The Case for Technology in Music Education

By Andrew T. Garcia

INTRODUCTION
Technology has the ability to enhance the educational outcomes for
students enrolled in music education classes at the secondary level because it
utilizes a hands-on approach and can more readily reflect the individual needs
and experiences of students. These approaches have been shown in general
education literature to positively affect student learning (Hammond & Collins,
1991). In addition, technology is an attractive medium for students and much
of the technology used in a music technology classroom can be purchased and
utilized at home at once weakening the divide that previously existed between
school and home resources (Rudolph, 1996) and strengthening the relationship
between home (community) and school.

This paper will provide an argument for the role music technology to
enhance and assist in the learning of traditional music education objectives. A
restructuring of the secondary general music ed. curriculum through the use of
technology is suggested. The use of technology is suggested as a means of
connecting with student learners in meaningful ways (Boody, 1990) and as a
way of embracing relevant, existing paradigms related to constructivist learning
and a postmodern society and (Rudolph, 1996; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Rideout,
1998).

TRADITIONAL FORMS OF MUSIC EDUCATION

Most public school music programs consist of three basic areas of
curricular focus: “General” Music, Instrumental Music and Choral Music.
General Music programs typically begin in kindergarten or first grade and
continue in some form for all students through the middle school years (about
8th grade). In High School, if there is a non-performance (general) music
program it usually takes the form of electives in music theory or history.
Instrumental Music programs are typically offered in grades 4-12 and provide
opportunities for students to study their instruments in small groups and to
perform in various bands modeled after the military bands of 65 years ago.
Choral music programs are typically discrete parts of middle school and high
school music programs but singing in some form is usually incorporated into
the elementary general music curriculum.

General music programs often exist to teach the basics of music theory
(steady beat, basic time signatures and rhythms) but not much else. Often the
methodology is teacher-centered with the teacher explaining the concept and
the students “doing” or echoing what the teacher asked them to. In good
programs, small instruments will be available for students to demonstrate the
concepts they learned. Even so, these skills are helpful for the students who
ultimately plan to play in band or sing in chorus. Students who do not elect to
play or sing, however, must continue to be subjected to “general music” in some
form long after they have decided it’s not for them. Arguments for keeping
general music programs in the public school curriculum have focused on such
obtuse arguments as “music makes you smarter” (citing studies that SAT
scores are higher for students who participate in the arts) or “music teaches
skills useful in other subjects”. While there may be kernels of truth in these
arguments they certainly miss the boat as far as music education is concerned.
The obvious problem is that they focus on outcomes unrelated to music (Gee,
2000, p. 957).

Band and Chorus programs are often highly visible because they
provide entertainment for local communities. For this reason they tend to be
popular and generally enjoy a high level of community support even if the
programs have hardly changed in decades. Most Band programs consist of a
teacher, students, instruments and a conducting baton which is used to start
students playing, conduct time and stop students from playing when a
“mistake” is detected (usually by the conductor). The mistake is pointed out
and the process repeats itself. This ubiquitous approach has been criticized by
Colwell (2000) and others because true music literacy is overlooked in favor of
the short-term goals of preparing for concerts. Choral programs are run much
the same way. In both instances the learning environment is highly teacher-
centered with the teacher setting the tone, rehearsal process and outcomes
each day, week and year. The extent of learning by students in these
circumstances is questionable even if they ultimately attain a high level of
musical performance.

HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC AND MUSIC EDUCATION

Musicians have always been great users of technology (Boody, 1990).
Evidence of this is the way in which instruments have evolved over time.
Pianos evolved from mechanisms that pluck the strings to short, hammered
arms that strike the strings, brass instruments developed valves which allowed
them to play in different keys, conducting “batons” went from large staffs that
would be pounded on the floor to sleek, efficient wands. Efficiency of keys and
levers on instruments are always being improved and string makers are always
attempting to find the right wood and lacquer that will produce that perfect
sound.

