The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2056-4880.htm

Investigating
Investigating TPCK through music TPCK through
focusing on affect music
Elena Macrides and Charoula Angeli
Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
181
Abstract Received 30 August 2017
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the lack of a theoretical framework for the integration of Revised 21 January 2018
technology in music teaching and learning, and explores, within the framework of Technological Pedagogical Accepted 15 February 2018
Content Knowledge (TPCK or TPACK), the importance of affect in instructional design.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors reviewed relevant literature related to the fields of music
education, instructional design, and technology integration. Accordingly, they developed guidelines for
designing technology-enhanced learning for the activities of music composition and listening.
Findings – The authors propose a set of design principles based on the TPCK framework through the
subject matter of music focusing on the affective domain, and identify interrelations among musical content,
emotions, and technology. The design guidelines were tested in an empirical investigation and the results
showed statistically significant differences between the control and the experimental groups in favor of the
experimental group.
Research limitations/implications – Further investigation is necessary to test the effectiveness of the
proposed design principles. Including affect in the design process is a complicated and mostly unchartered
area, and, thus, further research toward this direction is fully justified.
Practical implications – The research has practical significance, addressing a gap in the field of music
education, as it provides teachers with explicit guidance about how to design music lessons with technology
while incorporating affect.
Originality/value – The study extends the theoretical framework of TPCK to a design framework and
proposes instructional design guidelines that address both the cognitive and the affective domains of
learning, a focus that is currently missing from the existing TPCK or TPACK literature as well as the music
education literature.
Keywords Affect, Instructional design, Composition, Music education, Music technology,
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK/TPACK)
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, many studies have emphasized the role of technology in
transforming the teaching of composition, listening, and performing in music teaching.
However, current teacher practice does not really demonstrate technology’s efficacy in
facilitating real musical experiences and powerful pedagogical strategies for the subject
matter of music (Bauer, 2014; Savage, 2007, 2010; Webster, 2007). At present, technology is
not extensively used in music teaching, and, often, it does not serve the needs and objectives
of music education (Swanwick, 2011; Bauer, 2014). Most teachers use technology for viewing
music clips from YouTube, multimedia presentations, or, for administrative purposes, such
as, creating handouts, making musical scores for rehearsals, and recording students’
musical activities (Bauer, 2014). According to several authors, limited technology
integration in music instruction may be attributed to teachers’ insufficient knowledge in
music technology software and their affordances, conceptual bases, principles, and design
methodologies for integrating technology in music teaching (Bauer, 2014; Savage, 2007;
Webster, 2007).
Recently, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK or TPACK), The International Journal of
Information and Learning
a theoretical framework for guiding technology integration in teaching and learning, Technology
has been proposed by educational researchers to remedy for the lack of such theories Vol. 35 No. 3, 2018
pp. 181-198
(Angeli and Valanides, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2015; Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2011). © Emerald Publishing Limited
2056-4880
This study adopts the TPCK model of Angeli and Valanides (2005, 2009, 2013) in order to DOI 10.1108/IJILT-08-2017-0081
IJILT examine domain-specific aspects of the model within the field of music education.
35,3 The authors acknowledge that the emphasis of the research related to TPCK so far has had a
focus on the cognitive domain of learning, although, at the same time, they recognize that the
affective domain has been severely overlooked. Consequently, the researchers in this study aim
to further develop the work reported by Angeli and Valanides (2005, 2009, 2013) by proposing
instructional design guidelines that deal with the importance of affect in the learning design
182 process and uncover relationships among emotions, musical content, tools, and pedagogy. It is
noted that in this study, the terms affect and emotions are used interchangeably.
The contribution of this research has both theoretical and practical significance, because
it explores the undetermined relations of cognition and affect in technology-enhanced
learning, and, extends the existing TPCK instructional design guidelines with specific
design principles that address both the cognitive and the affective domains of learning.

