1.
Embedding Digital Technologies
In The Music Classroom:
An Approach for the New
Music National Curriculum
P Kirkman
Jan 2009
1

2.
Embedding Digital Technologies in the Music Classroom:
An Approach for the New Music National Curriculum
With thanks to the National Association of Music Educators (NAME),
Jonathan Savage and Chris Hiscock
for their support
Released under Creative Commons License (Attribution Non‐Commercial Share Alike)
© 2009 Phil Kirkman email: prk24@cam.ac.uk web: http://www.kirki.co.uk
Cover photo by ilco @ stock.xchng (SXC.hu)
2

3.
Contents:
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................4
1.1. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MUSIC EDUCATION............................................................. 4
1.2. A MUSICAL CURRICULUM......................................................................................................... 5
1.3. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM.............. 7
2. PLANNING A UNIT OF WORK.....................................................................12
2.1. UNIT CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................ 13
2.2. A FLEXIBLE CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK:........................................................................ 14
2.3. EMBEDDING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CURRICULUM .................................................... 19
2.3.1. Unit of work: A worked example.............................................................................................. 20
2.4. TEMPLATES:................................................................................................................................. 25
2.4.1. Curriculum map......................................................................................................................... 25
2.4.2. Sequence of learning .................................................................................................................. 26
2.4.3. Lesson plan ................................................................................................................................. 27
3. EXAMPLE RESOURCES:...............................................................................28
3.1. MOBILE APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 28
3.2. NETWORKED LIVE PERFORMANCE..................................................................................... 28
3.3. COLLABORATION ONLINE ...................................................................................................... 28
3.4. SAMPLES/TEMPLATES .............................................................................................................. 28
3.5. PODCASTING RESOURCES: ..................................................................................................... 28
3.6. ORGANISATIONS......................................................................................................................... 29
3.7. BLOGS AND COMMUNITIES: ................................................................................................... 29
3.8. MAGAZINES:................................................................................................................................. 29
4. REFERENCES...................................................................................................30
3

4.
1. INTRODUCTION
Digital technologies are increasingly being integrated into the fabric of human
society (Joy 2000). As part of this trend, they are increasingly being used to support
and restructure education in schools (Sheingold and Tucker 1990; Barbara Means,
John Blando et al. 1993; Bates 1999). Recent research also demonstrates that many
digital technologies are being used to support the implementation of musical
curricula (Burnard and Finney 2007). The aim of the unit is to demonstrate a
working out of the key concepts from the National Curriculum, into realistic
classroom activities that promote learning through the integration of Digital
Technologies.
1.1. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Digital technologies have been a notable feature of each successive revision of
national curriculum (DFES 1988; DES 1992; DFES 2000; QCA 2007) and GCSE
specifications (DES 1985; Edexcel 2000; OCR 2000; OCR 2005; Edexcel 2006; QCA
2007; OCR 2008). However, such is the rate of change and development systems that
assist in the conception, recording, manipulation, storage, transmission and
consumption of vast qualities of information, some of it related to music; that any
current review of these developments is immediately destined to be obsolete
(McLoughlin 2002; Spector, Merrill et al. 2008). Although now over five years old,
Pitts and Kwami’s (2002) survey of 18 secondary schools suggested that the most
widespread use of digital technologies was during computer‐based composing at
Key Stage 4. Pitts and Kwami’s study presents the computer as a tool and simulator
for assisting the process and testing hypothesis. This view concurs with a wider
body of research which reveals a limited application of technology in school
classrooms (Mooney, Fewtrell et al. 1999; Reese 2001; Steffens and Jedermann 2001;
Ruthven and Hennessy 2002; Ruthven, Hennessy et al. 2004; Thomas 2008).
If we are to make the most of the opportunities that technology affords us then a
broader view of technology is needed. Such a view would attend not only to well
established methods, software resources and hardware solutions; but also to new
and developing trends. To define the scope of this exploration of some new and
developing trends I suggest a definition of digital technologies that is in line with
the notion of a musical curriculum and consistent with current research on school
based composition (Webster 2007; Burnard and Younker 2008; Gall and Breeze 2008;
Ruthmann 2008). Digital technologies that can be useful in music education are
systems that:
4

5. “encourage active learning, knowledge construction, inquiry, and exploration on the part of
the student, as opposed to being exposed to information delivery systems” (Greaesser,
Chipman et al. 2008: 211).
Before turning to how digital technologies can be used to help provide students with
a meaningful musical education we will review what this idea of a ‘musical’
curriculum might be within the context of the new music national curriculum.
1.2. A MUSICAL CURRICULUM
Many writers have discussed the idea of a musical curriculum (see Mills, 2005;
Swanwick 1999). However, the key aspects I wish to pick up on are those that clearly
emanate from the new National Curriculum. Within this context, a musical
curriculum can be thought of as one that:
a) builds upon students’ previous experiences and
b) provides new practical, integrated and collaborative activities.
This perspective seeks to emphasise the idea that musical experience is something
that all people have. A ‘musical’ curriculum engages all students in “doing music:
making it, creating it, responding to it” (Mills 2005 p2).
At the same time, it is clear that music in school should flow from the key concepts
outlined in the statutory content of the curriculum documentation. Pupils
knowledge, skills and understanding in and of music depends upon these ‘concepts’
or aspects of music: Integration of practice, Cultural understanding, Critical
understanding, Creativity and Communication.
One useful way of thinking about these concepts is to draw on Christopher Small’s
proposal that music should be viewed as an ‘act’ and not a ‘thing’. The act of
musicking (Small 1998) focuses on performing, not the performance, composing and
not the composition and listening, not ‘the sound’. He suggests that the term
musicking could be used to describe every meaningful act related to music. In a
western classical context this could include performers, concert organisers, the
audience and even program sellers. This is helpful because we can begin to see the
relationships between the many different aspects (key concepts).
When children compose meaningful music, they are involved in a dialogue between
the individual as composer and listener, the emerging work, the culture that has
produced the composer and the setting in which the transaction takes place (Barrett
2003). Figure 1.0 brings together these relationships; between the individual as
musician and composer, the work, the culture and the setting. Interactions occur
5