As early as 1980 education professionals were justifying the use of

technology by arguing that it allowed for students to learn by doing and by
thinking about what they do (Taylor, 1980). These arguments were grounded in
the theories of Dewey, Piaget and Montessori. The main argument then was
that a computer can greatly assist student learning of all kinds. Once these
declarations were accepted by the educational community applications for all
subjects areas were sought. In general education, computers still provide much
the same as they did then- an electronic word processor and a place to organize
information. The internet has added an encyclopedic, one-stop-shopping
element to school research projects and programs such as Microsoft’s
Powerpoint have increased the possibilities and pizzazz of student work by
providing the opportunity to work with multimedia and prepare organized slide
shows, however, no strinkingly new technologies have been developed that
change the way students use technology in general education. In music,
applications have been a bit more ambitious.

MIDI, SEQUENCERS, CD-ROMS and MP3’s

 In music, early technologies were focused on attempting to get
computers and musical devices to communicate. The result (in 1983) was the
creation of MIDI which is an acronym for Musical Instrument Digital Interface.
It is a language used to transmit information between electronic instruments
and computers. MIDI allows a musician to play their MIDI capable instrument
and have the music get “captured” by the computer as a MIDI file. Once MIDI
was up and running, instruments of all kinds were created to become “MIDI-
capable”. So, now we have keyboards for pianists, wind controllers for wind
players, electric string instruments and MIDI-xylophones and electronic drum
sets for percussionists.

Software followed the creation of MIDI so that a performance by a

musician (or student) could not only be recorded but could be notated in actual
music notation as well. It is very much like having a private recording studio
where the musician gets to record in “real time” (following and keeping a steady
beat played by the software).

Sequencers have been around since the early part of recording

technology in some form or another but became more accessible to musicians
in time. The term familiar to most people is the 4 track recorder (and/or 8
and/or16 track). Sequencers are different than MIDI because they record
actual sound. (MIDI converts music to a language recognizable to a computer.)
In the case of the 4 track recorder, 4 different instruments or tracks can be
recorded. For example, in a typical rock band, the drums and bass can be on
one track while the vocals, guitar and keyboards can each be on another track.

Following the creation of MIDI, sequencers began appearing as software

on computers. The problem early on was that computer memory capabilities
were limited and couldn’t handle the memory strain of pure recorded sound
(sound files take up much more space than text-only files). Now, however,
sequencers have become common and are used frequently by musicians and
non-musicians alike. What used to be the exclusive technology of recording
engineers is now readily available to the average person in the form of
inexpensive or even free software.

Both MIDI and sequencing applications have changed the music world
by creating an accessibility that did not exist to the average person. Both have
changed the possibilities for music education and opened the door of access to
music much wider, especially for the non-performing student.

In our present day, we can add CD-Roms, Mp3 and wave files, digital
recording technology and interactive web-pages to MIDI and sequencers as tools
for learning about and understanding music. An increasing amount of music is
being produced by individuals with no formal training in music performance
because of these technologies. CD-Roms are packaged multimedia
encyclopedias containing information about any aspect of music, typically,
history and style. Mp3 files are CD quality (wave) files that take up much less
space on a computer hard drive. Most sequencing programs can convert to
wave and mp3 files for easy accessibility and sharing. Digital recording
technology allows live music to be captured directly to a computer for
processing and “burning” to CD’s. All of these are real world possibilities that
can and should be exploited in the music classroom.

MAKING THE CASE

Non performing students of general music classes probably fare far worse
in terms of music literacy. The first thing I am advocating for is a much
broader, even primitive definition of music. The second claim I am making is
that in a post-industrial world, technology has allowed for the decentralization
of education. Embracing it and using it to meet music education objectives can
empower students by rightfully giving them more control and access to their
own (music) education. My final claim is that the use of music technology has
the potential to strengthen the position of music in schools. I firmly believe it is
important for the music education profession to embrace the technologies that
have been with us for two decades now and to expand the borders of what is
possible as outcomes of music in our schools. Research has shown that even
band students learning in traditional environments, have a limited
understanding of music after graduating high school (Colwell, 2000).

