Source 2: Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project

Source Two: Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project

Prof. V.J. Manzo, Dr. Rick Dammers . (2010). http://www.imtcp.org. In IMTCP. Retrieved April 10th 2011.

vjmanzo. “IMTCP (Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project ) (2010) imtcp.org || eamir.org”. (September 5th 2010). Online Video Clip. Youtube. Accessed April 10th 2011.

The fifth source in my New Media Literacies investigation, is IMTCP, the Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project (Manzo&Dammers, 2010). I have selected this as a source as it demonstrates Media technologies being integrated in mu subject area, and into the music curriculum. This was of particular interest to me. Whilst I always was aware ICT was available as a learning medium for music students, I never suspected it would influence the Music curriculum to a point of altering it, or revolutionize the fundamental learning pathways of potential musicians, composers and musicologists. 

IMTCP was a research project instigated in 2010 as a means to teach music subjects to “non-traditional music students” (Manzo&Dammers, 2010). The experiment required that  subjects learn musical concepts by “engaging with software-based musical instruments”. Students underwent observation for one week in which they learnt composition and harmony  theory, experienced practical based activities, and were called on to compose original musical scores. Subjects selected had either no formal music training or were not part of their schools music program.

Whilst the project was an interesting look at alternative, and probably more culturally attractive, methods in which we might teach music to non-inherently musical students, I found two basic flaws in its foundations. Primarily, subjects only underwent education in music which was, “culturally familiar” (Manzo&Dammers, 2010) to them. That is, Western Music. As a result, the ‘“lessons in chordal changes and harmonic direction”(vjmanzo, 2010) are only applicable in western music education, and more often than not, are only relevant to the past 20-30 years of composition. The second obstacle that would be faced by instituting this program, is the technological demand. iMacs, an instructor computer with projector, a USB midi controller, alternate controller interfaces, EAMIR software and Garageband were all necessities in order for the research to be carried out successfully. Instituting these in multiple socio-economic environments is simply not a feasible task. 

Source 3: A Language Revolution

Source Three: New Media Literacies: A Language Revolution

Katrina Woolsey. (2005). New Media Literacies: A Language Revolution. Retrieved April 10th 2011, from http://archive.nmc.org/summit/Language_Revolution.pdf.

Poore M, March 2011, (Personal Communication)

Source Three is a paper that provides an objective analysis, exclusive of the, “confusions with terminology...in the literature” (pp 2) regarding the evolution in communicative dimensions brought upon by new media, and how this media has, “fundamentally changed the nature of...thinking and human expression,” (pp 2). The third avenue that Woolsey explores in her thesis is that, arguably, “digital technologies have created....a language revolution,” (pp 2) as opposed to a media revolution. In the transition period in which we find ourselves, Woolsey states that their is no current framework, constant vocabulary or dimensions of classification available that allows us to, “identify, describe, encourage and evaluate,” these new media potentials. New Media Literacy is one buzz term she uses to describe this phenomena.

Woolsey makes a point in distinguishing the characteristics of what is termed, ‘Media Literacy’ (pp 3) and the traditional ‘oral and print literacy’ (pp 3). Quite importantly, she demonstrates the impact of Media studies in different curricula, and even when incorporated, it can be used in different ways. This includes teaching students to “read the messages of popular culture” (pp 3) to being instructed on how to create Media. She states that the “prevalant judgement” (pp 3) in most curricula is on oral and print Media traditions, of which personally provoked me to ponder if this concept is obsolete. 

What is intriguing about this paper is the positive approach to a “new language community” (pp 5) that is evolving. Woolsey describes these new environments as having the potential to be productive, as the casual and colloquial contexts produce a new literacy that is, “quite like spoken language,” and thus encourages, “human communication and imagination,” (pp 5) in a very new way. She also points out that the nature of these environments place less importance on memory (pp 2), as was done in traditional aural and written cultures, and greater importance on organization and catagorization. This is a, “new environment for human thinking, learning and communication.” (pp 2) In stating this, she encourages the reader to consider digital media not as, “new media” (pp 6) but rather as “traditional media” that has been “altered drastically.” (pp 6) I see this as an incredibly intelligent way to view the digital revolution we find ourselves in, as it considers the shift in literacy on a much grander time frame than what people usually consider. 