2. Background
2.1 TPCK or TPACK
About a decade ago, several researchers used Shulman’s (1986) framework about
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a theoretical basis for developing TPCK or
TPACK – a framework for guiding teachers’ cognition about technology integration in
teaching and learning (Angeli et al., 2016). PCK identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge
for teaching, and constitutes a special amalgam of content, pedagogy, learners, and context
(Shulman, 1986). Shulman’s (1986) conceptualization of PCK goes beyond teachers’
knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy per se, and encompasses the dimension of how
to teach and transform content into forms or representations comprehensible to learners,
taking always into consideration learners’ content-related difficulties.
There are different models of TPCK/TPACK proposed in the literature each having a
different concentration (i.e. a concentration on practice, instructional design, context, etc.), and
theoretical interpretation about the nature and development of the knowledge that teachers
need to have to be able to teach with technology (e.g. Angeli and Valanides, 2005, 2009;
Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2011). Among others, the two dominant TPCK/TPACK
models in the literature are the integrative model and the transformative model.
The integrative model, as shown in Figure 1, is more associated with the term TPACK,
and, it was proposed by Koehler and Mishra (2008). It conceptualizes TPCK as an
integrative body of knowledge that is created on the spot by the mere intersections between
different bodies of knowledge, such as, content and pedagogy, content and technology, and
pedagogy and technology. The transformative model, shown in Figure 2, was proposed by
Angeli and Valanides (2005), and unlike the integrative model it conceptualizes TPCK as a
unique body of knowledge that needs to be explicitly taught by teacher educators. In the
transformative model, content, pedagogy, learners, technology, and context are regarded as
individual significant contributors to the development of TPCK.
Both the integrative model and the transformative model view TPCK as an extension of
Shulman’s (1986) PCK, although, the two models are based on different epistemological
stances regarding the nature of TPCK. TPACK, as depicted in Figure 1, is represented in
terms of three intersecting circles, one for each distinct knowledge base, namely, content,
pedagogy, and technology (Koehler and Mishra, 2008), while its subcomponents,
i.e., technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK),
and PCK, are also distinctly shown in the figure. Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that it
was not clear from the initial work of Mishra and Koehler whether TPCK was
conceptualized as an integrative or distinct form of knowledge. Later, empirical work by
Mishra and Koehler and other researchers who adopted TPACK (e.g. Harris and Hofer, 2011;
Schmidt et al., 2009) clearly showed that the interest was on identifying and measuring
instances of TPACK’s subcomponents, for example, TPK and TCK. So far, empirical
 Investigating
Technological TPCK through
Pedagogical Content music
Knowledge
(TPACK)

Technological Technological
183
Pedagogical Technological
Content
Knowledge Knowledge
Knowledge
(TPK) (TK)
(TCK)

Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Knowledge
(PK) (CK)

Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge Figure 1.
Graphical
Contexts representation of
TPACK
Source: Adopted from Koehler and Mishra (2008)

ICT
Co
y
og

n
ten
ag

t
d
Pe

TPCK
Le

t
ex
ar

nt
ne

Co
rs

Figure 2.
Technological
pedagogical content
knowledge framework
Source: Adopted from Angeli and Valanides (2005)
IJILT findings from this line of research are rather discouraging, because it is proven too difficult
35,3 to define the boundaries of the different TPACK sub-components (Graham, 2011).
Angeli and Valanides’ framework of TPCK, as shown in Figure 2, is conceptualized in
terms of five distinct knowledge bases, namely, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge,
knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational context, and ICT knowledge (Angeli and
Valanides, 2005, 2009). Based on the results of empirical investigations, Valanides and
184 Angeli (2008a, b) concluded that TPCK is a distinct body of knowledge that goes
beyond mere integration or accumulation of the constituent knowledge bases, toward
transformation of these contributing knowledge bases into something new and unique.
For this reason, Angeli and Valanides have not adopted the new term TPACK and opted to
continue using TPCK instead, because TPACK appears to be more associated with the
integrative view rather than the transformative view.

