How can faculty in the subject area of music industry and recording arts be motivated to implement technology to support the curriculum?

Greetings! In this post I have augmented my original question to feature what interventions and actions may be taken to facilitate technology integration into the music industry/recording arts curriculum.  This question calls for an answer to address what is the best way to teach a generation of "digital natives", who are using technology daily for their social lives, and are now emerging from educations that are increasingly supported by technology.

Three strategies that may help faculty overcome the barriers to their technology integration:

First, I believe that it would be helpful to implement instruction about teaching with technology in the education of the faculty members themselves. Specifically, programs that teach audio pedagogy, and prepare music industry educators, like that at University of Colorado at Denver which offers a class called Audio Studies Pedagogy, should effectively include curriculum focused on how to best utilize current technology in instruction. Therefore, new teachers would be prepared to think about how to implement technology into the new courses they teach at other universities. In the article "Teacher Education and Technology: Initial Results from the “What Works and Why” Project", Pellegrino, Goldman, Bertenthal, Lawless (2007) cite Moursund and Bielefeldt (1999) arguing "that in order to increase the technology proficiency of new teachers, teacher education programs needed to increase the level of technology integration in their own programs. (Pellegrino, Goldman, Bertenthal, Lawless, p. 56). Also in this article, they state "that the digital natives who are learning to be teachers and the digital immigrants who are responsible for their training and preparation are at least in the same ballpark when it comes to some of the many uses of technology for educational purposes." (p. 82) According to their study, education schools are wisely implementing teacher-technology training into their curriculum, and Music Industry educators should expect to teach on the same technological level as other content areas.

Here is a video demonstrating how ACU is training pre-service teaching how to integrate technology and modeling current uses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_BkW6O_k08&list=PL650759BC21AC2A69

Next, school administrators and departments must support current instructors by creating and hosting regular, open technology integration workshops and tutorials. Active training environments that facilitate technology adoption and diffusion are essential for keeping current professors up-to-date with pedagogical strategies.
A great example of this type of facilitation exists at Indiana University at the Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. The link to the site is: http://citl.indiana.edu/about/index.php . This institution hosts teaching resources, faculty learning groups, and regular workshops that intertwines teaching theories and technology.
Here is a sample video available on this site that discusses "flipping the class."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26pxh_qMppE&feature=player_embedded

To enhance the technological competency of teachers, we must make them aware of the technology available to them, how it may implemented into teaching, and then teach them strategies to accomplish this. In the article"Examining PT3 Projects Designed to Improve Preservice Education" Mims, Polly, Shepherd, & Inan (2010). note that "Faculty comfort and proficiency with technology was one of the primary barriers, and was thus the initial focus of many projects" (Jonas, 2004; Mills, 2003). (p. 17) The authors discuss how successful groups overcame these barriers. "In order for teachers to use technology in their classrooms, they must first learn which technologies are available to them. Many PT3 projects facilitated faculty, preservice and inservice competency about available technologies
through workshops and other hands-on activities. These activities appear to be effective in raising
awareness about available resources." (p. 22)

Last, I would like to build upon the previous strategy of offering faculty training workshops by augmenting that departments should provide one on one support to service the participants using the technology. Open support staff that provide assistance with technology integration boost the confidence of the educators using them. Educators must overcome fears of seeming under-prepared by their students, lacking the time to create an effective learning tool, and much more. To ease anxieties, technology specialists should be  available for extended time periods to help taylor instruction to specific lessons, media availability, and answer direct questions. Mims, Polly, Shepherd, & Inan (2010). recommend "one-on-one support by individuals who are, at a minimum, committed to technology integration and preferably have mastered the technology in question. Furthermore, these mentors/ coaches should focus on the needs and interests of individual faculty and preservice teachers rather than
rely on scripted or generic instruction..."(p. 22)

Below is a link to a great, short paper by Hsueh-Hua Chuang, Ann Thompson, Denise Schmidt from Iowa State University, discussing mentoring in faculty technology integration:
Faculty Technology Mentoring Programs: Major Trends in the Literature
This article discusses 4 types of mentoring models and the 6 successful themes in them:

1. Providing Visions for Technology Use

2. Individualizing Technology Support

3. Breaking Down Hierarchical Structure

4. Establishing Open Dialogue and Collaborative Relationships

5. Providing Mutual Benefits

6. Establishing Learning Communities

In summary...

I would like to revisit the question at the beginning of the blog:  How can faculty in the subject area of music industry and recording arts be motivated to implement technology to support the curriculum?

