Final Report: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn?
A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness
Kyle Philip Snyder
Final Project Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Master of Science in Music Technology IUPUI Department of Music and Arts Technology Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. G. David Peters, Faculty Advisor
May 2012
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose of the Project ..................................................................................................................... 7 Review of Literature ....................................................................................................................... 8
What are Students Learning? The Current State of Audio Education ................................................. 8 Best Practices in Audio Pedagogy ..................................................................................................... 10 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Conceptual Design of Project ....................................................................................................... 23 Project Content.............................................................................................................................. 25 Project Sequence and Layout ........................................................................................................ 26 Project Tools and Resources ......................................................................................................... 27 Project Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 28
Pilot Study .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Formal Data Assessment Plan ............................................................................................................ 28
Project Timeline ............................................................................................................................ 30 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 31

Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 36
References ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix A: Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 41 Appendix B: Student Presentation Script ........................................................................................... 43 Appendix C: Student Handout ........................................................................................................... 45 Appendix D: Raw Demographic Data ............................................................................................... 46
Appendix E: Graph of Demographic Data ......................................................................................... 47 Appendix F: Raw Questionnaire Data ............................................................................................... 48 Appendix G: Intended Target of Questions of Demographic Data .................................................... 49 Appendix H: Question Grading Rubric .............................................................................................. 50 Appendix I: Calculated Averages of Students in Lecture & Lab Based Courses on Questions ........ 51 Appendix J: Selected Student Answers to Short Answer Questions ................................................. 52
Question 5....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Question 6....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Question 12..................................................................................................................................................... 52 Question 16..................................................................................................................................................... 53 Question 18..................................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix K: Graphs of Student Answers to Questions 1 - 19........................................................... 54