CRITICISM OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Concern about and criticism of technology in education takes several
forms. Stoll (1999) in his book The High Tech Heretic, makes the claim that
technology is potentially a dangerous form of entertainment that can detract
from real learning. Healy (1990) has questioned the role of computers in
schools in terms of thinking skills. She raised concerns about what we really
know about the brain’s improvement through typical computer use. In a later
criticism (Healy, 1998), she wrote about concerns related to computer cost and
adequate planning, disconnections between computer use and curriculum
intent, blind acceptance of technology as the savior of educational problems,
health concerns and the inability of educators and researchers to show real
evidence of improvement in learning. Neil Postman (1995) in his intriguing
book, The End of Education, expressed his concern that education not “make a
god” of technology. He doesn’t argue against computers or technology in
schools but he does offer warnings to those that embrace it without question as
the panacea for the ills of education. He worried that technology might have
the effect of marginalizing human and social values, a worthwhile speculation.
Folkestad (1996), writing about his fears about the potential alienation of
students through the use of technology in music shared the same view. In his
scathing article, The Computer Delusion, Todd Oppenheimer (1997) finds
nothing positive about technology. His big claim is that many technologies
have promised to be THE technology that will transform education. He uses the
TV as an example. He quotes from a variety of sources to make his case. For
example he quotes form a survey that found that teachers found technology to
be more “essential than the study of European history, biology, chemistry,
and physics; than dealing with social problems such as drugs and family
breakdown; than learning practical job skills; and than reading modern
American writers such as Steinbeck and Hemingway or classic ones such
as Plato and Shakespeare” (p. 46). He also criticizes the computer’s
promotion of passivity in children and doubts that there is anything
useful to learn from the internet. Closely related to the topic of this
paper is his mention of school districts which have dropped their music
programs in favor of either computer equipment or technology teachers.

Indeed, abuses of technology abound. Healy (1990) found much of it

when she studied the use of technology in schools. Cuban (2001) argued that
computers have been oversold as a vehicle for reforming educational practices
and are generally underused as an instructional tool by teachers at all levels of
education. Specifically, Cuban argued that despite widespread use of computers
by teachers outside of the classroom, instructional practices and school culture
have not incorporated computer-based technologies into regular instructional
practices. Cuban claimed that teachers lack an understanding of how
technology can be integrated into regular classroom instructional practices.
This notion is supported by a U.S. Department of Education (2000) survey in
which only one third of teachers reported feeling either well prepared or very
well prepared to use computers and the Internet for classroom instruction.

In response to Stoll’s concerns, I would ask what makes entertainment

counter to the aims of education? This view seems to be popular in the world of
education. Music teaching, in fact, is often unknowingly belittled by non-music
teachers when they state that music teachers are “lucky” because they have
such “talented” students who just get to “play” as if students arrive with perfect
ability to perform music at a high level and that the teaching and learning of
music involves nothing more than entertainment. The learning of music is a
long and winding road but, yes, ultimately that learning can and is displayed in
the form of performances that provide entertainment. And to engage in the act
of performing with students can be immensely pleasurable and entertaining. I
know from experience that music is one of the most powerful of the subjects to
truly engage students in its processes. Technology only opens the doors to
more students. Stoll would be right about the use of technology, if its use
wasn’t grounded in rigorous educational objectives and if teachers did not guide
the process of the use of technology by students. He would be wrong to insist
that all technology is only fodder for disengaged students. Most educational
software today is designed with learning objectives in mind. Many even have a
scope and sequence built in.

Healy’s (1990/1998) claims were grounded in real experiences. Nobody

can dispute what she saw in certain schools as teachers used technology for no
purpose at all except to pass time. However, her main issues beyond the
abuses of technology had to do with a lack of understanding about musical
intelligence as it relates to the use of technology. The fact today is software is
being designed more and more to match how humans think rather than the
other way around. And gains in student learning have been documented when
compared to more traditional methods of learning (Christmann & Lucking,
1991). Clements (1995) found gains in student creative thinking through the
use of technology.
 In answering Postman’s concerns and especially Folkestad’s concerns,
Brown (1999) offers a compelling argument. He imagined digital media as more
than tools for learning. He argued that digital media can become an instrument
for music expression and even a medium for musical thought. He makes two
powerful and thought-provoking claims: 1- “Coming to a humane conception of
technology requires acknowledgement that being technological is a human trait
not an independent force” (p.11) and 2-The relationship between humans and
computers should be revised where the conception of computer as a tool “is
replaced by one of partnership where computers are conceived as instrument;
controlling and utilizing are replaced by notions of engaging” (p.12).