2.2 TPCK as a transformative body of knowledge

TPCK as a transformative body of knowledge is defined as knowledge about how to
transform content and pedagogy with ICT for specific learners in specific contexts and in
ways that signify the added value of ICT (Angeli and Valanides, 2009). As illustrated in
Figure 2, there are a number of individual knowledge bases that contribute to the
development of TPCK; however, as it was found in a series of empirical studies, growth in
the individual contributing knowledge bases alone, without specific instruction targeting
exclusively the development of TPCK, does not result in TPCK growth (Angeli and
Valanides, 2005; Valanides and Angeli, 2006, 2008a, b). Therefore, research efforts focusing
on the development of TPCK as a unique type of knowledge are essential for advancing the
field. Angeli and Valanides (2009) also proposed that TPCK, as a unique body of knowledge,
is better understood in terms of instructional design competencies that teachers need to
develop in order to be able to teach with technology adequately. A conceptualization of
TPCK in terms of design competencies has led to more robust and reliable ways of assessing
learners’ TPCK, bypassing measurement difficulties of the nature that researchers who
adopted the TPACK framework reported in their studies (Archambault and Barnett, 2010;
Cox and Graham, 2009; Graham, 2011; Niess, 2011). These learning design competencies are
related to knowing how to:
(1) Identify topics to be taught with ICT in ways that signify the added value of ICT
tools, such as topics that students cannot easily comprehend or that teachers face
difficulties teaching or presenting effectively in class. These topics may include
abstract concepts (i.e. cells, molecules) that need to be visualized, phenomena from
the physical and social sciences that need to be animated (i.e. water cycle, the law of
supply and demand), complex systems (i.e. ecosystems, organizations) in which
certain factors function systemically and need to be simulated or modeled, and
topics that require multimodal transformations (i.e. textual, iconic, and auditory),
such as phonics and language learning.
(2) Identify appropriate representations for transforming the content to be taught into
forms that are pedagogically powerful and difficult to support by traditional means.
These include interactive representations, dynamic transformation of data, dynamic
processing of data, multiple simultaneous representations of data, and multimodal
representations of data.
(3) Identify teaching tactics, which are difficult or impossible to implement by other
means, such as the application of ideas in contexts that are not experienced in real life.
For example, exploration and discovery in virtual worlds, virtual visits (i.e. virtual
museums), testing of hypotheses, simulations, complex decision-making, modeling,
 long distance communication and collaboration with experts, long distance Investigating
communication and collaboration with peers, personalized learning, adaptive TPCK through
learning, and context-sensitive feedback. music
(4) Select tools with appropriate affordances to support 2 and 3 above.
(5) Infuse computer activities with appropriate learner-centered strategies in the
classroom. This includes any strategy that puts the learner at the center of
the learning process to express a point of view, observe, explore, inquire, think,
185
reflect, discover, problem solve, etc.
Thus, the research reported by Angeli and Valanides (2005, 2009, 2013) diverges from the
work of others in that it directly links TPCK theory with learning design through a set of
instructional design competencies for designing technology-enhanced learning.
In addition to the instructional design principles, Angeli and Valanides (2013) proposed
Technology Mapping as an instructional design approach for guiding technology
integration into learning design and developing teachers’ TPCK. According to Figure 3,
mapping indicates a method of detecting associations between the affordances of a tool,
content, pedagogy, and learners’ content-related difficulties during designing lessons with
technology (Angeli and Valanides, 2009, 2013; Ioannou and Angeli, 2013). The outcome of
the mapping process as shown in Figure 3 is the transformation of the content to be taught
in order to make the content more teachable. This is the essence of the TPCK theory and
Technology Mapping as proposed by Angeli and Valanides (2005, 2009). According to
the Technology Mapping process teachers start their lesson designs by identifying topics

Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic N

...

Concept 1 Concept 2 ... Concept N

R
ep
re
se
s

nt
ce
rd ol

at
fo To
an

io
ns
Af

Mapping
Le y
ar g og
ne
rs da
Pe

nsformation
Tra
Concept 2

CONTEXT Figure 3.
Technology mapping
Source: Adopted from Angeli and Valanides (2013)
IJILT that are challenging to teach or difficult to grasp. Then, they define the content to teach and
35,3 the objectives taking into consideration students’ related misconceptions. The design
process continues by seeking effective representations for transforming the content to teach
in ways that will help students and teachers overcome the teaching and learning problems
that have been previously identified. While thinking about appropriate representations for
transforming the content, teachers search for appropriate technological tools to use in order
186 to realize their lesson designs.
Recently, various researchers pointed to the need for understanding domain-specific
aspects of TPCK including the role of affect in the design of technology-enhanced teaching
(Voogt et al., 2013; Angeli et al., 2016; Chai et al., 2013). Previously, subject-specific TPCK
studies have been undertaken in domains in which affect was not regarded as an essential
component, including science ( Jimoyiannis, 2010), mathematics (Niess, 2011), geography
(Doering and Veletsianos, 2007), Chinese language (Chai et al., 2013), and computer science
(Ioannou and Angeli, 2013). This gap may be related to the fact that the general TPCK
framework is in essence a cognitive model that does not provide guidance in integrating
affect or associating cognition and emotions in technology-enhanced learning.
Accordingly, the authors herein take on the general TPCK instructional design principles
proposed by Angeli and Valanides (2005, 2009) and expand them to provide directions
concerning the teaching of affect with technology, so as to deal with the requirements of
music pedagogy and effectively help music teachers. In addition, the authors of this research
study initially adopted the Technology Mapping model as shown in Figure 3, and, used it in
a series of design-based activities within the domain of music in order to appropriate
it in ways so that affect would become a major component of the instructional design
process and principles.