I propose these 3 strategic actions be made at the college level to address the instructors using the technology:

1. Post secondary programs specializing in music industry pedagogical studies must prepare future music industry professors by offering specific training focused on technology integration and teaching. Professors should model ideal technology integration in their own lessons as well.

2. Colleges should offer regular workshops and training interventions to enlighten faculty about the technology and strategic uses they have available to them. Further, incentives to utilize such resources should be provided to increase participation.

3. Individualized, one to one support must be offered to increase proficiency and build instructor confidence.


Here are my final thoughts...

Students of music industry and recording arts programs should have access to a 21st century post-secondary education. Instructors should keep in mind that their pedagogy must be appropriate for the digital native audience to motivate the learner. As educators it is important to understand the SAMR model developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura and design effective instruction with technology.

 Also, we should keep in mind that "Having basic computer literacy is not enough. Teachers should understand the connections between technology and learning and use this understanding to bring the two together in such a manner that makes each indispensable to teaching and learning" (Lowther, Bassoppo-Moya, & Morrison, 1998) (p.23) As recording arts instructors surrounded by technology to teach our students about, we must be cautious so that the teaching is guiding our use of the technology, and the technology is not driving our teaching! There is alot for educators to think about when designing instruction! The most successful way for administrators to ensure the use of technology and instruction is appropriate and contemporary in their department is to model effective strategies, host training interventions, and supply supportive staff for individualized tutorials.
Thanks for reading!

Motivation to use OER and Instructor Beliefs

These past two weeks I have been implementing my workshop to introduce music industry and recording arts faculty to Open Educational Resources (OER). The workshop takes approximately 40 minutes-1 hour, and may be experienced online or in-person. Here is a link to the workshop:

http://falloney83.wix.com/oerworkshop

After implementing the workshop, I surveyed my participants about their motivation to implement these technological resources into their professional learning and teaching processes. The survey used a 5-point scale to measure motivation for usage with curriculum, motivation to openly share and license materials, and motivation to learn from OER. Also, the survey inquires about perception of time limitations, administrative support, student support, and predicted adoption.

Here is a link to view the survey:

http://bit.ly/133h9YK

Most importantly, I was interested in whether teacher's believed in the value of using and creating OER, and whether my workshop had any effect on their prior beliefs.

Here are the results from the respondents pre and prior beliefs of the value of OER:

Prior to the workshop, did you believe that it was worthwhile  to use other's openly licensed materials for your own teaching? 

After this workshop, do you believe that it is worthwhile  to use other's openly licensed materials for your own teaching?

From these charts, it is evident that the workshop affected the prior beliefs of participants to value the use of OER! Specifically, the workshop changed the beliefs of 66% of participants to value the use of OER. Their value of these resources logically translates to increased motivation to use OER in the future. Finally, this major shift in prior beliefs is both impressive and encouraging because it indicates participants were not resistant to change in their belief system prior to the workshop. In the article Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration, Peggy Ertmer cites  Griffin and Olson (2001) stating "belief revision as being highly subject to motivational influence and epistemological values." Keeping this in mind, one may assume the sample of participant respondents that changed their belief during the 45 minute workshop did not hold damaging pre-existing values to impede a change in disposition. 

Next, I will briefly note that 100% of all participants responded that they believed it was ethical to use open resources for their instruction prior to the workshop. This widely accepted belief may have increased motivation to learn about the implementation of these resources.  

Participant response data directly shows that the workshop increased their overall likelihood to use OER. 

Prior to this workshop, how likely were you to utilize open educational resources in your curriculum?

After this workshop, how likely are you to utilize open educational resources in your curriculum?

The increased motivation to implement the technology is evident from the data that shows none of the participants  were even "somewhat likely" to utilize OER prior to the workshop. However, after the workshop, all participants were at least "somewhat likely" to "highly likely" to utilize the technology into their curriculum. 

Though this data is promising, there is still a possibility for the participant intentions to differ from their actions and teaching. Ertmer et. al (2001) reported that "teacher's visions for, or beliefs about, classroom technology use did not always match their classroom practices." The teacher explanations for these inconsistencies between belief and practice were, "contextual restraints, such as curricular requirements, or social pressure exerted by parents, peers, or administrators."(Ertmer, 2005) This lead me to investigate the contextual factors that may reduce the participant's ability to implement OER, such as time, administration support, and student acceptance. All participants responded that they believed they had sufficient "time" to implement OER into their curriculum.  Further, 3 participants noted that they believed OER would save them time as a motivating factor. Half of the participant responses indicated their administration would support OER in the curriculum. All participants indicated they believed their students would support OER in the curriculum. 

