1

Mtn Lake Presentation 2015

Intro slide Thank you for coming to our session.

When the call for the Mt. Lake Colloquium came out last fall, we were in the middle
of a project in which we had challenged ourselves to integrate digital music
technologies into an undergraduate music education course. Our opening slide
suggests that we thought we were on to something. But the truth of the matter is
that, in some respects,

. . . we failed. We failed we because we made faulty assumptions, because we ignored
warning signs, and because we didnt enact our own pedagogical know-how. So this
presentation is in part a tale of lessons learned.

When we wrote the proposal, we included these thought questions: . . .
Looking at these questions now, with the benefit of hindsight, we probably already
knew that our grand experiment was going down the tubes. We just hadnt yet
admitted to ourselves that we were having problems. Still, hang on to these
questions as we go through the presentation, because we will return to them and
reframe them at the end.

As Sandy said, our goal was to integrate digital music making technologies into a
class called the Art of Teaching Children Music. I was going to be co-teaching with
Sandy in this course, and she said to me, Your job is to help me app up. In fact, our
broader goal was to engage beginning teachers in exploring digital technologies and
to encourage them to experiment with digital technologies in their teaching practice.

For context, The Art of Teaching Children Music is a four-credit class, and one of five
art of teaching courses in the ASU undergraduate curriculum. Students enroll
concurrently in an internship in a local elementary school. They take the course in
their junior or senior year. During the fall 2014 semester, the group included 13

undergraduates (two of whom were returning adults), 1 graduate student seeking

certification, 2 doctoral students, and 1 faculty member.

Throughout the course, we used digital technologies in five waysfor music making,
for music sharing, for observing children and each other, for reflecting and written
assignments, and for organizing. Well show you a little bit of each of the categories,
including some photos, video clips, and screen shots. We recognize that some of
these are problematic and others represent work in progress. In this presentation,
we will be focusing primarily on the first two categoriesmusic making and music
sharingbecause these were the categories that became most troubling.

In the category of music making, we used devices, such as smart phones and tablets,
and apps, such as Figure and Garageband, to do things such as cover familiar songs,
make music in hybrid ensembles, accompany singing, and create new pieces. Here
are a few very short clips of these music making engagments, including one phrase
of a slow and tortured rendition of the elementary school hit song Don Gato.

In the category of sharing music, we used web-based tools to do things such as
create song-teaching videos, share sound files for movement and teaching episodes,
notate arrangements and settings of songs, and access shared resources. Here are
two clips of song teaching videos

In the category of observing, we observed children by watching Youtube video sthat
we curated and through videos the students found. Studetns also used smart phones
and digital cameras to record and then watch their own teaching as well as teaching
by their peers.

For the reflecting and organizing categories, we used google forms and google docs,
in addition to the university platforms and word processing applications. In some
instances, we encouraged student to include examples of their course work in their
e-portfolios.

So here again are the five categories. In general, wethe students and ushad few
problems with the digital technologies for observing, reflecting, and organizing.
Even when, when digital technologies were new, students adapted quickly and, with
few exceptions, used them fluently. The technologies in the category of sharing
music were likewise relatively unproblematic. However, digital technologies for
music making, not so much . . .

. . . doing all of this sounds great but . . .

along the way we found that we had made several faulty assumptions that made for
big problems. We assumed that the students were, in fact, digital natives, that they
would engage eagerly with and playfully with digital music making technologies,
that they had seen digital music making technologies in use with or used by
children, and that they valued digital technologies for music making. We were
wrong about most of this. By revealing our faulty assumptions and by revealing
what students said about experiences with digital music making technologies, we
are not blaming the students. We are saying that we made pedagogical errors based
on these assumptions, and the students responses show our errors.

First of all we assumed that the student used technologies such as smart phones,
tablets, apps, and web tools in their personal and musical lives. In fact, we found that
although the students fit Prenskys early definition of digital nativethey were born
in the digital age or just before itsome of them did not necessarily use
technologies fluently, others largely unaware of some kinds of technologies, and in
some cases, they rejected the latest forms of digital technology altogether. As one
senior undergraduate student told us in the first week of class . . .

This should have been a red flag. But we moved right on into using iPads and smart
phones and apps without pause. Our second faulty assumption was that students
would be playful and interested in exploring and experimenting with digital music

making technologies. We thought that as we provided space for exploring and

experimenting, they would become even more interested and probably surpass us
with their inventiveness. Some students were playful, but others were clearly
overwhelmed. Other students thought that some uses of digital music making
technologies were pointless, and still others let us know that they wanted or needed
something different from us. Here are some quotes from end-of-semester
commentary that we invited. (Show quotes) The last quote includes a clue about
the third faulty assumption we made. Notice that the student says that kids can
explore and that she wanted more examples of how to use or include apps in her
practice.

The university students believed about children what we believed about themthat
they would be interested in using digital technologies for making music and that
children were already doing so. But in general, they had not seen children using
digital technologies for making music. Or if they had seen children do so, they were
not aware of what they had seen. In other words, we assumed an apprenticeship of
observation that didnt exist. And that leads to our fourth faulty assumption.

We did not ask the questions we are showing you. Instead, we assumed that the
university students saw value in using digital technologies for their own lives, their
music making, and their teaching. All we would have to do is open the possibilities
for their future work with children.