6. both clockwise, anti‐clockwise, and along the radii as illustrated by the gradually
blending colour palette.
Individual
Creativity Personal engagement
A hearing of ‘a performance’
Stimulus
Creating
Making
Freedoms and constraints
Responding
Culture Meaningful ‘A Work’
Musical tastes, music The ‘composition’
traditions
and tools
Structured
problem Realised art
The ‘performance’
Communication Setting
A classroom/
the place
of Musicking
Figure 1.0: Meaningful musical activity in the secondary classroom
The key ‘activities’ of a musical curriculum are performing, composing, listening
and collaborating. Another way of thinking about them is creating, making and
responding individually and as a group (central section). To make a piece of music in
a way that integrates composing and performing you first have to create it! Also,
when this music is created and made both in a group or as an individual there will
undoubtedly be a response to it!
When making music it is common practice for teachers to provide instruction that
can help to guide to students. Too many options can hinder the creative process.
Structured problems, such as a predefined brief or carefully selected instruments, can
help individuals to start from their experience and introduce constraints that can
guide the process of decision‐making (Johnson‐Laird 1988). At the same time new
experiences, sounds, instruments, people or other artworks can provide stimuli that
keep things fresh and exciting. Different local, national and international musical
tastes, traditions and tools provide an unlimited supply of such stimuli.
Understanding about other musical settings and cultures only becomes meaningful
6

7. when students can link this to their own identity and experience through active
engagement.
To gain personal understanding or ‘meaningful musical understanding’, students
need to be given the opportunity to respond to ‘music’ as realised art. This requires a
performance of ‘the work’ over time and within a context (Toynbee 2003). Within
this setting the culture that provides the stimulus and structure for the problem can
then be compared critically with the setting and realisation of the finished work. It is
my experience that responding to ‘a work’ without first providing a performance
point from which to ‘view’ it; will produce judgements that degenerate into
posturing. In this way, contexts (settings) and styles (cultures) are used to inform
judgements.
The balance between creativity and communication is an important one. For music
to be meaningful to students, they require the freedom to build musically upon both
existing understanding and new experiences. At the same time, for realisations of
musical ‘works’ to be meaningful to others, they must balance their own experience
with that of their audience (Cook 1990; Toynbee 2003). Existing music knowledge,
skills and understanding can be used in new settings and through the eyes of
different tastes, traditions and tools. For example students could use their
knowledge of Baila (Sri Lanka) and their recent work on Shakespeare’s Comedy of
Errors as stimulus for a classroom Waada Baila (contest). However, be cautious
because if the new context removes all chance of translation for the audience then
the meaning will be lost on all but the composer.
It is clear that proving a musical curriculum that attends to the individual
experiences of each in class of about 30 very different students is no small task. Yet,
because a musical education has its roots in practical activity, digital technology
offers several avenues to explore that may prove fruitful when used in a busy
classroom.
1.3. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL
CURRICULUM
Recent music education literature on the use of digital technologies reveals several
different technologies that can be used to support the implementation of a musical
curriculum. We begin to examine how such technologies can assist in musical
education by grouping them into the following categories: Mobile systems (MOS),
Web based services (WBS), Computer‐based tools (CBT) and Hardware/user
interfaces (UI). Broadly speaking the potential of these categories are summarised in
table 1.0.
7

8.
Table 1.0: Types of digital technologies and their definitions
Technology type Definition
Mobile systems Allow access to digital data and communications
platforms from small devices that can be easily
transported between different locations.
Web based services Have broad applications, which draw on the
internet’s storage, communication/presentation,
transmission and search capabilities.
Computer‐based Provide specific functions within software
tools environments directed at the completion of tasks
more effectively or more efficiently.
Hardware or user Provide for individuals or groups means of
interfaces interaction with the digital technologies. It should be
noted that some hardware interfaces are still
analogue, and thus fit outside our notion of
computer‐based technologies. However, these
interfaces are increasingly based around digital
microprocessors.
In her discussion of the opportunities presented by mobile technologies, Baxter
(2007) presents the mobile phone as a platform which enables students to store and
transport their composition products as mp3’s for listening outside the classroom. It
is reported that the use of phones in this way coincided with large numbers of
students working collaboratively in ways such as; listening to and offering critiques
of peers’ developing ideas, making comparisons with professional works,
internalising musical phrases, rehearsing performances and selecting sounds. Baxter
notes that students were able to take pride in the music they had produced (p.59)
and were motivated to create work outside the curriculum timetable. It is fair to
conclude that mobile technologies offer a way to make links between students’
musical experiences inside and out of the classroom. Baxter’s work suggests that
mobile technologies provide opportunities for individual and collaborative work,
permit the integration of practical activities and foster student motivation through
positive interactions with the subject.
Seddon’s (2007) study of the ‘Musit Interactive’ music sequencing package, a tool
based program which has an added feature enabling text communication within the
package, found that participants with no prior experience of music‐sequencing were
able to compose collaboratively via email. They created finished compositions
within six 25 minute sessions. Networked environments such as jam2jam (Dillon and
8