Question 1....................................................................................................................................................... 54 Question 2....................................................................................................................................................... 55 Question 3....................................................................................................................................................... 56 Question 4....................................................................................................................................................... 57 Question 5....................................................................................................................................................... 58 Question 6....................................................................................................................................................... 59 Question 7 ..................................................................................................................................................... 60 Question 8....................................................................................................................................................... 61 Question 9....................................................................................................................................................... 62 Question 10..................................................................................................................................................... 63 Question 11 ................................................................................................................................................... 64 Question 12..................................................................................................................................................... 65 Question 13..................................................................................................................................................... 66 Question 14..................................................................................................................................................... 67 Question 15..................................................................................................................................................... 68
Question 16..................................................................................................................................................... 69 Question 17..................................................................................................................................................... 70 Question 18..................................................................................................................................................... 71 Question 19..................................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix L: Graph of Calculated Student Averages in Lecture & Lab Based Courses Comparing Relative Success ................................................................................................................................. 73 Appendix M: Research Website ......................................................................................................... 74 Appendix N: Research Website Flowchart ........................................................................................ 75 Appendix O: Research Website Script ............................................................................................... 76 Appendix P: Research Website Storyboard ....................................................................................... 79
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Abstract In How Do The Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness, Snyder
collects and evaluates data over the course of a single academic semester using cross-sectional surveys and classroom observations to determine the pedagogical techniques most effective in introductory audio curricula. The study includes a summary of teaching styles which have been historically effective in audio, a discussion of what techniques are currently most and least effective when teaching audio, and recommendations for audio educators moving forward. In completing this study, the researcher intends to provide fellow educators within the field a better understanding as to how best introductory audio students learn, providing recording educators a set of tools more similar to those available to their peers across other disciplines to ensure student success.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Introduction
Audio production has been described by Roey Izhaki as "a process in which multitrack material whether recorded, sampled, or synthesized is balanced, treated, and combined into a multichannel format" (2008, p. 4-5). This project focuses upon how each of these mixing principles and equally related microphone techniques and electrical and physics principles required within the studio are best communicated to the student by the instructor. The researcher undertook this study because of a belief that those individuals teaching introductory audio courses lack a fundamental understanding of how best audio students learn. The project ran from February 6th, 2012 through April 27th, 2012, with data collection taking place between March 19th and April 6th. The research was conducted as independent cross-sectional evaluations and classroom observations. The educational nature of this work means it poses no derivative monetary implications and is of little commercial relevance aside from universities looking to further their curriculum development. Rather, this is work for the greater good, and its audience is intended to be audio educators seeking out scholarly materials related to audio education.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Purpose of the Project
By understanding how best introductory audio students learn through the study of various relevant pedagogical techniques, it is the researchers hope that all students will become the most technically competent and well-rounded engineers possible by properly understanding all aspects of audio production. Although the shape of the music industry has changed dramatically over the past several decades, engineers who are well rounded and competent will always be employable, even if only in tertiary fields. Therefore, audio education is a topic which many debate with a fervent passion. As an engineer, the researcher has long believed he could walk into a classroom and teach students about audio. However just because one believes students would learn a tremendously valuable skill-set does not necessarily mean he or she would be a quality educator. Unfortunately, the individuals who are so often hired to teach introductory or core audio classes are indeed not trained in education fundamentals. The topic of audio education is especially relevant today because audio educators should be given the same tools as their general education peers to ensure student success in varied scenarios and environments. By arming audio educators with the knowledge of how audio students best learn, this study aims to make a significant contribution to guarantee that engineers of the next generation are appropriately well rounded.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Review of Literature
In the last several decades, a shocking amount of ink has been paid to the topic of audio education given its level of stigma within the industry. However in nearly every instance, the discussion has been related directly to overall program design, the design of higher level audio techniques courses such as mixing or mastering seminars, learning technologies which may be of benefit to audio educators, and audio theories which practicing engineers feel are critical to education. Given the formative nature of introductory audio courses, the same amount of research in this area is necessary. What are Students Learning? The Current State of Audio Education Before one can fully understand how students learn, a brief discussion must be had as to what students are learning. The focus of this study is by no means designed as a recommendation of curriculum; however it is valuable as researchers in the area to properly understand what specialty areas are considered germane to audio education; information that is useful when processing and evaluating data. Borwick states that the individuals we are training should be individuals who are skilled in the arts of sound recording, transmission and reproduction a Tonmeister or literally translated from German 'sound-master' (1973, p. 3). He states that as long ago as June 1946, audio programs were proposed in the United States. In an original proposal from 1946 by composer Arnold Schnberg to the Chancellor of the University of Chicago, Schnberg stated, "Soundmen will be trained in music, acoustics, physics, mechanics and related fields to a degree enabling them to control and improve the sonority of recordings, radio broadcasts and sound filmsThe student should become able to produce an image in his mind of the manner in which music should sound when perfectly played" (Borwick, 1973, p. 3). Although audio education today has most certainly split into specialty areas of study, with
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness engineers trained in specific skills which include areas such as recording, radio and film, the basic principles remain absolutely the same across all disciplines. Borwick's and Schnberg's
opinions, while admittedly dated in the traditional sense, are particularly relevant as discussion of audio education as a specialty was not formally conceived until the mid 1980's. Therefore, it is imperative as part of this study to develop a strong understanding of the history of audio education as it relates to how the founders of audio believed students should learn. Strashun adds validity to Borwick's and Schnberg's claims in his 1986 Audio Engineering Convention presentation which clearly shows an evolution of these Tonmeister ideals within American audio education, further illustrating the relevance of seemingly dated material (1986). According to the author: Tonmeisters and Audio Engineers are surrounded by technology in the recording and mixing studio, the mastering facilities and the cutting and duplicating premises. So much technology makes it difficult to remember what people in the audio business are really trying do[Furthermore], educational courses, by their nature take a rather general approach. Their aim is to give their students an all round approach to music, sound and recording, to explain the 'whys' of the trade and build up a fundamental attitude of mindIn the real world however graduates are useful to the industry only after their abilities can be put to good use in a practical manner in particular audio establishments with very specific individual in-house traditions, recording spaces and equipment systems. (Strashun, 1986, p. 1-2) Strashun wisely observes that for many years a distinct difference existed; the individual turned out by audio schools and that very same individual after several years on the job. However, it is no secret that the industry has changed within the past several decades and
10