The qualitative data from the survey provides insight into the pre-existing beliefs. One participant responded that "I'm concerned about them possibly being boring or seen as lazy". This indicates a pre-existing belief that instruction should be "teacher-created"and online materials are "boring" and easy to acquire. Specifically, this participant is concerned with the appeal to students and peers, addressed in the rationale for inconsistencies between practice and belief by Ertmer. 

Another extreme shift in participant beliefs that occurred through the workshop was the sentiment held for openly licensing their own materials.  The charts below show that none of the participants were likely to openly license their materials prior to the workshop. Afterward, all were at least "somewhat likely" to openly license their materials!

Also indicating a successful shift in beliefs is the unanimous shift in the likelihood to recommend OER to students.  When asked "Prior to this workshop, how likely were you to recommend open educational resources to your students for extra research?" none of the respondents indicated they were likely to do this. After the workshop, all participants indicated they would be likely to recommend OER to students!

Participants "Likely to recommend OER to students" prior to workshop

Participants "Likely to recommend OER to students" after the workshop

Moving forward with the survey analysis, the data indicates that all participants were familiar with the technology used to implement OER prior to the workshop. All participants has used the internet to acquire educational materials prior to the workshop. This pre-existing behavior supports their future likelihood to implement the behavior into their instruction. 

Finally, one of the most promising results was that all participants indicated they believed "OER can enrich your instruction." This is substantial because teacher beliefs guide their behavior. In the article "Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practices", Dexter et. al (1999) said that "Although culture and context create norms of teaching practice...teachers can choose within these limits the approach that works for them.  This autonomy provides teachers with choices to adopt, adapt, or reject an instructional reform." (p.224) This quote directs that the positive feedback from participants regarding their beliefs about the value of OER and their intention to utilize it will motivate their teaching habits and increase the probability of adoption.

Thanks for reading!

Technology Barriers and Enablers

Greetings! The diagram below depicts my experience as an undergraduate student, when many of my fellow Recording Arts classmates and I wanted to learn an alternate recording and composition software, Logic Pro. All music students shared a production lab that had open, convenient hours with the same software accessible to all users. The Recording Arts students were taught to utilize 2 applications, Protools and Digital Performer. The Composition students were taught to use Logic (in the same lab). Our faculty did not use Logic, but we still wanted to learn it because some professional studios used this platform.

The situation presented what Ertmer would identify as a First Order barrier, which means the barrier was primarily external to the instructor. The barrier specifically was:  lack of resources. The department faculty did not have the training or the time in the curriculum to implement this additional instruction. The pre-existing enabler to the integration was that the software access was readily open to all students already! Building from this enabler, I took my position as Chair of the Audio Engineering Society, which is aimed at fostering audio education opportunities, to coordinate a "Logic User's Group" in the lab. This was facilitated and motivated further by the enthusiasm of the participants (students and faculty). Finally, support from a Composition Faculty member enabled a teacher for the group, and the integration of the software instruction began!

In the picture below, the arrows guide you from the integration problem, to the barrier, through the three key enablers, and finally to the solution. Without participant motivation and support, the group could not have flourished and the integration would have failed. However, their enthusiasm maintained high attendance and cooperative learning.

How are faculty in the subject area of music industry and recording arts using technology to support the curriculum?

Welcome back to my blog! I have changed my research question slightly, as suggested by my professor. The question now asks: How are faculty in the subject area of music industry and recording arts using technology to support the curriculum? rather than how they are "implementing technology into their curriculum." I think the alternate verbiage emphasizes the use of technology as an instructional tool which supports pedagogy rather than an asset that may be inserted for any use in an instructional environment.

Adoption and Diffusion of Technology

In the past weeks, I have considered some issues within my subject area concerning adoption and diffusion of technology in our pedagogy. I am contemplating what technologies and uses of technology have been embraced, and which have not been adopted. After reading Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning by E.T. Straub, I have also been inspired by Roger's Innovation Diffusion Theory. "In IDT, the adoption process is inseparable from the diffusion process. Diffusion is composed of individual adoptions. Diffusion describes the adoption process across a population over time." (Straub 2009, p. 630) Straub also says, "The strength of Rogers’s theory is in the broad foundation it provides to understand the factors that influence the choices an individual makes about an innovation. It is the basis for understanding adoption." (Straub 2009, p. 630)
When considering adoption and diffusion, Rogers looks at:

 1. The Innovation

2. The Communication Channels

3. The Social System

4. The Time

An Example of Adoption at IU: Blogging

The following is an example of an adoption within higher education recording arts pedagogy. From a personal stance, I have noticed that blogging for reflection is becoming more popular in our field. Though this instructional method for reflection has been used in many other subject areas and grade levels, it has not been implemented into recording arts. However, with the growing acceptance of the community and the administration, professors are becoming motivated to try it. Our department will now engage students to blog about their production experiences. This motivate them to create effective documentation and use clear communication regarding technological and musical subject matter. A very strong model for production blogging is from "the daily adventures of mixer man". 