2.3 Aims and requirements of music pedagogy

Most music curricula in the western world require that students become able to compose,
perform, and demonstrate musical understanding during listening (Swanwick, 2011;
Paynter, 1992). A comparison among music curricula across countries reveals similar aims
and standards concerning the development of skills, techniques, and knowledge in these
three core activities (see, e.g. the National Association for Music Education in the USA
https://nafme.org/my-classroom/standards/, the National Curriculum in England www.gov.
uk/government/publications /national-curriculum-in-England-music-programs-of-study,
and the Australian Curriculum http://australian-curriculum.org/the-arts/music/aims,
https://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/home/p-10-curriculum/curriculum-browser/the-arts/
music2/arts-overview/aims).
Specifically, in an integrated curriculum where all activities are interrelated
(Swanwick, 2011), students, individually and collaboratively, should be able to interpret
and apply elements of music in a diverse array of musical experiences, styles, cultures, and,
times, as performers, audience listeners, and composers. At the same time they should develop
the confidence to be creative, innovative, thoughtful, skillful and informed musicians.
According to the first design principle of the TPCK framework, in order for any
technology integration to be effective and have an added value, teachers must take into
consideration any misconceptions of teaching and learning obstacles. Thus, in the following
sections the authors present a review of the literature concerning the problems in the
teaching and learning of listening and analysis, and, composition, as well as the importance
of affect in music education.

2.4 Problems and difficulties in music education and the inclusion of affect
In the literature, there is substantially a larger body of research that deals with teaching
problems and learning difficulties in composition or creative activities, than studies
examining problems in listening and analysis activities. Moreover, based on the literature, Investigating
student views of school music become increasingly negative, while their enthusiasm, TPCK through
enjoyment, and engagement decreases dramatically as they grow older (Boal-Palheiros and music
Hargreaves, 2001; Savage, 2007; Hallam, 2011).
The fact that music unfolds in time along with its abstract nature causes students to be
inattentive during listening and analysis activities, while personal preferences in certain
musical styles have also a negative impact on student receptiveness and concentration 187
(Swanwick, 2011; Todd and Mishra, 2013). In addition, students have problems in
recognizing, remembering, and comparing musical characteristics, structures and forms,
and, in describing and reflecting critically on music (Todd and Mishra, 2013; Dunn, 2008;
Tan and Kelly, 2004).
The implementation of creative activities is even more problematic, because most
students are not able to read or notate their compositions relying solely on acoustical
memory. Thus, they cannot receive substantial feedback or retain, revise, and extend
musical ideas during subsequent lessons (Freedman, 2013). Furthermore, students’
imaginative and expressive use of musical materials is directly related to their limited
musical training (Burnard and Younker, 2004). From the teachers’ perspective, composition
is regarded as the most challenging. Teachers report problems in designing and teaching
creative activities that stimulate both creative thinking and music learning, and
acknowledge lack of knowledge in composition and/or pedagogies for managing
creativity in music classrooms (Bauer, 2014; Coulson and Burke, 2013; Dogani, 2004).
Apart from the variety of skills required and the difficulties in teaching and carrying out
music tasks, researchers assert that classroom activities are often not meaningful or related
to students’ out of school musical endeavors and interests. For this reason, some researchers
propose offering activities that resemble the musical experiences students come across in
informal settings, including online collaborative music making (Hargreaves et al., 2003;
Savage, 2010; Green, 2007). Other researchers argue that enthusiasm and motivation will
increase by shifting the emphasis from the development of skills to understanding the role
of emotion in music (Hallam, 2011; Dogani, 2004).
Due to the power of music to influence feelings, people listen to music to modify moods or
relieve emotions, relate their current emotional state, have a good time, or cheer themselves
( Juslin and Sloboda, 2011). Moreover, emotions influence and shape all aspects of music
making. Musicians use musical materials and form to express, communicate, and evoke
emotions. A true musical experience (including listening, performing, and composing),
therefore, must not disconnect the understanding of music’s cognitive aspects (musical
characteristics) from the discovery of its emotional effects and expressive character (affect)
(Paynter, 1992; Swanwick, 2011).
In spite of the great significance of affect in music, there is currently a lack of research
studies that examine or guide the integration of affect in music activities (Hallam, 2011).
More specifically, studies relating to children’s compositions rarely address issues of
self-expression and emotion (Hallam, 2011; Dogani, 2004), although during the process of
creating a musical piece both functions – emotions and cognition – are necessary
(Webster, 2008). Hallam (2011) proposed a model suggesting that by encouraging
communication of emotions, feelings, and identity, creating positive emotional experiences,
enjoyment, and personal fulfillment, through composing, performing, or interpreting music,
will increase engagement and impact learning and attainment in music.
Equally important to the focus of emotion in education is the knowledge about the nature
of musically induced emotions. The lack of well-supported concepts, definitions, and
measures of musical emotions (Scherer and Zentner, 2001), resulted in adopting models
and measures from nonmusical areas of emotion research, such as categorical or
dimensional approaches for characterizing day-to-day emotions that failed to capture the
IJILT essence of musically evoked emotions (Scherer, 2004). Zentner et al. (2008) were the first to
35,3 carry a systematic and empirically founded research on the taxonomy of musically induced
emotions. Taking into consideration the nature of music-evoked emotions and how they
differ from everyday non-musical emotions, Zentner et al. (2008) introduced the Geneva
Emotional Music Scale (GEMS), a domain-specific model for measuring and classifying
musically induced emotions. The GEMS contains 45 emotion labels, which are grouped into
188 nine categories or emotional scales. These emotive states were consistently chosen by
listeners to describe emotions felt during multiple studies. Hence, the GEMS model is
derived from a wide range of music and listener samples and is now widely cited and used in
studies on music and emotion ( Juslin, 2013; Barrett et al., 2010).