In my opinion, the objective and factual writing style of this paper made it fluent and engaging to read. The chronological layout of media trends supported Woolsey’s argument successfully and enforced her thesis thoroughly. One issue that I was conscious of in the reading however, was her constant collaboration of New media Literacies to particular schooling systems. She did not tackle the issue of the inevitable ‘digital divide’ (Poore, 2011) and thus the paper harbored a slightly utopian perspective to the implementation of ICT in a school environment. 

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. 

Source 5: Teachers teaching how to learn

Source Five: How Teachers Can Teach their students to learn

Kiewra K, (2002), Theory into Practice: Becoming a self-regulated learner, (pp 69-78), New York: WH Freeman 

Poore M, March 2011, (Personal Communication)

Poona J, NSW Department of education, (2003), Quality Teaching elements, (retrieved March 25th 2011), http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Education/Pedagogy/2006/SummaryofQuality-JanPoona.pdf

Information and knowledge is something we now have an abundance of thanks to Web 2.0. What students lack, is the ability to learn. Teaching a student to learn involves harnessing and facilitating their unique learning style. Thus my final source, Kenneth Kiewra's paper ‘How teachers can teach their students to learn,’ suggests that, “Classroom teachers can help students learn.” (pp 1) Whilst students may harbor the techniques that enable them to rote learn information, they lack the “deep understanding...deep knowledge” (Poona, 2003) of course material, rendering them, “deficient learners” (pp 1). He names the duty of the teacher to be a, “good strategy instructor” (pp 8) in order to produce an efficient learner.

An amalgamation of my four previous sources that I have investigated in order to deconstruct New Media Literacies in my own terms, invites me to assume that a change in communicative dimension, (Woolsey, 2005), an evolving media-dependent curriculum, (Manzo&Dammers, 2010), and a potentially endlessly plastic brain structure, (Doidge, 2007), would also result a new environment of learning strategies, potentials and problems for students. This paper by Kiewra doesn’t investigate how we may achieve this new technique to faciliatet our students in their ability to learn in a digital era. Instead it focuses on the role of the teacher in facilitating a students ability to learn, rather than transmitting information to them. This is a fundamental teaching philosophy, made even more prominent in a digital era in which we have an overwhelming abundance of knowledge ad information sources. 

SOAR, (select, organize, associate and regulate) are four empirically supported components of learning addressed by Kiewra, which he believes effectively facilitate a students learning. (pp 3) He investigated if these where more beneficial study methods than the, NORM' (pp 8) or conventional methods employed by college students. The purpose of these experiments was not to confirm or deny that college students are “deficient learners” (pp 1), but to prove the need for educators who will, 'present information effectively and....give students the means to learn.' (pp 8) 

A conundrum presented in the article however, were statements such as, 'Little is known about what students actually do with notes following lectures." (pp 6) Whilst these sweeping statements are incredibly general and subjective, they are also completely unsubstantiated. A ten second google search on my basic home computer indicates that there is an abundance of knowledge on such an issue. Statements like these compromise the validity of Kiewra's paper, as well as bringing to the attention of the reader, the outdated sources informing his knowledge and opinions. Whilst Kiewra draws upon a variety of sources to construct his thesis, they are drastically outdated, including only one from the 21st century. This indicates a major gap in the information relevant to this topic. Kiewra's argument for this paper might have 

been progressive and ground-breaking in 2002, but in 2011 it is almost entirely obsolete. 

The dated information of this paper also means that it doesn't address the issue of ICT in the classroom. Perhaps a revision of this paper today would result in very similar cognitive problems in our students, or potentially very different ones. 

As Kiewra states, a students ability in the classroom should extend to learning efficiently independently, and to strive to become better learners, rather than just, "studying noted ideas by rehearsing them one at a time." (pp 2) According to the paper, this duty lies in the hands of instructors who should strive to become, 'fishing teachers.' (pp 8) by, 'embedding strategy instruction within their subject matter courses,' (pp 1) and 'develop matrices and build models on their own.' (pp 8)

Whilst this source was fundamentally quite problematic, I still found it effective in my understanding of New Media Literacies. In this paper, Kiewra puts forth a basic teaching philosophy. A teacher is not a transmitter of information, they are a facilitator of learning. (Poore, 2011) In an era of digital media in which teachers have even less of a grasp of truthful information that their students may access, it seems even more obvious that our focus should therefore be in, “teaching students to learn,” rather than just teaching them facts.

