The decision to employ ICT in any classroom bears ethical, intellectual, social and legal
responsibilities. A teacher must only undertake this duty when he or she may understand,
address and define the relationship between digital technology and improved learning. We
must enforce that, “the legitimacy of what comes across the internet needs to be observed
with vigilance,” (Ottawa, 2003) and ensure that our students are not only creators and
participants of this digital network, but are also discriminators of Media Literacy.
“To ignore...the staggering rate on innovation in ICT would be to fall behind.” (Yelland,
2001) However, research by MD’s such as Norman Doidge, and journalists such as Gary Small,
reiterate that digital networking, “is not only changing the way we live...it is profoundly
altering our brains.” (Small & Vorgan, 2008) Whilst digital technologies and high school
education are no longer two mutually exclusive concepts, their relationship and integration
must be monitored with vigilance. To deny the potential pitfalls that ICT could unveil in
development of the curriculum, facilitating a students learning potential or even in determining
a students distinction between media and reality would be naive. The benefits of ICT however
demonstrate, “deployment of innovative thinking, delivering personalised learning.” (Cocentra,
2011) So at what point may we determine that ICT will influence the curriculum in a manner
that will further engage and perpetuate learning in students without creating a, “digital
divide” (Poore, 2011) and consequently an educational divide amongst students, schools,
states and countries.
“The Australian Curriculum identify the importance of technology in school music
education.” (Southcott & Crawford, 2011, pp 1) Currently the presence of ICT in a nation-wide
music curriculum is two fold; including software as , “tool to support instruction,” and as a,
“platform for collaborative and creative learning.” (Southcott & Crawford, 2011, pp 1) Whilst
ICT and Music have conversed and influenced each other evolution for nearly 3 decades, the
exponential increase in technology use in the twenty-first century has made their relationship
problematic in my opinion. Primarily ICT functioned as a supporting tool to music skills, for
example in music notation software which allowed for mass produced, universal and standard
music composition, or recording software. The current array of technology based resources
such as, “hardware interfaces, electronic keyboards, MIDI interfaces, multitrack recorder,
iPods,” (Southcott & Crawford, 2011, pp 1) create new platforms from which students may
create, share and perform in new dimensions, however the threaten to devalue and even
destroy the fundamentals upon which music learning was born. A year 6 Music exam from
Kingsford-Smith School in the ACT asked its students, “what is sound the result of?” (Williams,
2011) to which the correct answer was, “vibrations in the air.” Another question asked, “What
creates tone colour?” to which one would respond, “the way the instrument is played and what
the instrument is made of.” (Williams, 2011) However in a curriculum that calls on its students
to create a pop song on Garage Band and burn it to disc to play for the class, how could we
even expect our students to understand the most fundamental knowledge of what music
actually is? A music curriculum that is overrun by Information and Computer technologies will
create a sector of students that are literate in programming, designing and broadcasting
music, but lack the theoretical and philosophical basis of Music, the information that made
music a credible subject in the humanities to begin with. The Year 8 syllabus for this same
school aspires for a unit outcome that questions, “Global Music, what makes our music
Australian?” Likewise, Year 7 is told to ponder, “How does music affect change?”(Williams,
2011) Music is essentially a timeless, universal and social medium which is being bastardized
by the expectations to be translated into and dominated by digital mediums. On the other
hand, author Philip Alperson suggests that, the philosophy of music consists in the sustained,
systematic and critical examination of our beliefs about the nature and function of
music...concerning the production, nature of musical works, the appreciation and evaluation of
music and the status of music as a human activity.” (Alperson, 1987) If this is the case, then
ICT in the music curriculum would be the optimum facilitator to perpetuate the absolute
essence of what is music.
A formidable tension in education assessment, is Process Vs Knowledge. The delicate
balance between these two categories determines how we assess a students progress and
thus their aptitude. As ICT infiltrates school curricula, the tension becomes more prominent, as
the shift has occurred in evaluating a students factual knowledge to evaluating their
“procedural knowledge.” (Anderson, 1983) This transition in how we determine our students’
overall intellectual progress directly influences how the music syllabus is constructed, allowing
us to focus on the, “process rather than the product.” This concept is concisely illustrated in
the ANU MEP Music Curriculum drafted in 2011.
The Music Education Program reinvigorates, “age-old, socio-musical enculturation
processes.” It draws on the fact that music is a human and social activity and that, “musical
impulse is innate and compulsive.” (ANU, 2011, pp 2) Rather than focusing on musical
achievement as an intellectual endeavour, its primary goal is peer-to-peer music making,
where the students are facilitators , “who can encourage music making in others” (pp 2), and
thus influencing a wider community. Whilst this curriculum is exempt from ICT, one feature of
this new paradigm, “The three I’s”, encourages the same process-based approach to the music
curriculum as ICT does. The shift from the 3 P’s to the 3 I’s mirrors the shift that ICT has on
the music curriculum, from assessment of knowledge to the assessment of process.