2.5 Teaching music composition and listening-and-analysis with technology

Currently, the two dominant approaches to composition using technology are the traditional
approach that uses musical notation or sequencing programs, and the contemporary that
uses digital audio applications and music production software (Bauer, 2014). Online music
collaboration sites and associated tools that can be used locally or over a network (e.g. www.
cocompose.com, www.kompoz.com, DigitalMusician.net, explodingart.com/jam2jam, www.
soundcloud.com, etc.) allow young people to manipulate sound, create and upload their own
music, or explore and remix music of others. These types of experiences encouraged
researchers to suggest that such informal approaches have the potential to transform music
education (Brown and Dillon, 2007; Gall and Breeze, 2008).
Associated music technologies, including MP3 files, DJ remixing software, loop-based
music composition tools that use ready-made pieces of music, and generative algorithms,
do not require classical music training and are appealing to young people who use it
extensively in their free time (Crow, 2006). For example, a remix, an alternative version of an
existing song, may be created by taking a recorded song, cutting it in slices, altering the
tempo, style and dynamics, shifting the pitch, or adding effects, and finally recombining
the chunks. Another example is a mush-up, a version that brings together elements of two or
more songs. It may be created by adding the voice from one recording to the music of
another or by mixing two or more versions of the same song to create a duet, while usually
keeping the original instrumentation. Although these and other similar approaches involve
the manipulation of some musical parameters, such as, form, tempo, dynamics, and others,
they were criticized for implicating a rather narrow breadth of concepts and musical styles,
not developing in-depth understanding about structure, form, and musical materials, and for
producing long, effortless, mechanized, unimaginative and inexpressive music (Crow, 2006;
Swanwick, 2011; Savage, 2007). Thus, some authors proposed using these technologies at an
introductory stage and then moving on to approaches that allow for more creative thinking
and implicate a wider range of musical materials (Bauer, 2014; Freedman, 2013).
Processes of composition using music notation or sequencing software were investigated
in another body of studies (Nilsson and Folkestad, 2005; Breeze, 2011). According to
research evidence, due to their instant playback feature, these technologies facilitate the
development of musical knowledge and literacy, and enable students who do not
understand music notation to fully participate in the creative process. They allow students
to create, review, edit, extend, save musical ideas, and, share with others for feedback
(Savage, 2010; Wise et al., 2011; Breeze, 2011; Freedman, 2013).
Publications related to the teaching of algorithmic and electroacoustic composition are
rare and usually propose creative strategies, which have not been implemented and
accessed in secondary classrooms (Brown and Dillon, 2007; Field, 2007; Nierhaus, 2009).
Savage and Challis (2001, 2002) reported three case studies in secondary education on
electroacoustic compositions using software such as Digital Performer, ProTools, and
Metasynth. These studies supported that the electroacoustic approach to composition
provided a clear and structured compositional process and facilitated original and powerful Investigating
artistic products, while engaging students with sounds and reinforcing their work through TPCK through
the use of technology. However, because such composition approaches require either music
programming skills (algorithmic composition) or knowledge of specific sound processing
applications their implementation in secondary education classrooms is not very common.
Listening maps are iconic representations of musical works that are used in music
education as a way to guide students’ concentration to important elements and changes of 189
the music. Their aim is to assist listeners identify musical characteristics, observe contrasts,
and understand the underlying meanings of a piece (Kassner, 2007). Typically, students use
a listening map to follow a route that may contain pictures of instruments, musical symbols
and notation, various shapes representing note durations and pitch, piano rolls (graphical
representations of notes generated by MIDI software), and text to describe sounds.
Animated or interactive listening maps are usually part of a comprehensive music textbook
series, such as Spotlight on Music (Bond et al., 2006). Alternatively, they can be found in
multimedia collections, such as Making Music: Animated Listening Maps (Burdett, 2006),
and include additional interactive games and activities. Animated maps have a noteworthy
improvement over static maps in that they represent musical events and visualize concepts
while the music is playing. In addition, they captivate students’ interest via attractive
graphics, icons, cartoons, line drawings, and color changes (Kassner, 2007). Finally,
investigations of listening guides in teaching and learning offer associated teaching
approaches and report deeper understanding and improvement in students’ descriptions of
musical works (Kerchner, 2013; Dunn, 2008; Gromko and Russell, 2002). Yet, there is a lack
of research that explores the use of animated and interactive listening maps with respect to
affective responses.
Audience response systems allow students to answer electronically multiple-choice
questions that are displayed using a remote control device. Their use during the last decade
became gradually wider, especially in higher education settings, because they promote
active participation and instant presentation of student answers in chart forms, which can
be discussed in the class. Like any technology, it has benefits (including, greater attention
and engagement, better interaction, discussion, and easier assessment) and challenges (such
as, amount of time needed to learn and set up this technology and ability to handle
discussions immediately after student responses). Student challenges include adjusting to a
new mode of learning, increased confusion when multiple perspectives are discussed, and
negative reactions to being monitored (Robin and LeSage, 2009). Collecting student
emotional responses through such systems needs careful consideration, because this
method may restrict students’ answers to the number of choices provided. Specifically, with
respect to affective responses, the breadth of learners’ responses can be significantly wider
when given fill-in type of questions rather than multiple choice ones.