engineers are now expected to exit higher education institutions fully trained and ready to enter the workforce with no additional training. Therefore, it is imperative that as audio educators we fully understand how best students learn audio course material and adjust the pedagogical techniques currently employed as appropriate. Best Practices in Audio Pedagogy King writes, "there has been little empirical evaluation to date of how learners bridge the gap between theoretical and procedural studio knowledge," an issue which this study will help to address (2010, p. 2). The industry as a whole is coming to terms with this critical issue of empirical evaluation, thus why the Audio Engineering Society has approved the first ever Audio Education Conference which will be held July of 2013 at Middle Tennessee State University. That the AES is only now hosting the first Audio Education Conference, decades after its inception and when other specialty conferences are already the norm, indicates to me that the industry has been grappling with the concept of audio education for some time and has only now reached a point where the topic can be openly discussed. One reason, according to Boehm, why the topic of audio education has only recently reached an age of maturity is that we are actually discussing a discipline which formerly never existed and which has matured to the point that current students can actually be considered to be the fifth generation of Music Technologists (2007, p. 8). She posits that a challenge exists on all of academic levels given the unfamiliarity with this new discipline which must spur forward further research such as this study (Boehm, 2007, p. 8). Cash-Jones echoes this, pointing out that at one point programs used to offer a blend of hands-on education with proper grounding in theory. However given the speed with which audio education programs have sprung up over the past decade, this no longer holds true (Cash-Jones, 2002, p. 3). Is this necessarily bad, and how
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness does it relate directly to audio instruction? Because, as Cash-Jones explains, many engineers
11
choose to learn their skills from short seminars and specialized technical degrees, understanding precisely how to impart basic audio knowledge in introductory audio courses in a manner which is most beneficial to all students is critical to ensuring that all students become the most technically competent and well-rounded engineers possible (Cash-Jones, 2002, p. 2-4). A concept central to the research of introductory audio education is that of general practice versus specific training to operate equipment. It is common knowledge throughout the industry that many trade schools exist which solely train software and hardware operators, not skilled engineers. This trend has long been avoided by finer, higher educational institutions; however as more students become fluent in technology, it is more common to see baccalaureate degrees which advertise hardware or software proficiency. Interestingly, a remarkable study was completed by John Holt Merchant of Middle Tennessee State University who believes that "too great a focus on specific hardware and software platforms distracts from the larger purpose of adequately preparing students for the myriad issues they will face as audio professionals, "a position with which I heartily concur" (2011, p. 2). Straying away from the technical wizardry of new gear, Merchant ascribes to the theory of deliberate practice which "requires students to approach tasks in three stages: prepare in advance, perform the activity to their highest level of focus, and then reflect on the activity after the fact" (2011, p. 3). This is similar, according to Merchant, to the rigorous practice methods utilized by successful musicians in music conservatories across the world. He feels this is the most appropriate method to integrate when approaching upper-level audio courses like mixing, and the researcher certainly believes it is relevant to see if this same approach is useful in introductory courses.
12
Also interesting and relevant to this discussion of practice versus technology dependence in education is a more than decade old conference proceeding presented at the 1996 Audio Engineering Society Convention. While slightly dated, this paper details the structure of Sydney University's Graduate Program in Audio in its entirety which is useful because its stated role of Graduate education in Australia is more closely aligned with our current baccalaureate studies within the United States, prompting an interesting comparison. According to the authors: Students often have more knowledge on specialist topics than staff do...The emphasis should be on principles and their application rather than on technical competence of operating equipment or on design of circuitry for instance. The emphasis is on understanding the technology and techniques rather than producing a high quality recording although we hope the two are related. (Bartolo et al., 1996, p. 6) This is similarly aligned with Merchant's views and will reveal many of the authors observations as quite relevant by comparison when evaluating data. An additional proponent in the practice versus technology discussion is Ellis-Geiger of Leeds Metropolitan University who penned a paper which explains in great detail the methods which the program regularly utilizes and the facilities which make them possible. Their complex is designed in many ways to simulate a generic post-production facility (this paper focusing primarily on post-production) with a specific de-emphasis on any one equipment manufacturer. Rather, areas of the facility are setup to simulate general tasks which students will eventually encounter. For instance, the facility includes a multi-station production house with stations for individual learning objectives. Ellis-Geiger makes clear that the predominant role of the facility is its function as a critical listening environment, allowing the educator heightened awareness of
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness his or her students by critically reviewing various media and conducting Spectral Solfege
13
exercises (2001, p. 1). Ellis-Geiger's unique perspective, along with those presented by Merchant and Bartolo, offer a particularly valuable insight into how students learn. While these are specifically not all empirical studies, they offer the researcher a basis of learning to observe in beginning audio students. While a focus of practice is clearly of value in audio education, other methodologies are certainly worthy of equal consideration. Specifically, another equally important aspect of audio education is mentorship and social interaction within the studio which Jones and King address in "Peer learning in the music studio." They point out that role models are extraordinarily important to students because they can assist students as they encounter problems "to overcome them through understanding the principles and theories behind each operation rather than merely performing them without careful attention" (Jones & King, 2009, p. 58). Examining the use of mentorship in introductory audio classes is another topic which is extremely pertinent to this study because often students feel that these mentoring sessions are less formal than a taught workshop. Therefore, according to Jones & King, students feel more relaxed and have a tendency to seek feedback and support on sections they found difficult rather than going over techniques or parts of processes they understood (Jones & King, 2009, p. 66). Similar to direct mentorship within the audio classroom, Priest examines the extraordinarily beneficial role which external mentorship has upon audio education in the form of internships and other external student placements. The author notes that three statements are generally held to be true within the higher education establishment in England: "That there is a consensus about which employability skills should be developed; That employability skills can be effectively developed in HE; That once developed, employability skills can readily be
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness transferred into employment" (Priest, 2010, p. 49). However, he found all three of these
14
statements to be quite suspect. For example, according to Priest, attitudes toward employability vary across different types of courses and universities. Additionally, the benefits of internship experience with regard to a direct relationship to employability skills fade rapidly upon graduation (Priest, 2010, p. 49). Despite the evidence uncovered by Priest that internships have a less positive impact upon employability than previously imagined, both the authors and their students are still proponents of for-credit work placements because they allow students to "pick up intangible skills such as an appreciation of professional etiquette and organization culture" (2010, p. 63). Put simply, this speaks directly to the larger issue of individual mentorship and the value thereof. Given the perceived value of what Priest sees as essentially on-the-job mentoring, along with Jones & King's similar perspectives, the researcher is particularly interested in the role individual mentorship can have in the introductory audio classroom. More specifically, interest lies in if there is any evident difference between large group sessions as suggested by Jones & King in comparison to the individualized approach which is more common in the situation outlined by Priest. In this comparison, it is pertinent to note that according to Jones & King, these personal learning experiences which Priest's students experienced can fall under the classification of both mentoring and tutoring. According to Jones & King: It is important to make a distinction between tutoring and mentoring schemes as both have slightly different connotations. Tutoring has a focus towards academic learning; its mode is one person to several, its location is generally within the classroom, sometimes lasting the duration of several weeks. Mentoring focuses more on life skills; generally its mode is one-to-one, with the location often away from the classroom lasting the duration of several months or years. (Jones & King, 2009, p. 56)
15
Given this, it is crucial to be mindful of how both mentoring and tutoring are effective forms of educating students within introductory audio courses. At its core, this study examines the direct relationship between various pedagogical techniques and student success within audio education. Therefore, it is necessary to look directly not at just pedagogical specific techniques popular amongst current audio educators, as Jones & King as well as Priest and others have done but also to closely examine the few educational studies which have been completed in the field as of late. What little relevant data exists today regarding audio pedagogy has been gathered largely at the hands of a few skilled researchers in the field of learning technology who specialize in audio and music technology. In King's first study with Vickers, they examine the challenges faced by students in the studio, specifically the challenges created by support. It is noted that support is needed even in off hours of studio operation which is the reasoning behind the creation of his learning system (King & Vickers, 2007, p. 57-8). In a survey of 150 students over three years, they concluded that students were "more likely to seek studio support guidance from a member of staff (43%) or a peer (41%) than a manual (16%) or a textbook (0%)" (King & Vickers, 2007, p. 58). These statistics should hardly be surprising to audio educators, as textbooks are not particularly useful for problem solving; however, the numbers are nonetheless startling (King & Vickers, 2007, p. 58). These statistics are the basis for King's creation of an audio education LTI or learning technology interface which students used throughout this 2007 study and subsequent endeavors. King's second study also adds variety to non-traditional learning methods in audio education (King, 2008, p. 423). In this study, researchers allow students to apply their skills in a practical manner through the completion of a single task commonly asked of studio engineers, which was supplemented with learning technology (LTI). According to King, "The use of
16