The problem cited by Cuban was addressed in the field of music

education to some extent by the Music Educator’s National Conference (MENC)
which is the national professional organization for music educators in 1999.
That year MENC created the Opportunity-to-learn standards for music
technology which provides technology guidelines for PK-12 music education
regarding curriculum, scheduling, staffing and equipment. In addition, there
exists a professional organization called Technology Institute for Music
Education (TI:ME) which provides certification standards for music teachers
who use technology in teaching.

Finally, Oppenheimer’s writing may be savvy and he may have used

factual information at the time but he also uses a little slight of hand to make
his arguments. First, he focuses on technology exclusively as a tool and
secondly he juxtaposes technology with ALL of the issues in education. He
quotes Steve Jobs as saying “what’s wrong with education can’t be fixed with
technology”. It is obvious that Oppenheimer felt he was a key figure to support
his argument since Jobs is the founder of Apple Computer. Surely the
comment was taken out of context since Apple leads the market as a supplier of
technology to schools. Even so there ARE many things wrong with education.
Most have nothing to do with technology. To make the claim that technology
can’t fix these things is correct. The implication that anyone in education
would think that technology is the savior of all things gone wrong is unfounded.
Using the teacher survey to dichotomize technology and traditional subjects is
also a convenient way of making his point. Rating systems are unique to the
questions being asked on a survey. The fact that computers may have been
rated higher than the teaching of Shakespeare doesn’t necessarily mean that all
teachers feel technology is needed instead of the teaching of classics. He makes
the same mistake by pointing out that music programs have been lost in favor
of technology. Of course, this is an undisputed fact but it is an unnecessary
one. Educational Technology is not an “either or” proposition it is a “both and”
one. It is not the fault of technology that music programs were lost. It is the
fault of short-sighted administrators who didn’t appreciate that technology can
coexist with all that is already happening in school, not replace subjects.

NEW MODES OF LEARNING FOR A NEW WORLD

Research on Teaching and Learning has shown that learning is
contextual (Anderson, Blumenfeld, Pintrich, Clark, Marx, & Peterson, 1995;
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996 ) and that school
represents a process not, simply a place (Thornburg, 2002). Schools can no
longer represent factory-model modes of instruction. Schools in a post-
industrial world need to embrace holistic and non-linear modes of thinking
including multi-sensory stimulation and inquiry-based learning. A 1998 study
by ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education highlighted the ways
in which new learning environments can be compared to traditional ones:

Traditional New Learning Environments

Teacher Centered Instruction Student Centered Learning

Single Sense Stimulation Multisensory Stimulation
Single Path Progression Multipath Progression
Single Media Multimedia
Isolated Work Collaborative Work
Information Delivery Information Exchange
Active/Exploratory/Inquiry-based
Passive Learning
Learning
Critical Thinking and Informed
Factual, Knowledge-based
Decision Making
Reactive Response Proactive Planned Action

Fig 1. Recommendations by the International Society for Technology in Education

(1998).

Students can no longer be considered “products” of a learning system

that “teaches” them one independent concept at a time in irrelevant ways since
we know that information devoid of context is meaningless-especially to
children who often claim their favorite subject was Kindergarten because
learning was linked to play which was linked to snack time which was linked to
music which was linked to recess which was linked to riding the bus, etc…In
other words the distinction between school and “the real world” was not yet
apparent because learning was still a holistic process then (Garcia, 1999,
2003). Music Technology has the ability to blur the lines in later years for
students while engaging them in the process of music-making. Literacy in
general education is the ability to read and write. Literacy in music education
is the ability to read and write music. Music technology can unleash the
possibility for all students to become musically literate. It is at once the medium
and the message.

CONSTRUCTIVISM
Constructivist modes of learning argue that learners are likely to become
intellectually engaged when they are “working on personally meaningful (italics
in original) activities and projects” (Kafai & Resnick, 1996, p.2). When students
interact with music in computer-assisted formats, they can be fully engaged in
the process. Webster (2000) described the use of music technology this way:
 There is no better way to teach music as art than to routinely
encourage our students to create music thoughtfully through
performance, improvisation, composition, and active listening.
When we ask children to exercise their own aesthetic judgments in
this way, we are helping them to construct their understanding of
music as art. (p. 20).