9.
Brown 2007) also allow remote interaction. However, rather than occurring over
long periods of time, interactions over jam2jam are in real‐time. Such an
improvisational approach requires performers to listen and compose
simultaneously, responding immediately and collectively to the the compositional
ideas they implement. Both e‐learning and networked environments present
opportunities for creative collaboration, promote positive interaction with music
and support the integration of listening, composing and performance skills.
Several studies have investigated potential benefits which hardware and user
interfaces offer to the secondary music classroom (Reese 2001; OʹNeill and Seddon
2003; Reynolds 2003; Gall and Breeze 2005; Field 2007; Gall and Breeze 2007;
Kirkman 2007). Kirkman (2007) found that, while MIDI can be a way of allowing
students access to new ways of working, an over‐reliance upon keyboard‐type
interfaces means that the potential offered by different hardware is not widely
realised. If the MIDI capabilities of a computer based system are accessed only
through a music keyboard, computer keypad or mouse, then this puts non‐keyboard
instrumentalists or non‐instrumentalists at a disadvantage. Recent publications in
support of computer‐based technologies in the secondary classroom still
demonstrate a worrying lack of diversity in the hardware and user interfaces
employed in secondary classrooms (Pitts 2005; Ashworth 2007; Ruthman 2008;
Savage 2008; Thomas 2008; Tobias 2008). As well as MIDI devices, interfaces such as
interactive whiteboards, computer projectors, microphones, speakers, effects
modules, mixers and turntables provide a wealth of opportunities for collaborative
music making. Hardware user interfaces facilitate greater access to the benefits of
web‐based technologies and computer‐based tools by offering different modes of
interaction (eg. visual, spatial, gestural, linguistic) and opportunities for
collaboration.
A final group of technologies that offer support to musical curriculum practice are
computer‐based tools. As mentioned previously, computer‐based tools are by far the
most widespread application of digital technologies in secondary music education
(Reese 2001; Pitts and Kwami 2002; Reynolds 2005). Folkestad’s influential study of
secondary aged music students composing using computer‐based tools was
conducted in an informal context outside school(Folkestad 1996; Folkestad,
Hargreaves et al. 1998). However, the aim of the research was to investigate
individuals’ processes of computer‐based composing. Folkestad et al (1998) conclude
that all the participants succeeded in creating music, irrespective of their level of
musical experience. This notion is supported by Seddon & O’Neill (2003) who note
that, while formal instrumental music training may influence the process of
composing, all 48 students (aged 13‐14 years) in their study were able to create
music effectively. More recently Gall & Breeze (2005; 2007; 2008), demonstrate that
contrasting computer‐based tools (Dance E‐Jay, Cubasis, Cubase VST) provide
opportunities for collaboration (2005 p.426). Of particular importance at secondary
9

10. level is the way that these collaborative opportunities do not preclude the resulting
composition being the result of decisions made by an individual student. In this way
such tools may help to overcome any tensions between the value of group work in
promoting musical working and assessment requirements.
The types of technologies discussed above can be integrated into systems that
provide greater flexibility and access. A study that demonstrates the efficacy of such
integration in secondary contexts is the Savage and Challis’ (Savage and Challis
2001; Savage 2003) Dunwich Revisited project. The study was a KS3 and GCSE
composing project that culminated in a performance at a local concert hall. This
project included mobile systems (a MiniDisk player), computer‐based tools and
hardware user interfaces. Digital technologies present many different opportunities
to effectively support a curriculum which builds on students’ individual musical
experiences, fosters collaboration and provides opportunities musical working.
Table 1.1 presents further examples of each technology type from the current
literature on digital technologies in music education. A recent collection of articles
drawn together by Burnard and Finney (2007) presents a promising picture of
existing and potential uses of technology in the music classroom. Most striking
about this volume is the degree to which digital technologies are presented less as a
tool and more of a medium, which requires engagement and interaction. It is clear
that many opportunities exist but the key to success is to consistently review
whether they promote meaningful activity in your classroom.
The challenges of providing a flexible environment in which every student can
engage in a meaningful way are great. However, the following section presents a
suggestion of how it may be possible. A unit of work will be constructed from the
key concepts, which brings together the illustration of meaning making in
composing (Page 5) with the opportunities afforded by digital technologies (Page 15‐
16).
10

11. Table 1.1: Types of digital technologies that may support musical curricula
Technology Technology Tool example Source
type group
Mobile mp31 players IPOD, Creative Zen, (Roberts 2005; Horn 2006;
Systems Ashworth 2007; Vardy and
Kervin 2007)
Mobile Mobile Iphone, Nokia, Motorolla, (Roberts 2005; Ashworth
Systems phones Samsung 2007; Baxter 2007)
Web Based E‐portfolio’s, NUMU, Teaching music, (Manning 2007; Ruthman
Services Blogs and PBWiki, Wordpress 2007; Waters 2007;
wikis Ashworth 2008; Kirkman
2008; Savage 2008)
Web Based e‐learning Musit Interactive (Lou, Dedic et al. 2003;
Services platforms Brickell and Herrington
2006; Seddon 2007; Rhode
2008)
Web Based Networking Firstclass, Jam2Jam, Impromptu, (Dillon 2003; Cook,
Services platforms ChucK, Audicle Davidson et al. 2005;
Sorensen 2005; Brown and
Dillon 2007; Dillon 2007;
Kirkman 2007)
Computer‐ Multimodal Cubase, Logic, Sibelius, Finale, (Folkestad 1996; Seddon
Based Tools computer Wavelab, Cool Edit Pro and OʹNeill 2003;
workstation Folkestad and Nilson 2005;
software Reynolds 2005; Kirkman
2007; Gall and Breeze 2008)
Computer‐ DJ software E‐Jay, Virtual DJ (Dillon 2004; Gall and
Based Tools Breeze 2008; Green 2008)
Hardware MIDI devices Keyboards (MK149) Controllers (Reese 2001; OʹNeill and
User (Korg nanoPAD), Mixers Seddon 2003; Gall and
Interfaces (BCF2000) Breeze 2007; Kirkman
2007)
Hardware Analogue‐ IO2, FA101, Audigy 2, MQT (Reynolds 2003; Gall and
User Digital audio Breeze 2005; Field 2007;
Interfaces devices Kirkman 2007)
Hardware DJ systems Turntable, Digital mixer (Challis 2007)
User
Interfaces
Hardware Extended use Nintendo DS + Korg DS‐10, Wii (Moore 2008)
User theramin
Interfaces
1
Mp3 – Stands for ‘Media Player 3’ file. This is a standard digital format for storing musical sound
performances.
11