learning technology has become increasingly widespread over the past few decades as computers have assumed a greater role in educational establishmentsHowever, Computer-Assisted Learning (CAL) within the area of music education (including music technology) seems to be less comprehensively evaluated than in other subjects" (2008, p. 423). Students were asked to collaborate with one another as well as with performing musicians on a regular basis in much the same way they would in a fully operational studio the idea being that they would then be more prepared to immediately enter the workforce with a more diverse set of skills. Traditionally this style of training would be viewed as vocational, however the argument can easily be made that by placing students in a constantly evolving laboratory environment, they are forced to improve critical thinking and listening skills, both of which are crucial to engineers. In King's study, he supplemented the laboratory environment with LTI which "enable[d] students to work together in completing a practical task (a drum kit recording) that [was] entirely independent of the learning technology support" (2008, p. 424). King's work in "Collaborative learning in the music studio" is especially pertinent because it demonstrated that more traditional pedagogical tools such as learning technology can be successfully integrated into the classroom. King continued his research from "Collaborative learning in the music studio" in a third study which he greatly expanded to include the creation of a class website or learning portal, used to assist in the teaching of multiple core skills. The most fundamental definition of audio production which this study uses as a baseline for what all students must eventually understand is described by Roey Izhaki as "a process in which multitrack material whether recorded, sampled, or synthesized is balanced, treated, and combined into a multichannel format" (2008, p. 4-5). Interestingly, these are the very concepts which King focuses upon in his second study which continues to seek remedies for common learning problems. King notes:
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness "Providing support for students for problems encountered whilst completing practical work a type of help seeking or contingent tutoring is difficult to achieve out of hours in the modern education environment. Students often work unaided into the evening and weekends when support staff cover is at a minimum. It therefore becomes
17
difficultto attempt to recreate the problem encountered by the student in a tutorial the next day. (King, 2009, p. 176) According to King, the content of weekly lectures covered appropriate studio theory for students to be successful, and the LTI included video demonstrations of microphone techniques and console operation, providing a supplement to lectures during off-hours (2009, p. 177-8). Additionally, the portal provided a platform for students to discuss technical issues (King, 2009, p. 178). King's data indicates that students were not frequently compelled in seeking peer advice, however their responses do indicate they were "able to find the correct support when required and viewed the use of such a tool as a positive experience" (2009, p. 183). As in King's 2008 study, this is an especially pertinent issue to discuss because it demonstrates the successful integration of LTI completely within the audio education curricula as a tool for both educator and student. The researcher has previously stated that it is critical as audio educators to fully understand how best students learn audio course material and adjust pedagogical techniques currently employed as appropriate. An excellent example of adapting techniques in practice which utilizes learning technologies very effectively is a study by Cooper; it argues that given the current state of higher education, new and innovative resources must be utilized to provide the most real-time assessment of students as possible. Cooper writes that "students who exhibit a deep approach to learning and who are empowered, reflective learners that self-regulate are
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness more equipped to be truly lifelong learners" (2008, p. 153). However, he states that what qualifies as quality feedback and how it is subsequently delivered to students is still a point of
18
much contention (Cooper, 2008, p. 153). Unfortunately, delivering critiques of student work is difficult regardless of content area. Moreover, audio is especially tricky because students need one-on-one communication in lieu of words on paper they need genuine conversational exchanges to know and fully understand how different aspects of a mix sound and why. Cooper cites a student statement which reflects the very problem, "I wanted the tutor to engage with what I had written, to provide a personal critique of my work, but his comments do not live up to the level of critical analysis that I expect him to employ" (2008, p. 154). This is the very feeling we need to avoid giving our students. It is especially important to recognize that not all learners are capable of understanding the feedback with which they have been presented. Therefore, Cooper suggests faculty utilize podcasts (individually downloadable audio files) for assessments which are comments recorded in one take in conjunction with written comments (2008, p. 157). Providing students with the most personal instruction possible is crucial in audio education and this usage of LTI makes it possible for educators to provide individual instruction to far more students. Cooper cites 69% of respondents who "agreed that audio feedback was more effective than written feedback in helping them achieve better results" and that "questionnaire and interview respondents demonstrated a greater willingness to listen to their feedback and as a result were more likely to reflect on their own work in order to make and apply improvements" (2008, p. 158). Similar to the work by King, Coopers study is particularly interesting as it showcases new ways in which audio educators can adapt their teaching methods to meet the evolving needs of learners.
19
One of the earliest forms of learning technology placed in service within audio education is described by Quesnel & Woszczyk in their 1994 Audio Engineering Society Convention paper. The paper details a computer-aided system for timbral ear training developed at McGill University which allows students to test their ability to sense timbral changes and their memory for timbre through listening tasks. The system, now more fully developed, "provides an objective and effective training method for the development of listening skills that are instrumental in audio production tasks" (Quesnel & Woszczyk, 1994, p. 1). Quesnel & Woszczyk write, "there is substantial evidence...that auditory perceptual skills can be improved by controlled practice and training" (1994, p. 1). Auditory perception is one of the most basic skills required of audio engineers if they are to balance, treat, or combine audio as suggested by Izhaki (2008, p. 4-5). Therefore, providing new ways for students to develop auditory perception skills is critical; the use of learning technology as suggested by Quesnel & Woszczyk is an ideal solution. Mitchell affirms many of the same claims made by Quesnel & Woszczyk, stating, "critical listening of the existing body of recorded multichannel work is certainly one of the necessary ingredients in preparing students for their own mixes and serves to give them an analytical reference point" (Mitchell, 1998, p. 2). The author believes it is critical for students to develop the skills to evaluate his or her own work and the work of peers on both a technical and artistic level because by basing the education upon the same basic skills which have been required within the industry for decades, students will be well served (Mitchell, 1998, p. 1-2,5). Hecht explored this concept of aural perception employed by Quesnel & Woszczyk and Mitchell in his 1996 dissertation, "Discriminating aesthetic components of sound recordings". Hecht posed the question:
20
Can listeners, specifically audio engineering or music recording students, make accurate determinations of the parameters of individual aesthetic components of a sound recordingSpecifically, can beginning and advanced music recording and audio engineering students make accurate analytic discriminations of five aesthetic components: frequency, dynamics, lateral placement and movement, depth placement and movement, and aesthetic balance? (Hecht, 1996, p. 1) Hecht observes that little attention is paid by educators to analysis of the aesthetic components of a sound recording, a skill he believes should be a core aspect of all audio curricula (1996, p. 11). Throughout the review of literature for this study, particular care has been taken to examine varying theories of program design, information regarding higher level audio techniques courses, the history of audio education, learning technologies which may be of benefit to audio educators, and audio theories practicing engineers deem critical to education. However, some of the most useful information which was discovered were anecdotal reports and papers from audio educators both past and present. These offer specific insight into how their instruction is delivered, what their students expect of audio institutions, what the industry expects of graduates, and most importantly the standards to which their students are held. In a survey conducted by Lazar, "More than half of the respondents indicate 'hands-on experience' as the most important teaching strategy, and describe the focus of the subject as 'basic audio operations'" (1996, p. 13). This indicates students feel they are far more likely to be successful the sooner they have the ability to work within a working studio. However, in a paper presented at the 1974 Audio Engineering Society Convention, Woram writes: Although the Institute's [Institute of Audio Research] emphasis on classroom study is initially a disappointment to many students, most come to realize in time that the
21
immediate pleasures of 'playing with the equipment' should be deferred until later on. It would appear that many of the topics discussedmight require an entire school term or longer for comprehensive coverage. It may seem overly ambitious to cover so much material in so short a period of time. However, classroom discussion is restricted to the immediate application of these fundamentals to studio practice. (Woram, 1974, p. 2-3) This dichotomy between Woram and Lazar clearly illustrates that audio students (and students in general) are not the best judges of what basic training will best serve them upon entering the workforce. For instance, in a survey conducted by Baillie, "almost 70 % of graduates stated that the knowledge and skills they gained from the module which covered how computer networks and the internet worked, proved to be useful or very useful in their subsequent [audio] careers" (2006, p. 2). Just as audio educators must adjust the content of their curricula to meet future industry needs, so too must they adapt their styles of teaching to best serve students, thus why the researcher finds it necessary to fill the educational research gap within audio engineering. Finally, a number of valuable points are made in the Trends in Audio Education Symposium, presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention in 1978 (Wilson, 1978). Thomas Yackish points out that the evolving definition of the engineering professional causes great differences in the distinction between many degrees and their subsequent curricula (Wilson, 1978, p. 10). Observed nearly thirty years ago, this stigma against audio engineering exists to this day and likely plays a large part in precisely the style of education which audio students receive. Similar to the views of Yackish, Raghu Gadhoke offers a particularly enlightened perspective of the audio profession and the necessary origin of its craftsmen. Gadhoke states:
22