We were wrong again. As we noted earlier, a few students found almost all digital
music making technology pointless. Some rejected digital music making devices,
describing them as inauthentic, a lesser form of music making, or not as good as
real instruments.

In fact, except when we specifically encouraged or required inclusion of digital
music making technologies, we rarely observed studentseven those who were
most technologically adeptinclude digital music making technologies in their

teaching. We didnt see them choosing digital technologies for their own musical
play. They didnt mention digital music making technologies in their commentaries
about their work with children.

In other words, if our goal was to provide experiences that would encourage use of
digital music making technologies in their musical practices with children, then we
had more or less failed.

WHY?

Weve thought about our experience from a number of perspectives. One

perspective we considered is Mishra and Koehlers TPAC model.

We assumed technological knowledge, in part because we assumed digital
nativeness, and in part because we knew students had taken other courses that
included digital music making technologies. We did not ask about their
technological knowledge, we did not think about the broad range of kinds of
technological knowledge, and we did not think about transfer. We did not think
about depth heretechnological knowledge. We knew they had musical knowledge
(content) and plenty of it. But they had rather little experience in this space--the
overlap of technological and content knowledge. We provided some digital music
making experiences here, but all of the experiences we provided were
hybridmixing acoustic instruments with digital ones. In other words, we simply
substituted an app and an iPad for a guitar or a drum, which is fine, but doesnt go
very far in strengthening technological knowledge. We failed to provide for or
account for depth herein technological knowledge, so the students had little
chance to gain herein the overlap space. The semester was all about pedagogical
knowledge, among other thingswe actually frame pedagogy in terms of
principlesand by the end of the semester we saw some wonderful gains in this
space. But as we noted earlier, even the most technologically adept students did not
choose to include digital music making technologies in their final teaching

demonstrations or in their project portfolios at the end of the semester. We had

failed to engage them in this spacethe overlap of technology and pedagogy. We
assumed a self-pedagogythat students would know how to teach themselves new
technologies quickly, which was not the case for all of them, and we assumed they
would see applications of and transfer pedagogical principles to the use of digital
music making technologies. Again, that was an oversight or assumption on our part.
In short, because we didnt specifically facilitate experiences in these overlap areas,
the students had little chance to move toward the center of this model.

The TPAK model is one way to think about our experience, however, its not the only
way. So we are going to return to our faulty assumptions and theorize a bit
differently.

As we said, we assumed students were digital natives, but we didnt know what that
meant. Pretzkys early definition of digital nativesomeone born in the digital
agedoes not mean what digital knowledge, or digital expertise, and certainly not
what Pretzky later called digital wisdom. Because we didnt think about this, we
failed to know the learners. This fall, we plan to challenge ourselves to ask more
questions at the beginning of the semester, to find out about whether and how
students are using digital technologies to make music, and if they do, by inviting
them to show us and each other what technologies they use and how.

We built what we did on our strong beliefs about the value of exploration and play,
and those strategies, while good, were not enough. We failed to plan for transfer,
and we didnt think about iteration. Sandys research in creativity suggests that
time, tools, and techniques are interactive in creative processesbut we didnt much
attention to time and timing, and we were anticipating creative engagement with
digital music making technologies. Absent enough time and opportunities for
iteration, technique doesnt develop. We plan to rework and rethink the spaces and
experiences of the course so that they are more educative instead of potentially
miseducative. This means that we do more with fewer technologies. We also plan to

encourage the use of online tutorials and, given that we will know more about the
students experiences with digital technologies, encourage peer caching. Finally, we
plan to include more opportunities for digital music making alone instead of only
using digital technologies in hybrid music making settings.

One of our assumptions was an apprentice observation, when in fact what we really
found was an apprenticeship of non-observation. Just like us, students believed that
childrenthe next generation of digital nativeswere using and enjoying
technologies of all kinds and probably could probably do lots of things. But, they had
never actually seen children making music with digital technologies, and they hand
not see music making by children using digital technologies in schools. Whats more,
when we thought out about our own modeling throughout the semester, we rarely
using digital music making technologies in ways that seemed comfortable and
musical. For example, when questions came up about accompanying songs in ways
that support childrens voices, I picked up acoustic instruments without even
considering a digital option. I was, in effect, expecting students to do something they
had never seen and that I myself had not modeled in any way. Further, we had
made great use of Youtube videos to invite thinking about childrens singing or
movement, but we had not done anything similar for children using digital music
making technologies. So in the last few weeks, we have looked for videos, and they
are not so easy to find. Here are a few. Notice that in most were exploratory, which
will leads us to the final assumption.

Its good our last assumption has to do with value and meaning. While our work
together included various readings, problematizing, and critical reflections of just
about everything else, we had not chosen to do any of this related to digital
technologies and music making with children. Instead, we had used an add and stir
approach to including digital music making technologies without the kinds of critical
and thoughtful practice that we usually expect of ourselves. In our next iteration if
the course, we plan to more thoroughly in questions of value and meaning. Are


digital music making technologies good? Good for what? For whom? When?
Why?

Having analyzed our own practice, which was not so great, we return to our
questions with new minds and new ideas going forward.