12. 2. PLANNING A UNIT OF WORK
With careful planning it is possible to construct an adaptable framework within
which individual lessons provide students with the freedom they need to be
creative, motivated and musical. Such a framework is structured to address the
needs of the curriculum and flexible enough to meet each student’s needs. The aim
of the unit is to demonstrate a working out of the key concepts into realistic
classroom activities, which promote learning through the integration of digital
technologies. Before turning to this we will look briefly at the process of planning
followed in this case.
Curriculum planning can be thought of using the metaphor of archery from where
we borrow much of the language. Your learner priorities are the main goals that you
will ‘aim’ towards (think of them as an archery target that you line up to hit with
your bow and arrow). Progress towards these priorities is demonstrated by achieved
‘outcomes’ or ‘objectives’ (you fire a shot…maybe you hit the outer circle of the
target). Achievement of your priority is demonstrated by a fully achieved target
(...you get a bullseye!).
Smart goals are specific short‐term goals that clearly identify what will be done or
what will be produced as work proceeds towards achieving your priorities. You
will also ‘aim’ at these smart goals (think of them as small adjustments of your bow
just before firing) and you know when you have done them (you point your arrow
down a bit).
SMART Goals:
S ‐ specific: clearly defined and understandable to all involved in
the action
M ‐ meaningful: They are relevant both to individuals and the
group. They involve specific actions within a clear structure.
A ‐ achievable action: It can be done within the limits of time,
resources, knowledge, skill and understanding of participants
R ‐ rewarding: work towards the goal will be satisfying and once
completed, it will be recognised as an achievement
T ‐ time‐sensitive: enough time is available to achieve them (but
not too much)
For further resources on smart goals see:
http://www.projectsmart.co.uk and http://www.goal-setting-guide.com
12

13.
2.1. UNIT CHECKLIST
Use the following list to translate the unit framework into your setting. Once you
have answered the questions you can use the framework map to highlight the areas
on which your students need to focus during this unit.
Planning checklist
Starting off:
1. What are your learners like now?
2. What are your priorities for this year?
3. What do you want your learners to achieve next?
Surveying the land:
4. What resources do you have available?
5. What is the timescale for this unit?
Setting up:
6. What skills and strategies do your learners need to develop?
7. What do your learners need to know?
8. What do your learners need to understand?
Defining your targets:
9. What will you focus on during this unit?
10. What will your learners be like when you have completed the unit?
Lining up
11. What instruction do you need to provide?
12. What learning activities do they need?
Bringing it together:
13. How will you organise the curriculum to achieve your priorities?
Safety checks:
14. What skills, knowledge or understanding do teachers and support staff need to
deliver the unit?
Take the shot
15. Implement the curriculum using SMART goals
Line up for a second shot
16. Review progress toward your main priorities and make SMART adjustments as
needed
13

14.
2.2. A FLEXIBLE CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK:
The idea behind this unit is that the key concepts and not the content are at the
forefront of the design. It should be noted that this is only one way of mapping out
the concepts and skills into a unit map. The focus at each phase in the unit shifts
between concepts, processes and skills. However, it has already been noted that
these are not separate activities but depend upon each other. Thus, the emphasis
may be on creativity while at the same time students are developing their critical
understanding and team work skills as they engage in a performance focussed
activity. The phases are for focus and clarity only. They are not mutually exclusive.
Figure 2.0 shows a unit framework for activities over 10 a week period. Each phase
is a two week block. Each phase has a practice focus and lesson focus points that are
drawn from the key concepts. Below this, figure 3.1 illustrates the way different
technology types can be used to support activities that can focus on each of the
different key concepts. Detail on each aspect of the technology map is provided in
table 2.0. Links to relevant websites are provided in the resources section. You will
notice that the key concepts are mapped through the practical activities of listening,
composing, performing and collaborating. This is to reflect the nature of the musical
curriculum digital technologies can support: key concepts 1.2 – 1.5 are embedded
within practical musical activity.
14

15.
Phase: Stimulus Ideas Development PLTS Transition
Practice
Focus: Perform Compose Listen Collaborate Revise & extend
Independent
LESSON FOCUS POINTS
Stimulus for Evaluate: Evaluate:
Groundwork enquiry
for critical creativity cultural critical
understanding understanding
understanding
Structuring for Team work
communication Reflective
Groundwork learners
Self-managers
for cultural
Combine
understanding
with other Effective
art forms participators
Creativity: cross
Creative thinkers
discipline work
Timeline
2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks
Key: Key concepts PLTS
Figure 2.0: A curriculum map showing key concepts, practice focus and PLTS
15

16. Key concepts
1.2 Cultural Understanding 1.3 Critical Understanding 1.4 Creativity 1.5 Communication
1.1 Integration of practice
Listening Composing Performing Collaborating
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 User interfaces 10 Web based services
Mobile systems (MOS) Computer-based
tools (CBT) (HUI) (WBS)
11
12
Figure 2.1: Digital Technologies Digital Technologies
Mapped to Key Concepts
16

17. Table 2.0: Key to Digital Technologies Mapped to Key Concepts
Link Link Opportunity for support Resources/Examples
No.
1 Listening‐ Listening activities can be transferred to Requires computer for
Mobile students’ mobile phones, mp3 players or pen transfer
systems drives for homework
2 Listening‐ Computer based tools allow students to i) See resources section for
Computer‐ listen to their work, ii) can provide templates suggestions
based tools for modeling and iii) can be used to allow
students to control how they listen during
aural activities.
3 Composing‐ Computer‐based tools allow students to see See the resources section for
Computer‐ their unfolding composition in different suggestions
based tools screens, record multiple tracks print or save
their work and work with synchronous
video.
4 Performing‐ Many mobile phones include applications for See the resources section for
Mobile sound synthesis. Some of these hold great suggestions
systems potential as performance devices. See also
applications for the Nintendo DS
5 Performing‐ As well as the most obvious keyboard Korg Nanopad, Korg
Hardware interfaces digital pads, knobs, buttons and NanoKontrol, Various
User sliders offer many ways to interact with keyboard devices, Yamaha
Interfaces music in a hands on way. Many web forums Tenori
offer support. Interactive whiteboards and
computer‐projectors can be used to assist
class and group performances.
6 Collaborating‐ Some platforms allow users to collaborate Examples include Jam2Jam
Hardware live via hardware interfaces. This setting can and TamTam. See also mrmr
User be thought of as a live band or orchestra for iphone.
Interfaces situation.
7 Collaborating‐ Collaboration via email, fileshare or Exampels include Firstclass,
Web Based messaging services provides a non real‐time email, Windows Messenger.
Services and more considered way to collaborate. See also Jamstudio and
Noteflight. Networking
environments such as NUMU,
Facebook, Ning or twitter can
also be helpful. Web pages
and Wikis can also be good
source of information.
8 Mobile Linking mobile systems to computer‐based See built in phone
systems ‐ tools can provide ways of listening to and applications & resources
Computer‐ even adding to your developing work. section
based tools
17