3. Research procedures for investigating TPCK through the domain of music:

the importance of affect
In order to better investigate how the Technology Mapping model, shown in Figure 3,
could be expanded, the authors adopted the GEMS (Zentner et al., 2008) and the model of
Hallam (2011), in order to examine how emotions could be incorporated in the learning
design process and the teaching of music lessons. The GEMS was used in student
handouts to help learners describe more accurately the emotions induced during
listening activities. Hallam (2011) model was used as a guide for integrating opportunities
to communicate and express emotions through student compositions and during
listening activities.
The authors first invested efforts in understanding the interplay between technology,
music, and affect, as proposed by the original Technology Mapping model shown in
IJILT Figure 3, and, consequently, devised a set of instructional design principles to guide
35,3 systematically the design of learning activities in music taking into consideration affect.
In more detail, as shown in Figure 4, the process begins with a listening excerpt during
which students identify emotions expressed or induced without having any visual stimuli.
Then, technological tools are used to support visualizations and explorations of the
cognitive aspects of music, i.e., concepts and constructs, such as musical instruments,
190 motives (the smallest structural unit possessing thematic identity), phrases, sections, modes
(any set of musical notes ordered by pitch), melodic motion (the movement of successive
notes in a melody), and dynamics (loudness). Musical knowledge is presented through
animated and interactive listening maps, and experimentations with musical concepts using
notation software. Along with supporting music learning, transformations and
experimentations with technology can also promote understanding of moods related to a
specific musical element or combinations of elements in different musical contexts.
Moreover, they can support relating moods to contrasting or different uses of a musical
element. As soon as learning and exploration of musical materials is completed, students are
prompted to create a short composition using technology that will convey a mood or a
feeling, and, are guided to make decisions about how to use musical elements and structural
devices to achieve the desired emotion.
In the process just described, there are interactions taking place between musical content,
emotions, and technology. These interactions are denoted in Figure 5. While transformations
of musical content facilitate learning, manipulations of materials with technology influence
instant changes in moods or feelings enabling the development of relations among emotional
and cognitive aspects of music. Furthermore, technology’s resources and affordances,
including combinations of sounds, instrument lines, control of materials and constructs, and
instant and accurate playback, facilitate the generation of new emotions and ideas during the
creative process and help in communicating them more effectively.
The research procedures as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 constitute an advancement of
the instructional design procedures depicted in the Technology Mapping approach shown
in Figure 3. The new procedures situate the Technology Mapping model in the domain of
music, and show the interrelations among technology, musical elements, and affect. Based
on these procedures, the original Technology Mapping model was expanded as depicted
in Figure 6 to include instructional design guidelines about affect.