This online diary of a recording engineer began in 2002 and may be accessed at: http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php. Recording engineers all over the world felt a catharsis reading his journal, and my own professors in school encouraged me to read these entries. Similarly, for educational purposes, our department is asking students to blog on wordpress about their production experiences with their assigned major ensemble.

Here is an example of that blog:

This demonstrates how an innovation with: (a) advantageous trialability and high compatibility, (b) wide communication through mass media and via individual-to-individual, (c) accepting work environments could be adopted and diffused in time.

Probable Hindrances to Adoption in Higher Education

I believe one major deterrent to the adoption of new technologies is the lack of time allowed to acquire the skills to use innovations with students. Instructors want to appear competent in front of their students, and seamless presentation and usage is key to this. With ever-changing course content and larger class sizes, it can be difficult to learn the most effective manner to implement the innovation.
Not only must teachers learn how to use the technology, but they must decide how to teach with it! In the paper, "Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect", Peggy A. Ertmer and Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich state: "because “innovation and adaptation are costly in terms of the time needed to develop and establish new practices” (Hennessey,
Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005, p. 162), we need to assure that teachers are given adequate time to make these desired changes."(p.262)
I agree with this, as administrative allowances for time to effectively craft innovations with instruction would motivate instructors' usage and engender confidence.

What Can We Do To Motivate Change and Implementation?

Daniel Surry and Donald Ely say in Chapter 11, entitled: Adoption, Diffusion, Implementaion, and Institutionalization of Instructional Innovations that "The complexity and uniqueness of each change situation means that no single, simplistic, "magic"prescriptive plan for fostering implementation exists."

Ely (1999) states there are 8 factors that contribute to implementation:

1. Dissatisfaction with the status quo
2. Knowledge and skills exist
3. Availability of resources
4. Availability of time
5. Rewards/incentives
6. Participation
7. Commitment
8. Leadership


Ely and Surry recommend that to use the eight conditions to foster implementation and institutionalization, we must "use the conditions for an implementation analysis" and "develop an organizational culture that includes all eight conditions in an ongoing, holistic, systematic way."(Surry & Ely, Chapter 11, p. 109)

I agree that effective implementation should be carefully motivated and executed with the 8 factors above in mind. For example, using iPads not only for delivering instruction, but simultaneously for manipulating classroom materials is an excellent innovation. This device allows multiple students to use a single console, solving an older problem of teaching and observation space on expensive equipment. The knowledge and skills to use these devices is becoming more accessible, the rewards for using this equipment is obtaining the desirable device, and many sound engineers are participating in iPad professional applications.
Below is a link to an article in favor if this innovation from GIZMODO:

http://gizmodo.com/5879606/mackies-ipad-controlled-mixer-lets-sound-techs-escape-the-booth

There are many professional and private videos which teach engineers how to use iPads with varying consoles. See the sample below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi-N346w6hA

There are also many videos to suggest other iPad sound production applications:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN2RmvTdPT0

Finally, the support for learning new ways to use iPad for higher ed also has many accessible, quick videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqYNJFnVJNM

From these examples, we can see the resources exist to implement this particular innovation. With administrative support to allow for appropriate time for instructor mastery, provide leadership, and motivate commitment, the use shall continue and flourish!

To wrap up, I acknowledge there are many reasons adoption and diffusion succeed or fail in higher education. I have a strong interest in how music industry programs are motivating adoption and what innovations current collegiate programs find valuable. If you are reading this and would like to comment about a current technology adoption in music industry studies (including recording arts), please post!

Thanks so much for reading!

How are faculty in the subject area of music industry and recording arts implementing technology into the curriculum?

As a an educator of the recording arts, and a student of the subject area for 8 years now, I ask: How faculty within the field of music industry and recording arts are implementing technology into their curriculum?

I am interested in the broader topic of how instructors in the music industry are forming pedagogical strategies, how students may be most effectively taught in this subject area, and how technology may be used as a tool for reflection.

A VERY Brief History of Sound Recording Education

The topic of technology integration is exciting to me because the pedagogy of the subject area is very new. The subject area is relatively young in comparison to fields such as psychology, education, medicine, or philosophy. The first practical sound recording device was invented in 1877 by Thomas Edison.