Students can now create music using notation programs, perform and
improvise on midi instruments and listen to a variety of genres and styles all
through the use of a computer, software and a midi instrument. An analogy
can be made here. One pastime students often talk about enjoying is playing
video games. When asked about why they like them, students will remark that
video games are engaging because they, themselves are in charge, that graphics
and sound are entertaining and there is an objective to the game being played,
thereby, lending it purpose (Garcia, 1999). All of these elements exist in the
latest music software which only gets better and better in terms of quality. In
this way music technology is like some real world experiences students engage
in, such as playing video games. The process of learning with computers is
influenced by the medium to dynamically represent formal constructs and
instantiate procedural relationships under the learner’s control (Kozma, 1991,
p. 205). If students are affectively and intellectually engaged they are likely to
learn (Gardner, 1991; Papert, 1993; Kafai & Resnick, 1993). These ways of
learning are congruent with constructivist theory.

REDEFINING THE PURPOSE OF MUSIC EDUCATION

As stated earlier, I am advocating for a much broader, even primitive
definition of music. If the definition of music is the “organization of sound” and
we didn’t attach subjective notions such as good or bad to this definition,
students would be much freer to create and enjoy producing their own music
and by default becoming musically literate in the process. We have to become
less critical of music’s aesthetic qualities at first and simply allow students to
“play” sound. Once they are comfortable with the process of producing sound
(via midi instruments, sequencers, etc..) music teachers can lead them to the
process of organizing the sound. An infinite number of examples can be used
by playing any number of works by any number of composers in any number of
styles in order to teach how choices about the organization of sound was made
by composers in various time periods. Here, an exploration of historical aspects
of composition can be explored via CD-Rom, for example.

Composition like any act of creation involves decision making. Decisions

about musical sounds and styles have always been rooted in their historical
time periods. In our postmodern day, we enjoy and tolerate a wide variety of
expressive choices by musicians all of which can be replicated using computers
and music software. Students have never before had the opportunity to dabble
in the creative processes and use the actual tools that artists use more than
right now. Even 50 years ago, Leonard Bernstein, had to bring a new
composition of his to the New York Philharmonic to try it out. Now, since
synthesizers are built into notation programs, students have infinite
possibilities to combine instruments and sounds they desire to meet please
their personal sensibilities as composers.

The point is music technology opens doors for students. It allows them
to experience music making as easily as if they were playing in a sandbox. If
general music teachers can cultivate this sense of play and then slowly
introduce structured approaches and music theory, they will have gained
students trust and interest and more importantly taken a giant step toward
increasing the music literacy quotient of the schools where we teach which has
always been a desired outcome of music education.

A NEW WORLD
In a post-industrial world, technology has allowed for the
decentralization of education. It is now commonly known that business leaders
do not need to be in the office to be “connected” and in touch with what is going
on thanks to communications and information technologies. Music specialists
need to understand that what they do (read, write and perform music) is
accessible to anyone, anywhere today. Schools are not the only places where
students can be exposed to music in a performing or, especially a creative
context. It used to be that school was the place where students could get
musical training (outside the church) particularly in band or chorus. There is
more to music and music literacy, then playing in a band or singing in a
chorus. Technological innovations in music have allowed for the same kind of
opportunities for general music students. What a teacher uses at school to
teach can be purchased and used by a student at home. This notion of
decentralization levels the playing field for students and teachers and expands
the possibilities, definition and role of music programs-enriching them and
students for the better. In a music technology class, a student can e-mail a file
home and work on it later or access the same web-site he or she was working
on in class to continue on a project. The great divide between home and school
is transcended when these forms of teaching and learning are embraced and
the number of students touched by the process has the potential to grow
exponentially.

CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the question of using music technology should not be
whether its use makes learning more efficient but whether it enhances the
student’s ability to learn music. In school music programs, technology should
be used as a tool rather than an entertaining and distracting medium unto
itself even as it holds great potential (Postman, 1995; Stoll 1999).

The lightening-speed-fast evolution of computer processing and memory

capabilities on electronic machines can and should positively influence what
will be possible in the music world and, by relation, music education. Rideout
(1998) suggests that music education is stuck in a modern world view in a
postmodern world. If this is true (and so much practice in schools suggests it
is) then technology is a way of embracing the postmodern paradigm without
jettisoning core music education values. If traditional education represents a
modernistic view, the delivery of the curriculum through the use of technology
can at least represent present day post-modernism as it is playing out in
schools throughout our nation and in all aspects of society. The time is ripe for
its implementation.