18.
Link Link Opportunity for support Resources/Examples
No.
9 Computer‐ Linking together computer‐based tools and Behringer B series, M‐Audio
based tools ‐ hardware user interfaces allows students to trigger finger, Akai WHI‐USB,
Hardware engage with the music as a more hands on Roland FC‐300, TECH21 Foot
User activity. Different interfaces provide controller, Numark Total
Interfaces different modes of interaction so a variety Control DJ Controller.
of interfaces would be preferable.
10 Hardware Systems such as Jam2Jam and TamTam can See MIDI controllers,
User utilize MIDI controllers to get a more hands collaboration online and and
Interfaces ‐ on feel. Networked live performance
Web Based in the resources section
Services
11 Computer‐ i) Good templates and stimulus material i) See resources section
based tools ‐ can be downloaded from many web ii/iii) Networking sites such as
Web Based forums. ii) Uploading work in progress is a NUMU, Ning and school
Services good way to encourage and generate website
feedback. iii) Publishing finished work on iv) See ‘podcasting resources’
web forums as student e‐portfolios can help in resources section
to motivate provides resources for future
projects and creates resources for other
students. How about a weekly school
podcast!
12 Mobile Linking mobile systems with web based Twitter, Mobile Fotos and
systems ‐ Web services allows access to musical material Facebook mobile are examples
Based for homework or out of music lessons (try of applications that provide
Services playing through a phone your group’s ways of sending information
recorded performance piece over the web to and from phones. Try also
via a podcast to accompany a drama!) Shoutcast and Youtube.
18

19. 2.3. EMBEDDING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CURRICULUM
Drawing on the planning map on page 14, the following unit is an example of how
digital technologies can be used at different times in a unit of work. The content in
the worked example is left intentionally broad to allow modification for the
individual needs of different contexts and students. More detailed subject matter (eg
theory, conventions, elements, etc.) will need to be considered if used in the
classroom.
To make the best use of technologies it is worth remembering that:
1. Mobile systems are great because they are mobile – like a homework log or a
ball point pen,
2. Web based systems are great because they link us together,
3. Computer‐based tools are great because they offer lots of different ways to
get into the music at a comparatively low cost, and
4. Hardware and user interfaces are great because they let us ‘get our hands
dirty with the music’ at a comparatively low cost.
At the classroom end we should be working with tools fit for the task. If we want a
hammer, of course we must think about what shape and size the handle needs to be
to achieve comfort and grip, what weight it needs to achieve the desired force and
what shape the head will need to be (claw, ball pein, cross pein, club, mallet). Is a
hammer made of jelly ever going to be as good as one made of metal? If it is quicker
and easier to write on paper, then use paper. If you forget your pen all the time and
loose your homework log, then use your phone (or maybe you loose that too!). If
you want lots of different ways to get into the music then why have a roomful of
identical systems? If you can get into the music more easily by using a trumpet then
use your trumpet. If you can’t play trumpet and keyboard at the same time then
consider recording them separately. How about changing the sound using a
microphone and guitar effects unit? Ask not ‘what can we do with it?’, but; ‘what
does it allow us to do really well?’
19

20.
2.3.1. Unit of work: a worked example
Unit of work: ‘Freedom’
Aims: To explore notions of music, creativity and freedom in different contexts
Week Practice focus Lesson focus Suggested content Technology Key Process focus Assessment
points opportunities & outcome
1‐2 Perform Groundwork ‐The Spiritual (eg Deep 1, 2, 4 or 5: As a class use 2.1b, 2.2a Formative
for critical river, Swing low) mobile system/s, Knowledge of how assessment of
understanding ‐Bob Marley: Song of hardware user interface/s music is used to performances
freedom album or computer‐based tool/s build community
‐Film music: Amazing as accompaniment to a (eg collective
Grace (Newton’s ‘freedom song’. singing/playing,
Amazing lyrics, events) and
Grace/Tchaikovsky’s express ideas
Groundwork “Morning Prayer) or 6 or 7: use collaboration 2.1c, 3e Experience
for cultural Braveheart opportunities to work and share different
understanding ‐The Music – “Freedom with students in another approaches to
Fighters” cultural context. using music for
‐Soul music: Woman of promoting human
the Ghetto ‐ Marlena rights
Shaw Knowledge of
different
conventions
20

21. Week Practice focus Lesson focus Suggested content Technology Key Process focus Assessment
points opportunities & outcome
3‐4 Compose Stimulus for Begin composing work 7 Use human trafficking 2.1e, 3d Knowledge
creativity related to ‘freedom’. i) stimulus from the web: of relevant stylistic
video/mp3/website/pictu
film score ii) spiritual iii) conventions (eg.
fusion of different re. Reggae rhythms,
cultural styles (use 3, 8, 4, 5‐9 Store work staff notation if
experience from using mobile systems or appropriate, etc.)
collaboration last week) computer‐based tools
Structuring for Continue composing 2 Listen to previous 2.1d develop and
communication work. Focus on how the work extend ideas
music is building 3 record new ideas
community or 5 collaborate on ideas
expressing an idea (week
1)
Combine with Present composition as a 5 perform as dramatic 2.3e, 2.1b perform Summative
other art forms performance event piece live using with control of assessment of
Hardware user interfaces instrument‐specific cultural and
11, 12 upload from techniques and critical
mobile system or musical expression understanding
computer‐based tool to
website and present as
part of a web
presentation/ page
21