“The three P’s” of traditional music education was based on principles of Practice,
Performance, and Perfection. Progress is, “sequential requiring regular practice...directed
towards exhibition of skills...increasing skill development and excellence.” (pp 2) Primary
school teacher Bob Crisp recalls that these were the pressures he faced in his school
experience. The focus on an, “end product” (Crisp, 2011) was a deterrent from the subject and
added to his already palpable, performance pressures. “The three I’s” of the MEP approach
encourage Involvement, Intent and Identity. Like the potential, “personalized learning
experience,” (Ferguson, 2001, pp 7) proposed in the use of ICT, this principle enforces,
“voluntary engagement...encouraging shared social music making...individual music
persona.” (ANU, pp 2) Whilst this is an, “over-arching fundamental program” (pp 3) it is a
basic philosophy of musicianship that grounds Music as a subject in its fundamental social and
human roots, whilst catering to and encouraging individual learning styles.
It is impossible to deny the array of technology-based musical activities available
through ICT. The new digital opportunities for collaboration, such as reading, composing,
theorizing and analyzing music, increases students’ exposure to more facets of Music. Rather
than researching, composing for or performing on conventional instruments, technology allows
us to utilize compositional software, record live music, synthesize music, spin/mix/remix
music, play music off sound systems instead of performing live, webcams, youtube, video
recording, MP3 uploads, the list goes on. Not only does this “soup” (Woolsey, 2010) of learning
opportunities cater to individual learning styles and demands, but it also provokes and
encourages peer collaboration as well as peer-to-peer learning. (Boud, 2001) Potentially
conversly, software such as IMTCP, (Manzo & Dammers, 2010) demonstrate how multimedia
can revolutionize music theory and musicological research. As mentioned previously, this
digital understanding of music changes the nature of how students will understand what music,
(i.e. sound) essentially is. What is unique and fascinating about the potential “digital
divide” (Poore, 2011) that could surface as a result of music education becoming digital, is that
rather than being problematic, it would further perpetuate the notion that music is a reflection
of, and is comprised of its social, economic, political and historical context. It is, “more or less,
straightforward reflections of the society and culture in which they were produced.” (Wainman,
2009)
“To ignore...the staggering rate on innovation in ICT would be to fall behind.” (Yelland,
2001) ICT has the ability to revolutionize music education by personalizing the learning
experience and offering an abundance of new, engaging and exciting mediums through which a
student may learn. It is the duty of the teacher however, to recognize the potentially
catastrophic effects that overrunning the Music curriculum with ICT would have on the greater
philosophical possibilities that music beckons. “Music affects change” (Walker, 2007), “Music
affects people,” (Sherman, 2011) and “Music affects the mind.” (O’Donnell, 1999) To forget the
social and physiological origins of Music in an attempt to keep up with the “digital
revolution” (Poore, 2011) would be to bastardize and neglect what music fundamentally is.
Bibliography:
O'Donnell, L. (1999). Music and the brain. Available: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n15/
mente/musica.html. Last accessed 30th April 2011.
Yelland, N. (2001). Teaching and learning with information and communication technologies
(ICT) for numeracy in the early childhood and primary years of schooling. Available: http://
www.dest.gov.au/archive/research/fellowship/docs/Nicola_Yelland/Yelland_report.pdf. Last
accessed 30th April 2011.
Sherman, M. (2011). How does music affect people. Available: http://www.catalogs.com/info/
books-music-dvd/how-does-music-affect-people.html. Last accessed 30th April 2011.
Poore, M. (Personal communication, March 10th 2011)
Walker, R (2007). Music Education: Cultural values, social change and innovation. Illinois:
Charles C Thomas. (p18-43.)
Boud, D (2001). Peer learning in higher education. London: Kogan.
Prof. V.J. Manzo, Dr. Rick Dammers . (2010). http://www.imtcp.org. In IMTCP. Last accessed
April 10th 2011.
Katrina Woolsey. (2005). New Media Literacies: A Language Revolution. http://
archive.nmc.org/summit/Language_Revolution.pdf. Last accessed April 15th 2011
Australian National University, (2011). Music Education Program: Draft Curriculum. (Catagory
3), Australian National University
Crisp, R. (Personal Communication, April 2011)
Williams, R. (Personal Communication, April 2nd 2011)
Ferguson, D (2001). Designing personalized learning for every student. (pp 1-10) ASCD
publications: Unites States of America
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, (pp 320 - 323) MA: Harvard
University Press.
Alperson, P (1987). What is Music? An introduction to the philosophy of music. Pennsylvania:
Haven Publications. (pp i-x.)
Ottawa Council meeting. 2003. The role of ICT in learning. http://www.icponline.org/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86%3Athe-role-of-ict-in-
learning&catid=27%3Aeducation&Itemid=47&showall=1, Last accessed March 5th 2011
Small, G, Vorgan, G. (October 2008). Your iBrain: How technology changes the way we Think.
In Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=your-ibrain. Last
accessed 10th April 2011,
Cocentra. (2011). Transforming learning. Available: http://www.cocentra.com/cocentra/
aboutcocentra/. Last accessed 30th April 2011
Southcott & Crawford. (2011). The intersections of curriculum development: Music, ICT and
Australian music education . Australasian Journal of Educational Technology . 1 (1), 122-136.
Wainman, V (2009) The reflection of society in music. http://plattsburgh309.blogspot.com/
2009/10/reflection-of-society-in-music.html. Last accessed 30th April 2011
