Source 4: iBrains

Source Four: Your iBrain. How Technology changes the way we think

Gary Small, Gigi Vorgan. (October 2008). Your iBrain: How technology changes the way we Think. In Scientific American. Retrieved 10th April 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=your-ibrain.

Doidge N, (2007), The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science, Viking Penguin: United States

Doidge N, (2010), Norman Doidge MD: The Brain That changes itself, Official Website, Retrieved April 10th 2011, from http://www.normandoidge.com/normandoidge/MAIN.html

Source Four is an article written by Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan. It take a neuro-scientific approach to the possible impact that ‘high technology’ is having on the evolution of our brains. The humorous opening paragraph in which Smalls prints, “Hey Lady! Wake up and smell the computer age!” sets the standard for the colloquial and baseless foundation for this article. That is not to say that it doesn’t offer many valid and rhetoric scientific questions. In fact, in conjunction with other neuroscience readings, it proved to be quite a provocative and stimulating paper. 

The article is built around the theory that exposure to high technology stimulates brain cell alteration. In brief, “digital technology is not only changing the way we live...it is profoundly altering our brains.” New methods of thinking, engaging and digital literacy results in our brain strengthening new neural pathways and weakening old ones. This concept of Neuroplasticity that Small and Vorgan are alluding in their argument, has become something of a buzz term recently. Thus in order to substantiate the ideas surfacing in this paper, I cross referenced these ideas with more credited publications. 

The Brain that changes itself (Doidge, 2007) also explores this new scientific phenomena of Neuroplasticity, and, “it’s implications for all human beings...not to mention human culture and human learning.” (Doidge, 2010). Doidge and Small both refer to the brains behavior of, “re-mapping, retooling and evolving,” (Small, 2008) in order to process the limitless information and communicative dimensions available. Small comments, “They’re not superhuman. They’re our 20-something co-workers, your children and your competition. Are you keeping up?” This statement reiterates that technological ‘presence’ appears to be altering the very nature of the environment in which we work and consequently how we adapt in this context. 

The article was concise and comical, however it lacked scientific reinforcement, which lead me to conclude that it was more of an opinion piece of writing. Through further investigation I found the information in the article to be accurate, but this only came after I outsourced scientific accreditation myself. The informal style of writing however, enticed me to ponder bigger questions. For example, what are the professional, social and political impacts of this new brain evolution? And what is the price of adapting? Whilst Small and Vorgan pose a lot of questions like this, they fail to answer them. Perhaps this is the purpose of the article, to make us think. And so I did.

How much of this digital environment do I really understand? How much will my students understand? By integrating technology in the classroom, will I be giving my students what they want and need? Are they learning, or possibly even evolving their brains less efficiently if I choose not to incorporate digital media in my classroom? In true Small and Vorgan style, I leave this questions lingering. 

ICT Critique

 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