The word engineer has been associated with the electrical, mechanical, chemical and the civil engineering professions. These engineers work with the various parts of the machinery at hand and try to analyze the different ways of using and designing the equipment. The recording engineer is a different species altogether...A recording engineer is a two fold person. First, he is a technicianSecondly, he is an artist who brings forth the emotional context of the artist's concept as to the final product discJust as a painter is an artist whose paintings reflect his individual personality, the engineer is also an artist whose recordings reflect his or her individual personality. Just as no two painters can be the same, no two engineers can do the same mixes or recordings. The painter has to master his tools in order to transpose his image on the canvas. The engineer, also, has to master his tools to achieve his artistic creation. (Wilson, 1978, p. 14) Summary In many ways the finer points of audio engineering have truly become a lost art, with far too few engineers truly mastering the tools of their craft. However, as more individuals enter higher education institutions each year with hopes of pursuing audio related careers, the onus lies squarely upon audio programs. It is their responsibility to ensure that students are educated in an appropriate manner using pedagogical techniques which compliment their learning styles as well as the curricula to ensure they become the best engineers possible. Through the research completed in How Do They Learn: A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness it is hoped that audio educators will be one step closer to properly educating the engineers of tomorrow.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Conceptual Design of Project Due to the introductory nature of the study, the goal was not to place a finite stamp of approval one particular educational method. Rather, the goal was to collect data from several introductory audio courses across two universities to determine, in general, which educational methods prove most beneficial to introductory audio students as a starting point for audio
23
educators. Upon completion of this introductory study, subsequent more focused studies will be initiated to more specifically analyze individual theories. The researcher personally believed from the outset of this study that best instruction practices in audio education call for student-centered and theory-based instruction methods which prompt students to engage in course content through individual and collaborative opportunities for synthesis by setting of high standards, challenging all learners appropriately with the proper supports in place for student achievement through differentiation of content, allowance of various forms of interaction in addition to standard instruction time. These are beliefs which were challenged throughout the course of the study. The project ran from February 6th, 2012 through April 27, 2012, the greater part of a single academic term, and the research was conducted as a longitudinal study which consisted of cross-sectional evaluations and classroom observations. Design of student evaluations was driven by relevant cognitive research within the field, however many questions have been inspired by "The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students," a pioneering study which is credited with initiating the movement to ban lectures as a form of instruction within the collegiate classroom. This study outside of audio education was selected as a model for student evaluations given the similarities of basic physics knowledge to basic audio principles. While the pioneering work of King is greatly respected, it is believed that Halloun and Hestenes' work on
24
"The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students" provides a more-solid footing for this qualitative analysis of audio education. They rightly state that "To evaluateinstruction objectively, we need an instrument to assess a students knowledge state before and after instruction" (1985, p. 2). Through the use of a demographic survey, baseline knowledge question, and short answer based questionnaires coupled with on-site evaluations, the researcher assessed the effectiveness of various pedagogical techniques in much the same methods achieved by Halloun and Hestenes.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Content This research project was predicated upon the question "How best can we teach audio
25
students in introductory audio classes?" The researcher has long wondered if a performance gap exists between students who have learned certain concepts via one pedagogical technique as opposed to audio students who learn via others. Is it possible that some audio students perform better than others due to the style of education? Would these students perform more equally if the pedagogical techniques which are used were equalized? Therefore, the research aimed to provide an answer to this question. Throughout the course of this research, participants completed a survey and the researcher observed classroom interactions which provided data to draw final conclusions. Data gathered were strictly limited to students' knowledge of audio and current progress within the class, relevant demographic information, and excludes all possible references to race or other irrelevant factors. The content of this project, therefore, was the synthesis of all collected data (see Findings and Recommendations) and supporting materials contained within Appendices A - L in an effort to discover how all the principles which Izhaki discussed are best communicated to the student by the instructor (2008, p. 4-5). By completing this study, the researcher intended to provide others within the field a better understanding as to how best introductory audio students learn.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Sequence and Layout Phase One involved the researcher receiving approval from the project Dr. G. David Peters to conduct evaluations and observations of students. Phase Two of this project was the researcher attaining permission of instructors at participating universities to conduct in-class observations and online evaluations of students. Phase Three required the fine-tuning of questions for students. Phase Four, Part A involved the researcher observing participating classes. These observations constituted the entirety of the on-site cross-sectional evaluation.
26
Phase Four, Part B involved explaining to participating classes during on-site evaluations what participation entailed, and providing information to those students willing the ability to obtain an anonymous student ID number for participation. Phase Five saw all students participating in the study completing an online cross sectional evaluation. Phase Six involved the researcher amassing all data gathered from the online research tools and using the data processing tools discussed in Project Tools and Resources to form conclusions based upon the collected data. Phase Seven saw the completion of the project with the final documentation and final report.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Tools and Resources The creation of this research project was predominantly low-tech, relying largely upon the vast databases available through Indiana University libraries. Additional research was conducted using the e-library of the Audio Engineering Society, the standards bearing organization for all areas of the audio community. Beyond initial research, the cross sectional studies were conducted with the help of a study-specific website (Appendix M) which the researcher created as a part of his masters program. The website allowed study participants to respond to questions using a simple web
27
form. The website was created with the use of Adobe Dreamweaver and Photoshop, built entirely upon HTML 5 and CSS core principles, with sparing use of images. The forms with which research participants interacted were built using the JotForm.com framework allowing each form to save data remotely to a secure database, and all data to eventually be exported in the versatile CSV format. Upon completion of the study, data were exported from the databases, analyzed in Microsoft Excel, and graphed in Tableau Public. Tableau Public is the free version of Tableau Software's data analysis and visualization platform which allows users to drag and drop data and visualize results and which allows users to embed results directly into webpages. Tableau Public ran on the researcher's computer, a MacBook Pro running OS 10.6 and virtualized Windows XP, which were used to complete the processing and final data analysis.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Assessment Evaluation of the project took place throughout the creation of the initial proposal and research questions. Pilot Study The sole focus of this project was research and the understanding of said research. Therefore, a pilot study was not conducted. For any data to be gathered in a pilot study which would be of use, the pilot study would also be required to span the majority of full academic semester, essentially doubling the amount of time required to conduct this research and effectively creating duplicate research. It is understood that pilot studies are recommended in
28
order to focus and refine the scope of inquiry within research. However, this proposal has been guided and streamlined at the behest of the faculty advisor. Formal Data Assessment Plan Multiple surveys comprise the entirety of this research and the questions which were used throughout have been included in Appendix A. The project was completed in the second half of Spring 2012 through the use of qualitative analysis with the help of data analysis software. The strengths and weakness of audio students were evaluated based upon their answers to questions in the cross sectional evaluation. Pedagogical techniques used in the classroom were noted during classroom observations and were compared with data from student successes and failures uncovered through the cross-sectional evaluation. Questions within the survey were each assigned a specific knowledge target (Appendix G) and questions were evaluated based upon the rubric in Appendix H. This data, presented in Appendix F as raw questionnaire data were combined with relevant demographic data from Appendix E, and student scores in the lecturebased and lab-based classes were independently averaged (Appendix I). Graphs of individual
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness questionnaire answers are available in Appendix K, and in Appendix L a graph is presented
29
which illustrates student averages calculated in lecture & lab-based courses which compares their relative success. The sum total of compared data has been used to draw conclusions (see Findings and Recommendations) as to which pedagogical techniques are most effective and relevant for use in the classroom of introductory audio students.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Timeline Weeks 1- 3: During this initial period, the researcher ensured that the appropriate
30
institutional approval had been secured and final coordination with participating classes occurred. Weeks 4 - 6: The researcher fine tuned questions for students with assistance of the faculty advisor. Additionally, final coordination with the instructors of participating classes took place during this time. Weeks 7 - 8: The researcher visited each participating class and completed a classroom observation. During this visit, he provided the requisite information to those interested in participating to obtaining an anonymous student ID number for completing the questionnaire. Week 8: All participating students had the opportunity to complete the online cross sectional evaluation. Weeks 9 - 10: The researcher finished amassing all final data gathered using the data processing tools and formed conclusions based upon the data collected. Weeks 10 - 13: Final documentation was completed and submitted to the faculty advisor.
31
