. People work together to create wikis, and are connected through a vast array of online social networks. The possibilities for music education are intriguing: is it possible to co-write a song with someone who is not even in the same country? Students can connect with other music students around the world. Teachers can form learning communities and share best practices and resources around the world. A growing number of students take instrumental lessons online, often from teachers from other countries. Professional musicians can mentor students, offering advice, insights and inspiration without every

19 meeting face to face. Students (and teachers) can conduct real research (Gilbert, 2007) by connecting with composers whose works they are studying, or finding out about music careers from professional musicians, without even having to leave the classroom. Currently, there is an equity issue concerning access to technology, locally, nationally and globally. It seems unlikely this will resolve itself in the foreseeable future. Educators will need to commit to addressing this issue in order for the myriad possibilities in music and in all other disciplines to be realized for all students. As in many subject areas, there is a degree of resistance to the uptake of new technologies among music teachers. Effective professional development will play a key role in helping teachers adapt to and adopt new technologies (Bauer, Reese & McAllister, 2003). Another requirement for better integration of technology into music classrooms is the development of a music curriculum which locates music technology within music education, which recognizes new forms of musical expression , and which recognizes that traditional classifications of activities within the music curriculum are no longer so well-defined. The digitization, simplification and affordability of music and video technology make new products possible. In a secondary school in England, Jonathan Savage and Mike Challis worked with students to create multimedia works which manipulated sounds and images from a set environment into multimedia products which fall outside the genres of musical works covered by the existing music curriculum. He calls for the establishment of a Digital Arts curriculum which would recognize these kinds of new possibilities (Savage and Challis, 2002). Gall and Breeze (2005) make a similar point in their exploration of multimodal compositions made possible by new technologies.

20 Tim Cain (2004) observes that the musical activities of performing, composing and listening, presented as discrete actions within the existing curriculum, are no longer so easily discernible or definable. Students can now create pieces of music by using computer programs to alter stylistic characteristics of an existing piece. Is this composing? What about performances that include pre-recorded or computergenerated material as well as live performers are they performances, compositions, or both? When students manipulate graphic symbols to arrange and re-arrange pre-existing fragments of music into a coherent piece of music, are they composing? These possibilities are not covered by the current curriculum. Currently, music teachers are more likely to be digital immigrants than digital natives, and many approach new technology with a natural hesitancy. Without clear guidance as to the place of music technology in the curriculum, or models for the implementation of this technology in the music classroom, teachers will integrate technology reluctantly. For music teachers to successfully and confidently embrace the technology which now exists in the real world and in their students worlds, the music curriculum must be revised. Technological changes have transformed music in the world beyond the classroom walls. It could do the same inside. The potential for technology to revolutionise music education is as enormous as the gulf between current professional music practices and how music is experienced in schools. If teachers find ways such as project-based learning and one-to-one interactions focused around computer-mediated composing to move the focus from the teacher to the student; if they can bring real-world music into the classroom; if they can, with guidance from a new curriculum, integrate even some of the existing technology into their teaching, music education can, not just cope with changes of the 21st century, but flourish.

21

Conclusion: my future as an instrumental music teacher

As a gaze into no, listen to my own crystal ball, I foresee my students: Engaging with project- and problem-based learning Connecting and collaborating with professional musicians through class visits, virtual field trips and online conversations Spending more time playing by ear Using composing software which moves away from a reliance on traditional notation Playing in band: yes, there still is a place for band as a means to experience musical ensemble as a student Using iPods, smartphones, iPads (and whatever devices will replace them in 10 years time) to create, record, explore and share their own music Using the school website to follow links to great listening sites, information about contemporary composers, other students work being showcased, and more Directing their own learning Continuing learning and making music throughout their lives Relishing in what it means to be creative!

22

References
Allsup, R. & Benedict, C. (2008). The Problems of Band: An Inquiry into the Future of Instrumental Music Education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 156-173. Andrews, B. (2004). How Composers Compose: In Search of the Questions. Research Issues in Music Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/vol2/andrews1.htm. Bauer, W., Reese, S., & McAllister, P. (2003). Transforming Music Teaching via Technology: The Role of Professional Development. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(4), 289-301. Retrieved 31/10/2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345656. Beckstead, D. (2001). Will Technology Transform Music Education? Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 4449. MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Retrieved 31/10/2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399692 Cain, T. (2004). Theory, technology and the music curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 21(2), 215221. DOI: 10.1017/S0265051704005650 Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65-72. Retrieved 17/09/2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179791 Eisner, E. (2002a). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? Originally given as the John Dewey Lecture for 2002, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/eisner_arts_and_the_practice_of_education.htm. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, 576-583. Retrieved from http://dothan.troy.edu/ed/rdavis/PDF%20files/EDU%206629/The%20Kind%20of%20Schools%20We%20 Need.pdf Gall, M. & Breeze, N. (2005). Music composition lessons: the multimodal affordances of technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 415-433. Gall, M., & Breeze, N. (2008). Music and ejay: an opportunity for creative collaborations in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 27-40. Gilbert, J. (2007). Knowledge, the disciplines, and learning in the Digital Age. Educational Research Policy Practice, 6, 115122. DOI 10.1007/s10671-007-9022-1 Green, L. (2005). The Music Curriculum as Lived Experience: Children's "Natural" Music-Learning Processes. Music Educators Journal, 91(4), 27-32. Retrieved 31/10/2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3400155. Greenhow, C. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning experiences in the age of participatory media: Commentary on Bull et al. (2008). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol8/iss3/editorial/article1.cfm Lapidaki, E. (2007). Learning From Masters of Music Creativity: Shaping Compositional Experiences in Music Education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 15(2), 93-117. DOI: 10.1353/pme.2007.0031

23 Machlis, J. The Enjoyment of Music (New York: Norton and Company, 1970). MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs) (2008). The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved from www.mceetya.edu.au. Merchant. G. (2007) Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118-128. Retrieved December 7, 2010 from http://blog.rogerfrancis.info/files/9/2/2/3/1/121276-113229/Merchant.pdf Nilssona, B.,& Folkestad, G. (2005). Childrens practice of computer-based composition. Music Education Research, 7(1), 21-37. Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me. Educause Review, September/October 2005, 61-64. Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63 (4), 8-13. Rudi, J. (2007). Computer Music Composition for Children. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 140-143. Savage, J. & Challis, M. (2002). A Digital Arts Curriculum? Practical ways forward. Music Education Research, 4(1). Savage, J. (2005). Working towards a theory for music technologies in the classroom: how pupils engage with and organise sounds with new technologies, British Journal of Music Education, 22(2), 167180. doi:10.1017/S0265051705006133. Savage, J. (2005a). Information communication technologies as a tool for re-imagining music education in the 21st century. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 6(2). Retrieved July 2010 from http://www.ijea.org/v6n2/. Tseng, J., Chen, M. (2008). Instructor-led or Learner-led for Elementary Learners to Learn Computerbased Music Composition? Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 2(1), 17-29. Vygotsky, L. (2004). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 797. Translated by M.E. Sharpe.