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

Education Foundations Poster

Fleur's Top Ten Teaching Tips:

PPLE Reflection

PPLE Reflection

Case study of Madeline Foster

Madeline Foster is an exemplary Year 10 student at a private girls college in Sydney. Despite being diagnosed with Glandular fever, and subsequently chronic fatigue in 2010, her classroom and assessment grades have remained above average. 

Whilst Madeline is a formidable and proactive participant in the school’s music program, a gap in her academic transcript was discerned when a college application that she submitted in New York was rejected on the basis of, “subpar grades in Religious studies.” (Foster, 2011) As this standard of work was contained to the one subject, an investigation was carried out to identify if this was possibly the result of her frequent absences from school and consequently the limited interaction with her teachers, from tension in the classroom environment or perhaps stemming from potential intellectual toil regarding the course content. 

In experiencing Madeline’s educational journey as her vocal tutor, and reflecting on her experience throughout this investigation, I was provoked to reflect upon my own philosophy as a pre-service teacher, the identity I hope to assume as a music teacher, and the classroom environment I aspire to create in order to promote positive, motivational and engaged learning. A classroom which confirms that, “communities of the mind are collections of individuals who are bonded together by natural will and to a set of shared ideal.” (Sergiovanni)

Legally, ethically, logically and philosophically, Madeline’s situation has impacted on my evolving thinking and understanding of the questions in the Nine provocations, but arouses some very demanding and problematic concepts with regards to four provocations in particular.

What will my students want and need from me?

In 1974 Malcolm Knowles suggested that in order to cater to students’ individual needs, we must adopt a three-fold approach that seeks to teach the students as if they were adults rather than children. Andragogy over Pedagogy. (Knowles, 1974) This includes “self-directed learning, problem-centred learning as opposed to content based learning, and finally co-operation rather than supervision”. (Knowles 1974) Not only do these techniques address personal learning styles exclusive of the subject matter, they also enforce independent learning of content material that the students need to know. In Madeline’s case, her days at school should not be approached by teaching, “declarative knowledge” but rather, “procedural knowledge,” (Goodyear 1991). By “Mapping out subject matter” and facilitating her problem-solving skills as she approaches it, Madeline is not only absorbing content material at her own pace, but also in a learning style that she herself has chosen.

What kind of teacher do I want to be?

(Lanier & Little, 1986) propose that a teachers background, philosophy of teaching and ideas about themselves as teachers are what construct their methods of teaching. Peter Goodyear terms the job of a teacher as, “multidimensional”, in which we face numerous demands and have to, “make decisions which are compromises among various costs and benefits.” (Goodyear 1991) Whilst my background as a student never entailed a situation similar to Madeline’s, it prompts me to question my own philosophy as a teacher. What elements of the profession do I consider valuable and valid, and how would I apply this philosophy in Madeline’s context.

My philosophy as a teacher has evolved and has been inspired and formulated based upon my school and university career. Particular to this course we tend to reminisce about that special teacher or two that struck a chord (pardon the pun) in our education, and as a result had a profound effect on our learning. I encapsulate two main philosophies as a music teacher that I feel have flourished as a result of the regimented lifestyle of the high school I attended, those teachers that impacted my learning profoundly, and my experience of teaching, which included Madeline as a student.

A teacher that demonstrates humane qualities; humility, humor and availability, are the most relatable in my opinion. A teacher should be approachable, not only about their subject matter, but about any issues a high-school student may be facing. In discussion with a dutch Art history teacher, (Van Den Berg, 2011) I came to the realization that in the time frame of a lesson, you do not have time to contemplate the syllabus or your subject matter, this should already be innate. “From the moment you step into that classroom, its all about behavior management.” A teacher that can control their classroom, no matter what demography of students, is one that can relate to them because they are not afraid to be personable. If Madeline’s time is already restricted, it becomes even more imperative that she can rely on her teachers for moral, as well as academic, guidance. 

My second main belief as a music teacher, is that a profound and solid theoretical understanding of fundamental musical concepts and terminology must be instilled. This was the case of my music learning, and I feel it gave me an incalculable understanding and appreciation of music culture and musical styles. In order to understand the effect music has on individuals and on a grander scale, society, we must have this basic music knowledge ingrained. Lanier & Little’s ideal mentioned previously, is not achieved through didactic pedagogy or rote learning. Rather a student-centred learning approach to musical tasks encourages students to problem solve and develop “deep understanding” as well as “significance...deep knowledge” (QTE, 2003), and in doing so their learning is process-based rather than knowledge-based. For Madeline, it is rare that we can assess the process by which she is learning in her home environment, we can only formally assess her knowledge at school. Therefore it is crucial that we instill solid foundations in her, “learner-based learning.” (Anderson, 1983)

Am I teaching a student or a subject?