Findings and Recommendations Over the course of the survey period, thirteen students in four classes participated and regularly submitted answers to the questionnaire. These classes contained a total of fifty-eight students, making the response rate just under the industry standard for surveys of 25%. As specified by the Formal Data Assessment Plan, all data and results are provided in the appendices and include the following: Appendix D: Raw Demographic Data Appendix E: Graph of Demographic Data Appendix F: Raw Questionnaire Data Appendix G: Intended Target of Questions of Demographic Data Appendix H: Question Grading Rubric Appendix I: Calculated Averages of Students in Lecture & Lab Based Courses on Questions Appendix J: Selected Student Answers to Short Answer Questions Appendix K: Graphs of Student Answers to Questions 1 - 19 Appendix L: Graph of Calculated Student Averages in Lecture & Lab Based Courses Comparing Relative Success These data, combined with classroom observations, allowed the researcher to form educated conclusions with the use of reasoned statistical inference regarding the current state of introductory audio pedagogy. However, to understand how the data presented in the appendices contextually relates to the classroom observations, it was imperative to note the relative similarity of course observed by examining their syllabi.
32
Students in both the BSMT lab and lecture-based courses at Institution A were guided by the following joint statement provided by the department as a universal syllabus: The first component of a four-semester, comprehensive sequence in basic musicianship and application of music technology...All topics shall be explored from an analytical, historical, and hands-on perspective. Course material shall incorporate an array of styles, genres, and cultural influences...By the end of the semester, students shall be able to demonstrate significant skill and knowledge in several core areas [including] development of basic music technology skills essential to professional work in music. (Vander Gheynst, Wynn, & Batrich, 2012, p. 1) Students enrolled in a lecture-based course in the MMP program at Institution B were guided by the following syllabus statement: In this course we will study and practice basic concepts and techniques in using computers and technology to make music. We will consider historical developments and practices, and we will listen to examples....Class time will be spent discussing concepts and specific practical techniques, with reference to assigned readings. (Pounds, 2012, p. 1) Finally, Institution B MMP students enrolled in a lab-based course were guided by the following, "This course is designed to provide lecture, demonstration, and project-based experience for students in studio recording techniques and practices" (Fishell, 2012, p. 1). In examining the proposed course content, it was evident all are intended to be fairly introductory audio courses, as supported by the average age of students enrolled. Students ages were 18 - 22 (both male and female) except for one outlier, and age did not appear to play a particularly predominant role in student success. Rather, prior audio experience played a greater
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness factor (see Appendix D, K). Respondents were also equally divided between participating universities. The teaching styles utilized in individual courses were determined through classroom
33
observation. While it is understood that educators clearly vary their styles, the researcher made the following observations of each class which gave confidence to the selection of the classifications.
BSMT Lecture: Consisted of the instructor speaking to students for the duration of the time period. Material was elementary in nature, despite being based off the same syllabus as the BSMT Lab course. Students were relatively disengaged throughout the class.
BSMT Lab: Consisted of a very brief instructional period followed by work period. The instructional period was supported with interactive multimedia elements. Both the instructional period and the work period were free form. Students were encouraged to engage in discussion and solve problems amongst themselves, which they did.
MMP Lecture: Consisted of the instructor speaking to students for the duration of the time period. The lecture was supported with interactive multimedia elements.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Often included vigorous debate on lecture topics.
34
MMP Lab: Consisted of an in-class group assignment on which students worked collaboratively toward an end mix. Instructor made rounds to all groups to ensure students were setup properly and monitored progress periodically. Throughout the lab work, students were provided miniature lessons, of 5 minutes or less, on a topic related to an issue with which they were struggling. Findings In the Project Content, the researcher posited that a performance gap existed between students learning via different pedagogical techniques. Upon careful analysis of all data in conjunction with classroom observations, clear evidence points to a correlation between student success and pedagogical technique. The graph of calculated student averages in lecture and lab based courses available in Appendix L most clearly illustrates this evidence, comparing the relative success of students across both institutions in classes of both pedagogical teaching styles. Students exposed to a lecture-only curricula tended to excel at regurgitating purely factual information and had difficulty synthesizing course content for application in common studio scenarios presented within the researcher's questionnaire. Conversely, students whose instructors relied upon a lab-based environment tended to not only excel at synthesizing content for application in studio scenarios presented within the researcher's questionnaire but also had a more "real world" grasp of lecture material as evident in their responses which demonstrated their ability to answer the question calling upon prior knowledge rather than a prescribed,
35
theoretical, response as seen with the lecture-based courses. In all but three instances, learners in lab-based courses out performed those learners in lecture-based courses. In those instances where learners in lecture-based courses outperformed their lab-based peers, the lecture-based learners demonstrated success on questions which were specifically targeted toward lecture-style concepts and only required a theoretical response. Thus, their success on Questions 5, 10, and 14 is unsurprising. Nevertheless, the researcher found this mastery of basic audio concepts by students in lecture-based courses very telling. To be a competent audio practitioner within the studio, should not all lab students understand the following fundamentals? Question 5: Explain the difference between a condenser and a dynamic microphone. Question 10: Explain what happens when two sound waves are 180 out of phase. Question 14: Explain Pan law.
Lecture based learners demonstrated a far lower mastery level of topics related to studio scenarios while lab-based learners showed signs of weakness in understanding these core audio fundamentals, of which an understanding is absolutely essential to be successful within a working studio. Thus, the researcher believes that although the use of a single, lab-only instructional model might be preferred, a healthy balance in which students are provided course content via short lectures and then provided the opportunity to apply the knowledge in labs is ultimately be ideal. The researcher found the overall success of students in both lecture and lab-based courses very intriguing, as the data affirmed that theories proposed by many educators within the Literature Review are well-founded. Most telling, in fact, is that no audio educator within the review advocated for an entirely lecture-based curricula, while most all emphasized the need for
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness a lab-based curricula or "practice" within the classroom. Specifically, Merchant's theory of
36
deliberate practice echoes this need for lab-based instruction (Merchant, 2011, p. 3). As well, the 1996 Audio Engineering Society Convention paper which details the structure of Sydney University's Graduate Program in Audio similarly states that "the emphasis should be on [audio] principles and their application" (Bartolo et al., 1996, p. 6). Recommendations The researcher found it valuable to place a significant emphasis on lab-based exercises within audio curricula, but also recognizes the value of lecture-based instruction. Other results from the data which align with this include the relative success of lab based students and their tendency to engage in discussion and solve problems amongst themselves which is a relationship very similar to individual mentorship in the audio classroom described by Jones and King (2009, p. 58). The ability to foster peer discussions is far improved within a lab-based curricula and has many advantages as discussed by Jones and King which must be taken into consideration. Ultimately, as was discovered in the data, instructors will find themselves in a position where a hybrid of lecture and lab-based curricula is the only viable option. After all, concepts must be introduced to students prior to labs, and while frontloading with the use of assignments can be an effective technique, it is generally less useful with collegiate students due to their level of engagement outside the classroom. Thus, a balance of both is ultimately the best option. "Although [an] emphasis on classroom study is initially a disappointment to many students, most come to realize in time that the immediate pleasures of 'playing with the equipment' should be deferred until later on" (Woram, 1974, p. 2-3). However by providing a balanced learning environment, students have the ability to quickly learn concepts and thoroughly apply them
37
within the classroom, creating an ideal learning situation leading to authentic application, inquiry, and therefore acquisition of knowledge. Initially stated, the goal of this study was not to make a finite recommendation, but rather to provide a more comprehensive and substantive resource for audio educators. The researcher is pleased, however, to offer a compelling recommendation basing audio curricula upon a hybrid of lecture and lab-structured models. With the completion of this research, it is hoped that audio educators are one step closer to properly educating the engineers of tomorrow and helping them master their tools to achieve their artistic creations (Wilson, 1978, p. 14).
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness References Baillie, L., Dewar, M., Harrison, D., Knox, D., & Quinn, P. (2006). Using Remote Recording
38
over the Internet in Education. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 120. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 120. Bartolo, D., Dash, I., Fekete, P., Fricke, F., Scott, J., & Thiele, N. (1996). Sydney University's Graduate Program in Audio. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 6r. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 6r. Boehm, C. (2007). The discipline that never was: current developments in music technology in higher education in Britain. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1(1), 721. doi:10.1386/jmte.1.1.7_1 Borwick, J. (1973). The Tonmeister Concept. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 46. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 46. Cash-Jones, L. (2002). Finding A Recording Audio Education Program that Suits Your Career Choice. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 113. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 113. Cooper, S. (2008). Delivering student feedback in higher education: the role of podcasting. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1(2-3), 153165. doi:10.1386/jmte.1.2and3.153_1 Ellis-Geiger, R. (2001). Designing Surround Sound Facilities for Higher Education. In Audio Engineering Society Conference: 19th International Conference: Surround Sound Techniques, Technology, and Perception. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Conference: 19th International Conference: Surround Sound - Techniques, Technology, and Perception.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Fishell, J. (2012). MMP Lab Syllabus. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American journal of Physics, 53(11). AAPT. Hecht, J. (1996). Discriminating aesthetic components of sound recordings. (S. Evans, Ed.). United States -- California: University of San Francisco.