22.
Week Practice focus Lesson focus Suggested content Technology Key Process focus Assessment
points opportunities & outcome
5‐6 Listen Evaluate: Use knowledge of 1 Using mobile devices 2.2c communicate
cultural different conventions to to store work, evaluate ideas using
understanding evaluate ‘success’ of individual work for expressive
performance homework language and
musical vocabulary
2.1g identify
expressive use of
elements, devices,
tonalities and
structures
22

23.
Week Practice focus Lesson focus Suggested content Technology Key Process focus Assessment
points opportunities & outcome
7‐8 Collaborate Independent Collaborate by sharing As required: 1‐12 2.2d adapt musical Formative
inquiry individual performances ideas, refine and reviews each
Team work and compositions to Homework collaboration improve their own lesson.
Self managers create group using mobile systems work.
Effective presentations on the and web based services
participators topic of ‘freedom’.
Creativity: cross Collaborate across 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 ‐ use using 2.2d adapt musical
discipline work subjects: mobile systems and web ideas, refine and
Geography – based services to improve their own
Interdependence collaborate across time work.
(political connections and space 3f the use fo music
between places) technologies to
Citizenship – Democracy create, manipulate
& Justice and refine sounds
ICT – communication &
collaboration
Modern foreign
languages – linguistic
competence & creativity
23

24.
Week Practice focus Lesson focus Suggested content Technology Key Process focus Assessment
points opportunities & outcome
9‐10 Revise & Evaluate critical Compare music from 7 Review peers work on Reviews Summative
extend understanding weeks 1 and 2 with the web demonstrating assessment of
completed understanding of reviews
individual/group/cross how music can help
discipline work. Discuss to build community
conventions, language,
elements, devices,
structures , different
contexts and personal
experiences of
collaboration. Successes
and points for
improvement.
Reflective 7 Upload compositions 3g property rights.
learners to the web and create 3e consideration of
copyright free resource context
bank
Creative Construction of personal 1‐12 as appropriate 3a performance Summative
thinkers e‐portfolio from ‘work activity within and assessment of
during freedom’ unit. beyond the personal
classroom portfolio
Personal extension
projects:
Personal web sites
Continued collaboration
with students from week
2
Involvement in charity
work
24

25. 2.4. TEMPLATES:
2.4.1. Curriculum map
Phase Stimulus Ideas Development PLT Transition
Practice
Focus:
LESSON FOCUS POINTS
Timeline _ weeks _ weeks _ weeks _ weeks _ weeks
Key: Key concepts PLT
25

26.
2.4.2. Sequence of learning
Unit of work:
Aims:
Week Practice Lesson focus Content Technology Key Process Assessment
focus points opportunities focus & outcome
26

27. 2.4.3. Lesson plan
Unit of work:
Aims:
Week Practice Lesson focus Content Technology Key Process Assessment
focus points opportunities focus & outcome
Lesson aim:
Resources:
Lesson content:
Understanding All
Some
Most
Knowledge All
Some
Most
Processes/Skills All
Some
Most
Time Activity
Extension work
Homework
27

28.
3. EXAMPLE RESOURCES:
3.1. MOBILE APPLICATIONS
Cubase RC ‐ http://createdigitalmusic.com/tag/ipod‐touch/
Bloom ‐ http://generativemusic.com/
idrum ‐ http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/idrum/iphone/
IR‐909 ‐ http://roventskij.net
Theraminator ‐ http://www.yonac.com/software/thereminator‐11/
Korg DS‐10 for Nintendo DS ‐ http://www.korgds10synthesizer.com/
3.2. NETWORKED LIVE PERFORMANCE
Jam2Jam – http://www.explodingart.com/jam2jam.html
TamTam ‐ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/TamTam
Mrmr ‐ http://poly.share.dj/projects/#mrmr
3.3. COLLABORATION ONLINE
Jamstudio ‐ http://www.jamstudio.com/Studio/index.htm
Noteflight ‐ http://www.noteflight.com/
SibeliusMusic ‐ http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/
3.4. SAMPLES/TEMPLATES
Goldbay ‐ http://www.goldbaby.co.nz/freestuff.html
Midi database ‐ http://www.mididb.com/
The classical MIDI connection ‐ http://www.classicalmidiconnection.com/
Hoofjaw & MIDI.com ‐ http://www.hoofjaw.com/Default.aspx
3.5. PODCASTING RESOURCES:
Sound editing:
Audacity ‐ http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
Wavepad ‐ http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/
28

29. Publishing:
Libcast ‐ http://www.libcast.com/
List of sites ‐ http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=Podcasting
Shoutcast ‐ http://www.shoutcast.com/
Youtube ‐ http://www.youtube.com/
Content management systems:
Wordpress ‐ http://wordpress.com/
Drupal ‐ http://drupal.org/
Jaws ‐ http://www.jaws‐project.com/
Comparison site ‐ http://www.cmsmatrix.org/
3.6. ORGANISATIONS
http://atmionline.org/ ‐ Association for technology in music instruction
http://www.isme.org ‐ The International society for music education
http://www.menc.org/ ‐ The National Association for Music Education (US)
http://www.midi.org/ ‐ The MIDI Manufacturers Association (MMA)
http://musicalcreativity.com ‐ The MENC Creativity Research Interest Group
http://www.name2.org.uk –National Association of Music Educators (UK)
http://www.ti‐me.org/ ‐ Technology Institute for Music Educators (TI:ME)
http://www.futurelab.org.uk – Futurelab
3.7. BLOGS AND COMMUNITIES:
http://www.teachingmusic.org.uk ‐ Collaborative teacher blog
http://www.numu.org.uk/ ‐ Community for young people
http://etobiasblog.musiced.net/
http://jsavage.org.uk/
http://weblog.siba.fi/msalavuo/
http://www.alexruthmann.com/blog/
http://www.kirki.co.uk
3.8. MAGAZINES:
http://metmagazine.com/ ‐ Music education technology Magazine
http://www.futuremusic.co.uk/ ‐ Futuremusic
http://www.soundonsound.com/ ‐ Sound on Sound
http://mixonline.com/ ‐ Mix Magazine
http://www.musictechmag.co.uk/ ‐ Music Tech Magazine
http://www.wired.com/ ‐ Wired
29

