Laura LeBlanc

Music 550
Draft
Introduction/Rationale
Personal electronic devices are rapidly being integrated into schools. Much of this
increase in integration can be attributed to initiatives taken by school districts across the country
such as the Transforming Thinking through Technology (T3) initiative in Minnesota (Sussman,
2014). Such initiatives strive to provide each student with his or her own electronic device such
as laptop computers or tablet computers. Further, there are incentives for teachers to effectively
integrate these personal electronic devices into their classroom instruction by tying their use to
teacher observation and in some case evaluation scores (Whale, 2006).
The task of integrating electronic technology can be overwhelming to teachers who are
attempting it for the first time. Integration may occur in many different forms in a teachers
instruction. At a 2006 educational technology workshop in Maine, Dr. Ruben Puentedura put
forth his model for Technology Transformation in which he characterized the process of
technology integration in the classroom. This characterization is defined in four stages;
substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR). These stages are meant to
be a process that teachers go through while integrating technology into their teaching. The first
stage is substitution where the technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional
change (Puentedura, 2006), the second stage is augmentation where technology acts as a direct
tool substitute, with functional improvement (Puentedura, 2006). Puentedura described these
first stages as enhancing instruction without truly transforming it. The third stage is modification
where technology allows for significant task redesign (Puentedura, 2006), and the final stage is

redefinition where technology allows for the creation of new tasks, previously
inconceivable (Puentedura, 2006). In Puenteduras model, true instructional transformation
does not occur until these final two stages.
Integrating electronic devices into the music ensemble classroom can be a challenging
task. Musical ensembles traditionally exist in the same fashion that they have for hundreds of
years using sheet music or aural teaching, voices and/or instruments. These ensemble teachers
must then face the challenge of integrating new electronic devices while still honoring the
musical goals of the ensemble tradition. Due to a lack of time and resources ensemble teachers
may not receive authentic and meaningful training and support on how to integrate the devices.
In spite of the lack of support, music ensemble teachers are still expected to integrate electronic
devices into their classroom teaching.
This study will focus on Pennsylvania music educators who teach band, orchestra, and/or
choir. The study will investigate the types of personal electronic devices available for
instruction, who is providing those devices, and if technology integration is required in order to
achieve an effective ranking on a teacher observation or evaluation. Music ensemble educators
with access to personal electronic devices will be asked to describe how they are integrating
those devices into their classrooms and at what stage of Puenteduras SAMR model those
educators consider their integration of these devices.
Literature Review
Timing of Technology Integration
There are conflicting opinions as to the best time to integrate technology into the
classroom learning environment. When thousands of dollars are spent on purchasing new

technologies, decisions on when to purchase new devices or upgrade existing devices can be
difficult. Its been said that there are three points at which you can adopt technology: just as its
beginning to emerge, right at the peak of its must-have phase, or when a hot trend has cooled
and the next great-thing is on the horizon (Hamel, 2014, p. 32). At the same time, in a world
where technology is constantly being improved and developed, those who expect utopias . . .
are cautioned that continuing and lasting changes in educational technology are usually
developed after bandwagons have disappeared (Deihl & Partchey, 1973, p. 24). This sentiment,
while stated back in 1973, is still relevant in 2015 when technological trends and bandwagons
turn over even faster than they did forty years ago.
Technology Training
Music teachers have a variety of experience levels with technology. While some teachers
are very fluent with electronic devices, other teachers feel uncomfortable using those devices. In
a 2012 study, music teachers in Virginia were found to have little to no formal training in
electronic technologies (Sorah, 2012). The authors found teachers were mostly self-taught in the
areas of electronic musical instruments, music notation software, multimedia, and productivity
tools. Some teachers had taken a course in college on electronic musical instruments, digital
audio production, or music notation software. Most teachers stated that they had no formal
training in MIDI music production, digital audio production, or technology-assisted learning.
Overall, the youngest and least experienced teachers in the study had the most training in music
technology compared to their peers, however older teachers had more experience with and more
access to MIDI production resources and also used that technology more frequently. A study of
Ohio teachers (Hastings, 2009) found that teachers with more hours of professional development

in educational technology were integrating that technology into their classroom instruction more
frequently than their peers with less technology professional development.
SAMR Model
A frequently cited model for technology integration comes from Dr. Ruben R. Puentedura
who has presented his SAMR model to teachers across the country. In his model, technology
integration is defined in four stages: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition
(SAMR). Puentedura proposed that teachers go through each of the four stages as they begin to
integrate technology into their instruction. In the first stage, substitution, technology acts as a
direct tool substitute, with no functional change (Puentedura, 2013). An example of this stage
would be to have students print out a worksheet, complete it, and pass it in. The second stage is
augmentation where technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional
improvement (Puentedura, 2013). An example of an activity at this stage would be to have
students take a quiz using Google Forms instead of a pencil and paper version. Puentedura
described these first stages as enhancing instruction without truly transforming it.
In the third stage, modification, technology allows for significant task
redesign (Puentedura, 2013). This stage would include an activity where students wrote an
essay on a given theme, recorded themselves reading the essay, and created a background
soundtrack of original music to go along with the reading. The final stage is redefinition where
technology allows for the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable (Puentedura, 2013).
An activity at this stage could be asking students to create a video where students are required to
team up to answer a given question they must research on their own. In Puenteduras model, true
instructional transformation does not occur until these final two stages.