Throughout my limited on-the-job practical experience I have encountered a Year 8 music class that has demonstrated a variety of behavioral problems. The majority of the student body comes from a low socio-economic background and often have life stories that, “will just make you cry.” (Wentworth, 2011) I discussed with the teacher, her tactics when it came to controlling this class, to which she responded that there was no hope of carrying out structured lesson plans, “just to have the kids stay within the walls of the classroom is a major breakthrough.” (Wentworth, 2011) This is a prime example where teaching a subject isn’t even an option. Characteristics of a music class such as keyboards, manuscript and videoclips serve as mere distractions to the students. In this scenario what a ‘music teacher’ is ultimately teaching her students is discipline and respect. Music is simply the medium through which they do this. From this experience i realized, in this age group, I will rarely ever be teaching a subject. Especially amidst the digital revolution that is enveloping the education system, specific course content and subject matter is obselete. Information and knowledge is something we now have an abundance of thanks to Web 2.0. What students lack, is the ability to learn. Teaching a student to learn means harnessing and facilitating their unique learning style, that is, teaching the student. Kenneth Kiewra's paper ‘How teachers can teach their students to learn,’ (Kiewra, 2010) suggests that, 'Classroom teachers can help students learn.’ Whilst students may harbor the techniques to rote learn information, they lack the ‘deep understanding’ and ‘deep knowledge’ (QTE, 2003) of course material, rendering them, deficient learners. He names the duty of the teacher to be a, 'good strategy instructor' (pp 8) in order to produce an efficient learner. Considering that Madeline spends a significant portion of her education learning independently, “learning to learn” (pp 1) would be a valuable tool to teach the student in order to teach themselves the subject.

To what extent is this an intellectual pursuit?

Madeline has a distinctive learning style that is musically and linguistically orientated, and it would be foolish not to embrace this. Rather than perpetuating a content-focused approach, as her Religion teacher does, I would attempt a “learner-centered”(Anderson 1983) approach to her education. Her limited face-to-face time makes it all the more pronounced that she must be equipped with the knowledge that she needs for her assessments, but more importantly that she is equipped with the skills that enable her to be an efficient and independent learner. As suggested by M Harrington, “knowing where the students are and where they want to go,” (Harrington, 2007) is fundamental in establishing their own goals when studying independently. Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) illustrates that the highest level of the learning hierarchy is to create. That is asking a student to go beyond evaluating, engaging with and analyzing a piece of information, and to create more. A rare opportunity presents itself in Madeline, in which her strongest attribute is her innate and natural ability to create. As her teacher I would embrace and encourage this aspect of her learning style in order to motivate her in her problematic subjects, and hopefully inspire her to engage with her course material even more so when studying independently.

Bibliography:

Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, (pp 320 - 323) MA: Harvard University Press.

Bloom, BS. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, New York: McKay

Foster M, (personal communication), April 15th 2011

Goodyear, P. (Ed.) (1991). Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring. (pp 260-275) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Harrington MR, (2007) Managing student Diversity, (Retrieved April 17th 2011) http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/index.cgi?E=hcatfuncs&X=getdoc&exp=6&Lev1=pub_c08_07&Lev2=c07_harring

Jairam,D., Kiewra,K (2010) Helping Students Soar to Success on Computers: An investigation of the SOAR Study Method of Computer-Based Learning. Journal Of Educational Psychology Vol.102,(3), pp.601-614

Knowles MS, (1974) Human resource development in OD. Public Administration Review. (pp 115-123)

Lanier, J., & Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education, Handbook of research on teaching (pp 168-191) Macmillan. New York

NSW Department of education, (2003), Quality Teaching elements, (retrieved March 25th 2011), http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Education/Pedagogy/2006/SummaryofQuality-JanPoona.pdf

Poore, M. (Personal communication, March 10th 2011)

Pederson, S. (2003). Motivational orientation in a problem-based learning environment. Journal of interactive learning research. pp. 51-77 

Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. (pp 1-61) Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sewell-Smith A, (2007), Teachers and Teaching: What is happening in my classroom?, (Retrieved April 15th 2011), http://www.eqa.edu.au/site/whatshappeninginmyclassroom.html

Williams R, (personal communication), April 5th 2011