30.
4. REFERENCES
Ashworth, D. (2007). Electrifying Music: A Guide to Using ICT in Music Education, The Paul Hamlyn
Foundation.
Ashworth, D. (2008). Teaching Music, Synergy.TV.
Barbara Means, John Blando, et al. (1993). Using Technology to Support Education Reform, U.S.
Department for Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Bates, T. (1999). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San
Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Baxter, A. (2007). The mobile phone and class music: a teacherʹs perspective. Music Education with
Digital Technologies. P. Burnard and J. Finney. London, Continuum International Publishing Group:
52‐64.
Brickell, G. and J. Herrington (2006). ʺScaffolding learners in authentic, problem based e‐learning
environments: The Geography Challenge.ʺ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 22(4):
531‐547.
Brown, A. and S. Dillon (2007). Networked improvisational musical environments: learning through
on‐line collaborative music making. Music Education with Digital Technologies. P. Burnard and J.
Finney. London, Continuum International Publishing Group: 96‐106.
Burnard, D. P. (2007). Music Education with Digital Technology. London, Continuum.
Burnard, P. and J. Finney (2007). Music Education with Digital Technology. Cambridge, UK,
Continuum Press.
Burnard, P. and B. Younker (2008). ʺInvestigating childrenʹs musical interactions within the activities
systems of group composing and arranging: An application of Engeströmʹs Activity Theory.ʺ
International Journal of Educational Research 47: 60‐74.
Challis, M. (2007). The DJ factor: teaching performance and composition from back to front. Music
Education with Digital Technololgy. P. Burnard and J. Finney. London, Continuum International
Publishing Group: 65‐75.
Cook, N. (1990). Music, imagination and culture. Oxford, Clarendon.
Cook, P. R., P. Davidson, et al. (2005). Co‐audicle: A Collaborative Audio Programming Space. Paper
presented to the International Computer Music Conference, Barcelona, Spain: ICMA.
DES (1985). GCSE: The National Criteria (Music). DES, Crown Copyright.
DES (1992). Music In The National Curriculum (England).
DFES (1988). The National Curriculum for England and Wales. London, DFES.
30

31. DFES. (2000). ʺThe National Curriculum for England and Wales.ʺ from
www.curriculumonline.gov.uk/.
Dillon, S. (2003). ʺMeaningful Engagement with Music Technology.ʺ Queensland Journal of Music
Education 10(1): 46‐58.
Dillon, S. and A. Brown (2007). Networked improvisational musical environments: learning through
on‐line collaborative music making. Music Education with Digital Technology. P. Burnard and J.
Finney. London, Continuum: 96‐106.
Dillon, T. (2004). Itʹs in the mix baby: exploring how meaning is created within music technology
collaborations. Collaborative Creativity, Contemporary Perspectives. D. Miell and K. Littleton.
London, Free Association Books.
Dillon, T. (2007). Current and future practices: embedding collaborative music technoologies in
secondary schools. Music Education with Digital Technologies. P. Burnard and J. Finney. London,
Continuum International Publishing Group: 117‐130.
Edexcel. (2000). ʺEdexcell GCSE in Music.ʺ from
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/17899.pdf.
Edexcel. (2006). ʺEdexcell GCSE in Music.ʺ from
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/50097/UG017100_Music_Iss2.pdf.
Field, A. (2007). New Forms of Composition, and How to Enable Them. Music Education with Digital
Technology. P. Burnard and J. Finney. London, Continuum International Publishing Group.
Folkestad, G. (1996). Computer Based Creative Music Making Young Peopleʹs Music in the Digital
Age. Göteborg.
Folkestad, G., D. Hargreaves, et al. (1998). ʺCompositional Strategies in Computer‐Based Music‐
Making.ʺ British Journal of Music Education 15(1): 83‐97.
Folkestad, G. and B. Nilson (2005). ʺChildrenʹs practice of computer based composition.ʺ Music
Education Research 7(1): 21‐37.
Gall, M. and N. Breeze (2005). ʺMusic composition lessons: the multimodal affordances of
technology.ʺ Educational Review 57(4): 415‐433.
Gall, M. and N. Breeze (2007). ʺThe sub‐culture of music and ICT in the classroom.ʺ Technology,
Pedagogy and Education 16(1): 41‐56.
Gall, M. and N. Breeze (2008). ʺMusic and eJay: an opportunity for creative collaborations in the
classroom.ʺ International Journal of Educational Research 47: 27‐40.
Greaesser, A., C., P. Chipman, et al. (2008). Computer‐Mediated Technologies. Handbook of Research
on Educational Communications and Technology. J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer and
M. Driscoll, P. London, Taylor and Francis: 211‐224.
Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: a new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot,
Ashgate.
Horn, C. (2006). Mobile Library. The Times Educational Supplement. London: 6‐7.
31