Technology Uses
The following research investigated how technology is being integrated in music classes.
In this research teachers identified a variety of applications both through the Apple App Store as
well as web-based apps that they use in their classroom instruction. These apps have been
developed for a variety of musical purposes, including replacing existing tools (metronomes and
tuners), notation, and ear training to name a few examples and will be discussed in more detail.
Web-based apps were likely most frequently used in classrooms where students were using
laptops, Chromebooks, or other non-Apple devices. In situations where students had iPads or
other Apple devices applications came from the Apple App Store.
SmartMusic.
SmartMusic is an interactive music learning software that provides instant feedback both
visually (marking the musical notation in red when incorrect, or green when correct) as well as
aurally (through recording playback). Through these recordings, student progress can be tracked
on an individual basis instead of as an entire section or ensemble. Directors can select both their
concert and lesson repertoire from the SmartMusic library in order for their students to get the
most benefit (Cruz, 2015).
Padlet.
Since ensemble classes are often larger than most other classes, directors may never hear
answers or opinions from their students who are hesitant to speak up in class. These students
may be more willing to share when given an outlet that is both written and anonymous. Padlet is
a website that provides an online wall where students can share their thoughts. Directors can
choose to require students to leave their name with their comments in order to track which

students have completed the assignment and for a level of personal accountability for the content
they are posting (Cruz, 2015). Students may also be assigned an ID code in order to still have
the tracking and accountability, while providing students with a level of anonymity among their
peers.
Other applications.
The Apple App Store puts hundreds of thousands of applications (over 475,000 as of
October 2013) into the hands of iPad users (Martin, 2014). These apps can range in cost from
free to around ten dollars making them easily accessible for Apple users (Kuzmich, 2014).
Notable apps include Tempo; a universal metronome that costs $1.99, tuner apps Accutune
(free), ClearTune ($3.99), and Peterson Strobe ($9.99), music theory apps Theory ($2.99,
associated with the musictheory.net website), Music Theory Pro ($4.99), and Music Theory
Course Assistant ($1.99), ear training apps Ear Training ($6.99), and Better Ears ($14.99), and
the notation app NotateMe ($13.99) (Hamel, 2014).
Navigating through a large database like the Apple App Store can seem overwhelming to
new and experienced users, however there are a few easy tips for navigating the App Store.
First, do not be too specific when providing search keywords. Second, before committing to an
app (especially those that are not free) be sure to read both the apps description and reviews.
Third, when searching for apps, similar applications can be found under the Related section of
an apps description. Finally, search the internet for application lists and reviews where users
may have warnings or suggestions for other potential users (Martin, 2014).
It is clear that there are a variety of electronic resources available for music teachers and
music students that serve a wide range of purposes. There are resources available that simply

replace technology already existing in the ensemble classroom, such as tuners and metronomes,
and there are resources that are new such as SmartMusic, and the music theory applications. The
types of electronic devices available for student and teacher use will influence the choice of
application or software that is used since not all platforms are compatible. Teachers with a lack
of technological training who are teaching themselves how to use these devices will naturally
progress through each stage of Puenteduras SAMR model by integrating as much technology as
they are comfortable with at first and transitioning to new stages as they become more
comfortable.
Methodology
Participants in this study were from a proportional sample of band, choir, and orchestra
teachers of all grade levels currently teaching in Pennsylvania public schools and also current
active Pennsylvania Music Educators Association (PMEA) members. Of the 2,835 total PMEA
members, approximately one third, or 1,005 members, were invited to participate in this study.
The proportionate sample was based on PMEAs pre-existing geographically designated districts.
The researcher determined the percentage of registered members from each geographically
designated district compared to the entire population. For example, one district had 459
members which reflected 16% of the whole; therefore 160 participants were randomly selected
to participate from that district using simple randomization procedures. The researcher then used
those percentages to create a total proportionate sample of one thousand participants. Due to
decimal rounding the total selected potential participants came to 1,005. Selected potential
participants received an email containing a brief description of the researcher and the research
study, and the link to the questionnaire. Two reminder emails were sent at weekly intervals.

The questionnaire was created by the researcher and contained three categories:
Demographics, Availability of Electronic Devices for Instruction, and Use of Technology in
Instruction. The Demographics section reflected current research in the use of technology in
schools. Research suggests that teachers with less experience are more likely to use personal
electronic devices than their more experienced peers (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). There is also
evidence to suggest that school districts in more wealthy suburban districts are more likely to
have access to personal electronic devices than rural or urban school (Gray, Thomas & Lewis,
2010). Therefore, the section included questions about the type of community in which the
participants teach (urban, suburban, rural), their years of teaching experience, and their comfort
level with electronic technology. The Availability of Electronic Devices for Instruction section
contained questions regarding what type of electronic devices are available for their classroom
use, but also how many of those devices are available and who is responsible for providing those
devices. There was also a question asking teachers what type of electronic technology they
would like to use in their classroom if they were given the choice. The Use of Technology in
Instruction section not only asked about how the identified electronic devices are used in the
classroom, but also how frequently they are used, at which level of the SAMR model they are
being used, and if their use is required for observation or evaluation scores.
The questionnaire was anonymous, however participants were given the option to provide
names and contact information to potentially be selected for a follow-up interview to gain more
insight into their responses. Five participants who indicated a willingness to be interviewed were
selected for a follow up interview after the first round of responses were collected. These
participants were selected based on their responses to the question that asked participants how

frequently they included the use of personal electronic devices in their ensembles. The five
participants selected for an interview represented each of the possible answers; never, rarely,
sometimes, frequently, and always. The participants were contacted via email by the researcher
to schedule one-on-one interviews. Some participants opted for a phone interview while others
opted for a video chat interview. All interviews were audio recorded and afterwards transcribed
by the researcher.