Thomas Edison and his sound recording device. Photo taken from http://www.nj.com

As music technology developed and the sound recording industry expanded, the need to train professionals arose. In the mis 1960's the first music recording programs developed in Europe.  Since then, higher education programs in the recording arts have grown and flourished all over the globe. Recording arts programs uniquely vary by the rich specialities of the universities that host them. In 2007 Roy Pritts, former Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society Education Committee, wrote in A Global Look at Audio Education, "Programs can now be found in private schools, colleges and universities, and the length of study varies depending on the courses and the specialties of the faculties offering the programs. There is a common body of knowledge and vocabulary present in all of these programs, but each institution has its special niche and emphasis."

Innovative Instruction for a New Field

Music industry education is young, and the programs that train the instructors are also very new and relatively few in number. While the subject area of music education is predominant, only the University of Colorado at Denver offers a course at the master's level in audio pedagogy. To enhance the training of faculty within the subject area, I suggest creating accessible, credible, relative resources for music industry educators regarding technology implementation in education.

Can OER offer effective and useful training that will improve the pedagogical strategies of today's music industry educators? 

I hope that the utilization of Open Education Resources may encourage faculty of this subject area to incorporate technology into their pedagogy. Some instructors, though experts in their field, have not taken formal education on pedagogical strategies. As incoming student technology skill increases, the ability for instructors to utilize technology to their instructional advantage to increase transfer of knowledge is vital. Digital tools can be used both in a teacher-centered and student-centered (constructivist) way.  In the following quote from the article From Chalkboards to Tablets: The Emergence of the K-12 Digital Learner, taken from Speak Up 2012 National Findings, June 2013, the author expresses the malleability of technology in pedagogy that exists with student fluency. 


"Given a varied collection of digital tools and resources that can enhance and extend the learning process, students are adapting these tools to address specific learning goals. From mobile devices to social media, the students’ self identified use of technology to support their schoolwork represents opportunities that are both facilitated by their teacher, as well as self-directed."

Openness in music industry education can expedite the dissemination of the most effectual strategies for  integrating technology into instruction. In the Canvas entry The Extended Argument for Openness in Education, which is an adaptation of an excerpt from David Wiley and Cable Green's book Game Changers, and may be accessed at https://learn.canvas.net/courses/4/wiki/the-extended-argument-for-openness-in-education?module_item_id=52578, the writer states:

"Those educators who share the most thoroughly of themselves with the greatest proportion of their students are the ones we deem most successful."

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Educating is sharing, and the possibilities for success, improvement, and innovation within the field can grow if we use communication tools and open professional development to develop great instruction. The following screen shot is from a lesson in CONNEXIONS, an open education resource which may be accessed at: http://www.oercommons.org/courses/sound-recorder-lab/view.

It depicts a lesson open to all audiences on sound recording. The the entire lesson on audio processing is well-explained and the activities are very effective. If the student or instructor does not wish to follow the entire lesson, they may also benefit from reading the key term definitions, re-using the lab exercises, or linking to the related content on the left side page.

This is a great example of how sharing instructional ideas is advantageous, not harmful, to music industry education. The lab and instruction here cannot supplement a degree in the recording arts or a post secondary education in recording technology, but it may enhance it. 

Using Technology for Teacher-Centered and Student-Centered Instruction

The example from CONNEXIONS is a teacher-centered approach to using technology. The lesson is completely taught by the instructor, the lab is directed by the instructor, and the student forms their knowledge through the experience provided by the lesson. Though some may argue student-centered teaching is preferable, I believe the incorporation of technology into teaching may be most beneficial either as student-centered or instructor-centered, depending on the particular student learning style, the lesson type, and the objective of the activity.

Judi Harris cites a R.S. Earle in her paper Our Agenda for Technology Integration: It’s Time to Choose, to point out that the type of technology we use is not the issue, it's how it is used. The article is entitled The integration of instructional technology into public education:Promises and challenges, and R.S. Earle states:

"Integrating technology is not about technology – it is primarily about content and effective instructional practices. Technology involves the tools with which we deliver content and implement practices in better ways. Its focus must be on curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or type of technology used, but by how and why it is used." (Earle, 2002, p. 7)

I believe technology can be used in a student-centered style in music industry education as a tool for reflection. By allowing students to share their experiences, knowledge, and create their own instructional content, we may progress in an attempt to develop a diverse, adaptive, responsive, and relative instructional environment. Blogging, sharing student-created instructional videos, and posting student projects are some ideas for implementing technology for reflection activities that may reinforce the encoding of information and transfer of content.

Thanks for reading!