32.
Johnson‐Laird, P. (1988). The Computer and the MInd: An Introduction to Cognitive Science.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesnʹt need us: Our most powerful 21st‐century technologies ‐
robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech ‐ are threatening to make humans an endangered species.
Wired. 8.04.
Kirkman, P. (2007). An investigation of the composing strategies employed by GCSE music students
in a computer‐mediated environment. Faculty of Education. Cambridge, University of Cambridge.
MPhil: 132.
Kirkman, P. (2008). ʺMusic Education and Technology Blog.ʺ from www.kirki.co.uk.
Lou, Y., H. Dedic, et al. (2003). A feedback model and successful e‐learning. Learning & Teaching
with technology: Principles and practices. S. Naidu. London, Kogan Page: 249‐275.
Manning, C. (2007). NUMU, Synergy.TV.
McLoughlin, C. (2002). ʺLearning support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten
dimensions for successful design.ʺ Distance Education 23(2): 149‐162.
Mills, J (2005). “Music in the School”. Oxford, OUP.
Mooney, G., R. Fewtrell, et al. (1999). ʺCognitive process modelling: computer tools for creative
thinking and managing learning.ʺ Medical Teacher 21(3): 277‐280.
Moore, K (2008) http://www.kenmooredesign.com/2008/11/wii‐theremin.html Accessed 28/01/09
OʹNeill, S. and F. Seddon (2003). ʺCreative thinking processes in
adolescent computer‐based composition: An analysis of strategies adopted and the influence of
instrumental music training.ʺ Music Education Research 5(2): 125‐137.
OCR. (2000). ʺOCR GCSE in Music.ʺ from
http://www.ocr.org.uk/Data/publications/specifications_syllabuses_and_tutors_handbooks/cquartet
OCRTempFileIJYr6tv9Ek.pdf.
OCR. (2005). ʺOCR GCSE in Music.ʺ from
http://www.ocr.org.uk/Data/publications/specifications_syllabuses_and_tutors_handbooks/GCSE_M
usic4005.pdf.
OCR (2008). GCSE in Music, OCR.
Pitts, A. and R. M. Kwami (2002). ʺRaising studentsʹ performance in music composition through the
use of information and communications technology (ICT): a survey of secondary schools in England.ʺ
British Journal of Music Education 19(1): 61‐71.
Pitts, S. (2005). ʺA Century of Change in Music Education: Historical Perspectives on Contemporary
Practice in British Secondary School Music.ʺ
QCA (2007). GCSE Subject Criteria for Music.
QCA. (2007). ʺThe New Secondary Curriculum.ʺ from http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/.
32

33.
Reese, S. (2001). ʺTools for Thinking in Sound.ʺ Music Educators Journal 88(1): 42‐46 + 53.
Reynolds, N. (2003). Musical Composiiton and Creativity in an ICT‐Enriched Learning Environment ‐
a case study. ICT and the Teacher of the Future. University of Melbourne, IFIP Working groups 3.1
and 3.3 Working conference.
Reynolds, N. (2005). ʺThe Computer as Scaffold, Tool and data Collector: Children Composing with
Computers.ʺ Education and Information Technologies 10(3): 239‐248.
Rhode, J. (2008). ʺe‐learning INteraction Matrix: Essential Elements of a Socially Constructed
Learning Environment.ʺ Retrieved 20/6/2008, from http://www.idolresources.com.
Roberts, C. (2005). Making Sense of Mobile Phones. The Times Educational Supplement. London: 13‐
16.
Ruthman, A. (2007). ʺcranbrookcomposers.ʺ from http://cranbrookcomposers.pbwiki.com/.
Ruthman, A. (2008). ʺwww.alexruthman.com.ʺ Retrieved 21 October 2008.
Ruthmann, A. (2008). ʺWhose agency matters? Negotiating pedagogical and creative intent during
composing experiences.ʺ Research Studies in Music Education 30(1): 43‐58.
Ruthven, K. and S. Hennessy (2002). ʺA practitioner model of the use of computer‐based tools and
resources to support mathematics teaching and learning.ʺ Educational Studies in Mathematics 49: 47‐
88.
Ruthven, K., S. Hennessy, et al. (2004). ʺTeacher representations of the successful use of computer‐
based tools and resources in secondary‐school English, mathematics and science.ʺ Teaching and
Teacher Education 20: 259‐275.
Savage, J. (2003). ʺInformal Approaches to the development of Young Peopleʹs Composition Skills.ʺ
Music Education Research 5(1): 81‐85.
Savage, J. (2008). ʺwww.jsavage.org.uk.ʺ
Savage, J. and M. Challis (2001). ʺDunwich Revisited: Collaborative composition and performance
with new technologies.ʺ British Journal of Music Education 18(2): 139‐149.
Seddon, F. (2007). Music e‐learning environments: young people, composing and the internet. Music
Education with Digital Technologies. P. Burnard and J. Finney. London, Continuum International
Publishing Group: 107‐116.
Seddon, F. and S. OʹNeill (2003). ʺCreative thinking processes in adolescent computer‐based
composition: an analysis of strategies adopted and the influence of instrumental music training.ʺ
Music Education Research 5(2): 125‐137.
Sheingold, K. and M. Tucker (1990). Restructuring for learning with technology, L.A. Bryant, Center
for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education.
Small, C (1998). Musicking: the Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover, University Press of
New England, Wesleyan University Press.
33

34. Sorensen, A. (2005). Impromptu: A Live Programming System using AiME. Paper presented to the
Australasian Computer Music Conference, Brisbane: ACMA.
Spector, J. M., M. D. Merrill, et al. (2008). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and
Technology (3rd edition). London, Taylor and Francis Group.
Steffens, K. and R. Jedermann (2001). Using a multimedia Computer Program to Teach German as a
Second Language. Multimedia learning Cognitive and Instructional Issues. J.‐F. Rouet, J. Levonen
and A. Biardeau. Oxford, Pergamon.
Swanwick, K. (1999). “Teaching Music Musically”. London, Routledge Falmer.
Thomas, M. (2008). Teaching with Technology. Paper presented at a Science Technology and Maths
Education Seminar Thursday 16th October 2008, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
Tobias, E. (2008). ʺCatalysts and connections.ʺ
Toynbee, J. (2003). Music, Culture, and Creativity. The Cultural Study of Music: a Critical
Introduction. M. Clayton, T. Herbert and R. Middleton. London, Taylor & Francis Books, Inc.: 102‐
112.
Vardy, J. and L. Kervin (2007). Using iPod technology to engage primary students with the
deconstruction and reconstruction of audio text. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years: 36.
Waters, J. K. (2007). E‐Portfolios: Making Things E‐asy. T H E Journal: 8.
Webster, P. (2007). Computer‐based technology and music teaching and learning: 2000‐2005.
International Handbook of Research in Arts Education. L. Bresler. London, Springer: 1311‐1328.
34

35.
35