We cannot be anywhere but the present and if we are pining for a past
that has no relation whatsoever to today’s society or schools, the future of
music education is in trouble. What is technologically possible and relevant is
played out daily in our student’s real world complete with technological gizmos
tailored to their specific tastes. Differentiation is played out all the time in the
marketplace because businesses understand the bottom line: the individual.
Technology allows for differentiation and this is appealing to human beings
young and old. There is nothing more educationally relevant than a class of
students engaging in personally relevant projects in real time for real purposes.
Music programs have often been at the whim of the political and financial
health of school districts. If a significant investment is made in music
technology by establishing a lab in the general music classroom, and ALL
students were involved in the music program, school districts would be hard-
pressed to justify dropping the program when times get tough.

Technology, taken as a whole and projected onto the educational scene

has the potential to irrevocably change the role of all teachers and learners.
Music teachers must heed this suggestion, in particular, because of music’s
close historical relationship to technology and its overweight dependence on
nostalgic, band-and-chorus-based music making in American schools. These
statements are not as nihilistic as they seem. Music teachers need to
continually assess how technology for teaching can be made more effective. It
is still and always will be the student’s task to learn but the teacher’s job will be
to lead students to where learning can take place including those places that
exist. No teacher can be as dynamic and ever-present as a software program.
Nor can every teacher effectively tailor every lesson to the needs of every music
students. By embracing music technology students can learn in their way in
their own time while exploring interests close to their hearts and by becoming
musically literate in the process. In so doing, the music classroom begins to
appear much more like the real world.

References

Anderson, L. M., Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P. R., Clark, C. M., Marx, R. W., &
Peterson, P. (1995). Educational psychology for teachers: Reforming our
course, rethinking our roles. Educational Psychologist, 30, 143–157

Boody, Charles G.; TIPS: Technology for Music Educators; published by MENC,
Reston, VA; 1990.

Brown, A. (1999). Music, media and making: humanizing digital media in music
education. International Journal of Music Education, 16(2), 197-213.
Christmann, E. & Lucking, R. (1991). Microcomputer-based computer-assisted
instruction within differing subject areas: A statistical deduction.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281-296.

Clements, D. (1995). Teaching creativity with computers. Educational

Psychology Review,7(2), 141-161.

Colwell, R.J. (2000). Assessment’s potential in music education. In R.J. Colwell

& C. Richardson (Eds.), New handbook of research on music teaching and
learning: A project of the Music Educator’s National Conference (pp.-1128-
1158). New York: Schirmer Books.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Folkestad, G. (1996). Computer-based creative music making: Young people’s

music in the digital age. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.

Garcia, A.T. (1999) Schooling and student perceptions: understanding meaning

and relevance of ‘the place called school’ in the lives of middle school
children. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts College of Liberal
Arts, North Adams, MA.

Garcia, A.T. (2003). Middle school student’s conception’s of learning.

Unpublished study.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools
should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Gee, C.B. (2000). The “use and abuse” of arts advocacy and its consequences
for music education. In R.J. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), New
handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the
Music Educator’s National Conference (pp.941-961). New York: Schirmer
Books.

Healy, J. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Healy, J. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds,
for better or worse. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hammond, M. & Collins, R. (1991) Self-Directed learning. Critical practice.

London: Kogan Page.

International Society for Technology in Education. (1998). Technology

foundation standards for all students.[Online]
http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_stands.html.
Kafai,Y. & Resnick,M. (Eds.). 1996. Constructivism in practice: designing,
thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2),

179-211.

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996). What matters

most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York: Columbia University.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 280(1),

45-62.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the
computer. New York: Basic Books.

Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. New York: Knopf.

Rideout, R. (1998). On leadership in American music education. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Rudolph, T. E. (1996) Teaching Music with Technology. Chicago: GIA

Publications.

Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic: Why computers don’t belong in the classroom
and other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.

Taylor, R. (1980) (Ed.) The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New
York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Thornburg, D. (2002). The new basics: education and the future of work in the
telematic age. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development:
Reston, VA.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000).

Teachers' tools for the 21st century. A report on teachers' use of
technology. Washington, DC: Author.

Webster, P. (2000). Reforming secondary music teaching in the new century.

Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(1), 17-25