39
Izhaki, R. (2008). Mixing audio : concepts, practices and tools. Oxford, [England]; Burlington, MA: Focal Press. Jones, C., & King, A. (2009). Peer learning in the music studio. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 2(1), 5570. doi:10.1386/jmte.2.1.55/1 King, A. (2008). Collaborative learning in the music studio. Music education research, Music education research, 10(3), 423. King, A. (2009). An expert in absentia: a case study for using technology to support recording studio practice. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 2(2-3), 175185. doi:10.1386/jmte.2.2-3.175_1 King, A. (2010). Analog or Digital? A Case-Study to Examine Pedagogical Approaches to Recording Studio Practice. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 128. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 128, London, UK. King, A., & Vickers, P. (2007). Problem solving with learning technology in the music studio. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1(1), 5767. doi:10.1386/jmte.1.1.57_1 Lazar, W. (1996). Sound Production and Postproduction Education for Film Makers. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 6r. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness 6r. Merchant III, J. H. (2011). A Revised Approach to Teaching Audio Mixing Techniques: Applying the Deliberate Practice Model. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 131. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 131. Mitchell, D. (1998). Toward an Aesthetic in Mixing for Multichannel Music Presentation. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 105. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 105. Pounds, D. M. (2012). MMP Lecture Syllabus. Priest, R. (2010). The value of placements to undergraduate BSc (Hons) Music Technology
40
students. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 3(1), 4765. doi:10.1386/jmte.3.1.47_1 Quesnel, R., & Woszczyk, W. R. (1994). A Computer-Aided System for Timbral Ear Training. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 96. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 96. Strashun, L. (1986). Training of Tonmeisters and Audio Engineers. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 80. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 80. Vander Gheynst, D. J., Wynn, J., & Batrich, A. (2012). BSMT Lecture & Lab Syllabus. Wilson, G. L.; J. K. W. L. T. Y. T. M. G. R. M. C. D. (1978). Trends in Audio Education- A Symposium. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 60, Audio Engineering Society Convention 60. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 60. Woram, J. M. (1974). Preparing for a Career in the Recording Studio. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 47. Presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 47.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendices Appendix A: Research Questions Note: Also see rubric, Appendix H. 1. Prior to the class in which you are currently enrolled, did you have audio experience? (Yes/No) 2. Rate your general knowledge of audio engineering. (1-10) 3. Rate your familiarity with stereo microphone techniques. (1-10) 4. Rate your familiarity with digital audio workstations. (1-10) 5. Explain the difference between a condenser and a dynamic microphone.
41
6. Describe how you might achieve a consistent recording of an acoustic guitar if the player has a tendency to move around a lot during takes. 7. Describe the electrical concept of busing. 8. What is a Decibel? 9. Describe how you utilize the concept of "room radius" or "critical distance" in a recording session. 10. Explain what happens when two sound waves are 180 out of phase. 11. Describe how to setup an M-S microphone array, including microphone lines and the mixer / DAW. 12. Explain the basic fundamentals of how human hearing works 13. Discuss how to make a stereo recording utilizing a technique which is based upon time of arrival differences. 14. Explain Pan law. 15. Describe some of the different normalling schemes commonly found in recording studio jackfields / patchbays, and how you might use them in your typical recording workflow. 16. Discuss the different types of delay found in a recording studio (good and bad) and some ways in which delay can be used in the studio.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness 17. Describe the effects quantization has upon recording to a 16-bit system compared to recording to a 24-bit system. 18. When recording, what are some of the most effective ways to improve or change your sound without using EQ and why?
42
19. Given an analogue effects chain which consists of the following components, build the effects chain in the most efficient and appropriate order possible. Equipment Available: compressor, EQ, gate, reverb (direct insertion).
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix B: Student Presentation Script My name is Kyle P. Snyder, and I'm a graduate student in the MSMT program at Indiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis.
43
First, let me thank (Professor Name) for allowing me to speak with you very briefly.
As a research project, I am conducting a study on how students enrolled in undergraduate audio and music technology programs learn. Specifically, I'm interested in how educators should be teaching to you.
The inclusion of audio and recording in university curricula is relatively new by modern standards. While it's subject to some guidelines as part of a music or science curricula, there aren't actual standards in place that exist in other disciplines, which is something I'm very interested in.
You may have noticed I was observing today's class, which was the first part of my data gathering. The second part involves a very brief and completely anonymous questionnaire that evaluates your knowledge as a student. By combining these two pieces of information, from several classes at multiple institutions, I'll be able to see how different styles of teaching impact you, the students.
On the handout that is coming around is information on how to complete the survey. First, please visit that URL ( research.kpsnyder.com/students ) and click on the "Register to Participate" link.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness There, you will complete a very short 5-question demographic survey which is completely separate from the evaluation itself to ensure your anonymity. Then, simply follow the instructions and the link to complete the evaluation itself, which requires briefly remembering your unique ID for only a moment, again to ensure your privacy.
44
Please answer the questions in your own words to the best of your ability. While some of the questions many seem very specific, they're intended to evaluate your experience as a learner in the classroom, so it is perfectly acceptable not to understand all or part of the topic or concept. Please simply indicate as such in the space provided; though do try your very best.
I would like to thank you very much for taking the time to complete this evaluation, either right now or later this afternoon. I understand it's somewhat of an imposition; however, I can't express to you how helpful spending 15 minutes on a survey is to those of us completing advanced degrees; it can absolutely change the course of our research. Thank you so very much. I truly do appreciate your participation.
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix C: Student Handout
45
How Do They Learn? A Graduate Research Project Please Visit http://research.kpsnyder.com/students Follow the "Register to Participate" link at right. Once completing the brief demographic questionnaire, please note your Unique ID Number and follow the link to the evaluation page. The evaluation should take approximately 10 - 15 minutes and can be completed at your convenience over the next 48 hours. Thank you for your participation, Kyle P. Snyder
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix D: Raw Demographic Data
46
ID KSR-1 KSR-2 KSR-3 KSR-4 KSR-5 KSR-6 KSR-7 KSR-8 KSR-9 KSR-10 KSR-11 KSR-12 KSR-13
Age 19 20 21 19 19 57 19 20 18 21 19 22 21
Sex Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Female Female Male Female
School Institution A Institution A Institution A Institution A Institution A Institution A Institution B Institution A Institution B Institution B Institution B Institution B Institution B
Course ID BSMT Lab BSMT Lecture BSMT Lecture BSMT Lab BSMT Lecture BSMT Lecture MMP Lecture BSMT Lab MMP Lecture MMP Lecture MMP Lab MMP Lab MMP Lecture
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix E: Graph of Demographic Data
47
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix F: Raw Questionnaire Data
Q 1 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Q 2 3 5 4 6 7 2 3 7 4 7 6 6 5 Q 3 1 4 3 2 8 2 2 4 1 4 6 5 2 Q 4 4 9 7 7 9 3 5 8 3 6 7 10 8 Q 5 6 8 5 4 5 4 6 5 9 7 10 3 8 Q 6 7 4 3 6 3 1 4 6 4 7 8 5 5 Q 7 5 7 9 7 7 3 7 10 9 10 10 10 Q 8 6 8 6 8 5 6 9 5 8 10 7 Q 9 4 4 8 2 1 7 4 5 6 1 3 Q 10 3 6 5 9 4 4 8 6 10 5 4 Q 11 7 1 1 3 1 4 5 1 1 7 3 1 Q 12 4 7 5 6 6 4 7 9 6 8 10 7 Q 13 6 1 3 4 1 5 3 2 7 5 1 Q 14 1 5 3 2 2 6 5 7 1 1 8 Q 15 8 1 3 5 4 1 5 7 6 5 7 4 Q 16 6 1 5 5 4 1 8 8 6 4 10 10 5 Q 17 3 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 7 1 1 9 1 Q 18 7 4 6 7 4 1 5 3 5 4 9 7 4
48
ID KSR-1 KSR-2 KSR-3 KSR-4 KSR-5 KSR-6 KSR-7 KSR-8 KSR-9 KSR-10 KSR-11 KSR-12 KSR-13
Q 19 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 10 1
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix G: Intended Target of Questions of Demographic Data
49
Questions were designed to determine a baseline of knowledge as well as the success of students in lecture or lab / hands-on learning scenarios.
Question Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19
Target Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Lecture Lab / Hands-On Lecture Lecture Lab / Hands-On Lecture Lab / Hands-On Lecture Lab / Hands-On Lecture Lab / Hands-On Lab / Hands-On Lecture Lab / Hands-On Lab / Hands-On
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix H: Question Grading Rubric Due to the short answer nature of Questions 5 - 19, a common rubric was developed based upon a 1 - 10 scale to ensure unbiased evaluation. The lowest score is 1 and the highest score is 10.
50
Question Blank 1 2-3 4-7 8-9 10
Justification No answer given, not included in the sample. Answer is completely incorrect. Answer contains a single aspect of the concept and is more incorrect than correct. Answer contains the functional aspects of the concept as well as several inaccuracies. Answer contains few inaccuracies. Answer is completely correct.
51
Appendix I: Calculated Averages of Students in Lecture & Lab Based Courses on Questions
Class Type Lecture Lab Q 5 6.5 5.5 Q 6 3.9 6.3 Q 7 7.9 8.5 Q 8 7 7.5 Q 9 3.2 5.5 Q 10 6.17 6 Q 11 1.43 4.5 Q 12 6.29 7.75 Q 13 2.17 4.75 Q 14 5.17 2.25 Q 15 3.43 6 Q 16 4.25 8.25 Q 17 2.5 3 Q 18 4.13 6.5 Q 19 1 5.75
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix J: Selected Student Answers to Short Answer Questions Selected to provide a broad overview of high, medium, and low responses. Question 5 KSR-5 Score 5
52