Musical
excerpt

Emotions
expressed
or induced

Figure 4. Composition Transformations

Musical concepts, with of the musical
technological excerpt and
technology
transformations, concepts
and emotions
 Investigating
TPCK through
Music content
(excerpts, music
concepts and
composition)

191

Transformed
Emotions by the
induced by the Figure 5.
affordances of Interactions among
transformations technological musical content,
tools emotions, and
technology

Accordingly, based on the processes described in Figures 4-6, the authors were able to derive a
new set of design guidelines that extend the second and third instructional design guidelines
proposed by Angeli and Valanides (2009, 2013), and situate the design competencies of the
TPCK theory in the teaching of music and affect. The new design guidelines include:
(1) Use affect (emotion elicited from a musical excerpt) to motivate students to engage in
analysis and exploration of musical excerpts and related concepts.
• Ask students to identify emotion(s) felt or expressed by the music and write
it/them on their handout without having any visual stimuli.
(2) Use technology to help visualize, explore, and support understanding of the cognitive
aspects of music (structures and elements) according to curricular objectives, such as
melodic contour, dynamics, melodic motives, ostinato, phrases, sections, etc.
• Present an interactive/animated listening map of a short musical excerpt.
– Students, working in dyads, explore the animation’s resources and complete
short questions on their handout. They are also provided with a printed
version of the map.
• Alternatively, play reductions of musical excerpts using a notation software,
and/or provide different representations of concepts using the affordances of the
software (i.e. piano-roll editor view, mixer, palette).
– Students identify contrasting or different treatment of musical materials and
complete very short questions.
(3) Use the different transformations that become possible with the affordances of
technology to relate cognitive and emotional aspects, i.e., understand how musical
elements influence emotion induction (affect).
• Discuss which musical or structural elements most likely affected the emotions
identified earlier (design principle 1), or, how the mood might change if these
elements change.
IJILT Music
35,3

Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic N Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3

...

Listening Composition
192 Performing

Concept 1 Concept 2 ... Concept N Musical

Expert

Consists

Cognitive
elements

Such as Such as Such as Such as Such as

Tempo Melodic Major/ Dynamics Melodic

movement minor contour,
mode etc.

is transformed
is transformed Elicits
Elicits
is transformed Elicits
Elicits
Re

Elicits
pr
s

es
ce
rd l
fo Too

en
an

ta
tio
Af

ns

Mapping Emotions
Transformations of Affects
major/minor mode
y
og

Affects
Le

ag
ar

Manifested
ne

d
Pe

as Transformations
rs

Technology of tempo Affects

mapping
transforms
Manifested Affects
as Transformations
of dynamics

Manifested Affects
as Elicited as
Transformations
Transformations of melodic
of cognitive Manifested
contour
elements as Affects

Manifested
Transformations
nsformation as
Tra of melodic
Transformations
Manifested movement
Figure 6. Concept 2 of
as emotions
Expanded technology
etc.
mapping model

• Use a notation file that has been prepared before the lesson, and have students:
experiment with contrasting dimensions of a musical element in order to
understand how a change of feeling or mood can be induced; and/or apply the
new device or element in a short task using a semi-completed template file so
 that students can become more familiar with technical, cognitive and affective Investigating
aspects of a particular concept or combination of two-three concepts (i.e. soft vs TPCK through
loud dynamics, thin vs thicker texture, ascending vs descending melody, music
conjunct or disjunct melody, etc.).
(4) Prompt students to create musical compositions with emotions in order to express or
communicate feelings and mood, using elements and structural devices explored in
the unit. 193
• Use a template composition file and provide a handout with restrictions and guiding
questions about the treatment of musical characteristics explored in the unit.
(5) Repeat steps 1-4 to teach new concepts, gradually engaging students in more
musically and emotionally coherent and technically informed compositions.
The instructional design principles presented here are directly applicable to any tonal piece
of music, pop or rock song, jazz, folk/traditional or art music (often referred to as “classical”),
because musical elements (such as rhythm, tempo, pitch, melody, harmony, etc.) and
building blocks or structures (such as, motifs, phrases, periods, and musical forms) exist in
all of these styles or genres. All the principles described above, i.e., principle 1 (identification
of emotions elicited), principle 2 (visualization and exploration of concepts/constructs),
principle 3 (association of cognitive and emotional aspects) and principle 4 (creating
compositions that communicate feelings or moods) are transferable to any style or genre.
What changes from style to style, are the compositional techniques or approaches and the
tools that are required for making this kind of music. Thus, specific software for creating
certain types of music should be explored in terms of Technology Mapping in order to
clarify related teaching strategies, compositional approaches, musical materials, and
concepts that should be taught for the particular genre. For example, an electroacoustic
piece of music may be certainly visualized through an animation or an interactive map to
represent certain musical concepts and structures and/or to enable some initial exploration
through structured activities. In order to realize more explorations and manipulations of
musical materials or concepts, other categories of music technology software should be used
that are suitable for recording, processing and mixing raw sounds. In any case, the idea of
associating musical concepts/materials and constructs with emotions should be applicable
in electroacoustic music as well.