"Condenser microphones are powered microphones that supply a much more precise sound and are traditionally used in a studio environment. Dynamic Microphones are used mainly in live settings." KSR-11 Score 10 "Condenser: Preamp is inside, requires phantom power, the diaphragm sits upright inside. Dynamic: Moving coil connected to diaphragm." KSR-12 Score 3 "A dynamic microphone uses a capsule that has a spring with a cap." Question 6 KSR-5 Score 3 "I would tell him to quit moving, but you could compress it and EQ it to get the volume levels a little more consistent." Question 12 KSR-12 Score 10 "Human hearing paths start with the ear canal and ear drum. It then goes through the hammer anvil and stirrup, eventually getting to the cochlea. The cochlea is a long tube that starts fat and gets skinnier at the end. It is filled with fluid and contains small hairs that vibrate at certain frequencies and send signal to your brain. The hairs that sense low frequency are in the front of the cochlea and as you move further back the frequencies that the hairs vibrate at gets higher."
53
Question 16 KSR-12 Score 10 "Well you could get reflections from the floor (which would be bad and could cause phasing issues). You could get reflections from walls and ceilings, which could be good or bad depending on what sound you want. Delay added after recording can be used as an artistic effect or used to bring a certain instrument or voice to the front of the mix. Could be used to reinforce certain sounds or could be used in feedback loop." Question 18 KSR-11 Score 9 "Check volume levels, try different microphones, try different arrangements. EQ can only improve a sound as good as the original recording is. If it's a second best recording, it will be second best overall with the EQ."
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix K: Graphs of Student Answers to Questions 1 - 19 Question 1
54
55
Question 2
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 3
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix L: Graph of Calculated Student Averages in Lecture & Lab Based Courses Comparing Relative Success
73
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix M: Research Website Live version available at http://research.kpsnyder.com
74
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix N: Research Website Flowchart
75
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix O: Research Website Script Pages Page 1: Home Content / User Interaction On this page which serves as the de-facto landing page, users are presented with sparse text that briefly describes what they've found, their options, and one or two photos. The only interaction with this all other pages that lack forms is via the navigation bar which is available on all pages. Page 2, Level 1: Research Information This top-level page provides a basic overview of the research to be conducted, including an abstract and a F.A.Q. Visitors will be directed to view the Level 2 pages for more specific information which are accessible via the drop down menu under "Research Information." Page 2, Level 2: Proposal
76
This secondary level page presents the text of my proposal in full, embedded using Scribd to present the document in its most complete form. Visitors can view the other Level 2 page for more specific information, accessible via the drop down menu under "Research Information."
Page 3, Level 1: Student Portal
This top-level page will serve as a landing page for student involvement. Students will be provided with a userfriendly synopsis of the research and then directed to visit the appropriate Level 2 page for their specific stage of involvement, accessible via the drop down menu under "Student Portal." This secondary level page serves as an anonymous registration form, collecting demographic information and assigning the student an anonymous ID number. Students are presented with a form (built upon jotform.com technology) consisting of the following components: First Name, Email, Age, School, Course (Text Box) Sex (Multiple Choice) Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, the following message is returned via JavaScript:
Page 3, Level 2a: Registration
77
Thank You, I greatly appreciate you registering to participate. Note: Your ID is {id}. You will need this to complete the evaluation. Click here to continue to the evaluation Students can then click the link to complete the evaluation.
Page 3, Level 2b: Evaluation
This secondary level page serves as a vehicle to evaluate students. Students are presented with a form (built upon jotform.com technology) consisting of the following components (Content provided in Appendix A): Student ID Number (Text Box) Multiple Choice (Radio Buttons) True / False (Radio Buttons) Short Answer (Text Box) Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, the following message is returned via JavaScript: Thank you. Your answers have been submitted. Students can then return to the Student Portal Welcome or visit other appropriate Level 2 pages, accessible via the drop down menu under "Student Portal." This secondary level page serves as an opportunity for students to provide feedback or comments at any point. Students are presented with a form (built upon jotform.com technology) consisting of the following components: Student ID Number (Text Box) *optional Message (Text Box) Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, the following message is returned via JavaScript: Thank you. Your answers have been submitted. Students can then return to the Student Portal Welcome or visit other appropriate Level 2 pages, accessible via the drop down menu under "Student Portal."
Page 3, Level 2c: Comments
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Page 4: About The Researcher Page 5: Contact
78
This top-level page includes my biography, a link to my CV, and a current photograph. This top level page includes a simple contact form with the following fields: Name* Email* Telephone Message* Visitor Verification /Captcha* * = Required Field Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, the following message is returned via JavaScript: Thank you. You message has been submitted. Additionally, the following contact information is provided: Phone Number Email Address Skype Name Mailing Address
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Appendix P: Research Website Storyboard Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Home - Page 1 Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: On this page which serves as the de-facto landing page, users are presented with sparse text that briefly describes what they've found, their options, and one or two photos. The only interaction with this page is via the navigation bar which is available on all pages. Page # 1 of 9
79
Screen # 1 of 1
Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Page # 2 of 9
80
Screen # 1 of 1
Research Information - Page 2, Level 1 Project Director: Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text Kyle P. Snyder Action: This top-level page provides a basic overview of the research to be conducted, including an abstract and a F.A.Q. Visitors will be directed to view the Level 2 pages for more specific information which are accessible via the drop down menu under "Research Information."
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Proposal - Page 2, Level 2 Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: This secondary level page presents the text of the proposal in full. Visitors can view the other Level 2 page for more specific information, accessible via the drop down menu under "Research Information." Page # 3 of 9
81
Screen # 1 of 1
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Student Portal - Page 3, Level 1 Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: This top-level page will serve as a landing page for student involvement. Students will be provided with a user-friendly synopsis of the research, and then directed to visit the appropriate Level 2 page for their specific stage of involvement, accessible via the drop down menu under "Student Portal." Page # 4 of 9
82
Screen # 1 of 1
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Registration - Page 3, Level 2a Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: This secondary level page serves as an anonymous registration form, collecting demographic information and assigning the student an anonymous ID number. Students are presented with a form (built upon JotForm.com technology). Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, a message is returned via JavaScript. Page # 5 of 9
83
Screen # 1 of 1
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Evaluation - Page 3, Level 2b Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: This secondary level page serves as a vehicle to evaluate students. Students are presented with a form (built upon JotForm.com technology). Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, a message is returned via JavaScript. Page # 6 of 9
84
Screen # 1 of 1
85
86
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Comments - Page 3, Level 2c Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: This secondary level page serves as an opportunity for students to provide feedback or comments at any point. Students are presented with a form built upon JotForm.com technology. Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, a message is returned via JavaScript. Page # 7 of 9
87
Screen # 1 of 1
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: About The Researcher - Page 4 Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action: This top-level page includes my biography, a link to my CV, and a current photograph. All other interaction occurs using the navigation bar. Page # 8 of 9
88
Screen # 1 of 1
How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Project Name: Assessment Portal: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Sequence Title: Contact - Page 5 Project Director: Kyle P. Snyder Action This top-level page includes a contact form (built upon JotForm.com technology), providing users the ability to contact Kyle, as well as a listing of contact information. Users are not redirected to another page. Upon submission of the form, a message is returned via JavaScript. Page # 9 of 9
89
Screen # 1 of 1

Final Report: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report: How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Do They Learn?

A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Kyle Philip Snyder

Final Project Report

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Project Timeline ............................................................................................................................ 30 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 31

References ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 41

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Appendix K: Graphs of Student Answers to Questions 1 - 19........................................................... 54

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Introduction

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Question Blank 1 2-3 4-7 8-9 10

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 3

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 4

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 5

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 6

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 7

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 8

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 9

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 10

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 11

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 12

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 13

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 14

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 15

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 16

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 17

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 18

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness Question 19

Page 3, Level 1: Student Portal

Page 3, Level 2a: Registration

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Page 3, Level 2b: Evaluation

Page 3, Level 2c: Comments

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

How Do They Learn? A Study of Introductory Audio Pedagogy Effectiveness

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

Media Used: HTML / CSS Form Graphics Text

You might also like