4. Empirical findings
The new design principles were tested with 334 8th and 9th grade students. The students
belonged to 14 intact classes in four different middle schools. The 14 classes were assigned
to two groups, namely, experimental and control. There were 133 students in the control
group and 201 students in the experimental group.
Both groups of students attended two 40-minute lessons during which the concepts of
tempo (i.e. the speed of the music), major-minor mode, ostinato, and the repetition of motives
in a sequence were examined. Below, we are presenting preliminary results concerning
tempo. The concept of tempo was introduced in an activity that presented not only its
cognitive aspect but also the interactive effects of tempo and mode in relation to the emotion
evoked. The purpose of the activity was to help students understand which factor(s)
in musical structure contributed to the perceived emotional expression. Specifically, in the
lesson, students in the experimental group experimented with tempo using the notation
program MuseScore, and, a file containing a melancholic folk song in A Minor set at a slow
tempo (70 bpm). After listening to the slow version of the song, students were guided to open
the Play Panel from the Display Menu, set the tempo slider at 130 bpm, and listen to the
song again. While experiencing a happier mood, despite the minor mode of the music,
IJILT students were prompted to write their opinion on their handouts about how changes in
35,3 tempo induced different feelings. In addition, they were asked to provide their own
definition of the term tempo, which they shared in class. In this experimental context,
the affordances of technology enabled students to sidestep their limitations and support
practices and uses of musical materials that are very difficult or impossible to realize when
composing with real instruments, such as, playing very fast or very slow tempi, or
194 manipulating and transposing motives (shifting them at lower or higher pitch), changing
instrument sounds, and identifying places in the music that sound wrong and revising
them. Accordingly, students in the control group were engaged in traditional practice with
real instruments to understand tempo and also listened to the two versions (fast and slow)
of the song without experimenting with the software. Students’ performance was
assessed with a pretest that was later administered also as a posttest and a delayed test.
Specifically, students were asked to identify the meaning of the term tempo and were
provided with five different meanings in the form of a multiple-choice question. In
addition to the cognitive question about tempo, students were asked to answer two
questions with emotional content for the same concept. Specifically, students were asked
to specify what feeling could be evoked when a song in minor mode with conjunct
movement was played at a slow tempo and a fast tempo. The pretest was administered a
week before the intervention, the immediate posttest took place at the end of the second
40-minute session (during which the related activity took place), and the delayed posttest a
week after the posttest.
The control group and the experimental group were equivalent in terms of students’
performance on the pretest (control: M ¼ 0.80, SD ¼ 0.69; experimental: M ¼ 0.81, SD ¼ 0.62)
and no statistically significant differences existed between the two groups. There were
however larger differences between the two groups in terms of students’ performance on the
posttest (control: M ¼ 1.00, SD ¼ 0.87; experimental: M ¼ 1.41, SD ¼ 0.80), and the delayed
test (control: M ¼ 1.02, SD ¼ 0.86; experimental: M ¼ 1.24, SD ¼ 0.84).
In order to examine whether there were statistically significant differences between the
control group and the experimental group regarding students’ performance on the posttest
and delayed test a MANOVA was conducted. The analysis showed statistically significant
differences between the two groups in favor of the experimental group for both the posttest
(F (1, 331) ¼ 21.00, p o0.01, partial η2 ¼ 0.06) and the delayed test (F (1, 331) ¼ 6.20, p o0.05,
partial η2 ¼ 0.02).
These results showed that the experimental group outperformed the group control in
developing a better understanding about how the musical element of tempo affected or
evoked different emotions. The only difference between the experimental group and the
control group was that students in the experimental group used MuseScore to experiment
with tempo while students in the control group used traditional musical instruments and
listened to musical excerpts. Obviously, the affordances of MuseScore enabled the
experimental group not only to better understand the concept itself, but also its emotional
effects, i.e., faster tempo is associated with happier states while slow tempo is associated
with sadness, especially when the music is in minor mode. The technology allowed students
to focus on the essence of the activity, which was to experience what tempo is, learn how to
change it, listen and compare the changes made to identify the emotions elicited, and draw
the correct conclusions. While the process was short and simple, technology allowed
students to quickly alternate between fast and slow tempi enabling the identification of
more “accurate” emotions.
The findings presented here are very encouraging and can be used as baseline data in
future empirical studies. Undoubtedly, researchers need to invert more time and effort in
similar research studies in order to better understand the interrelations among instructional
design, cognition, and emotion.
5. Future directions and concluding remarks Investigating
In the present study, the authors propose a set of instructional design principles addressing TPCK through
both the affective and cognitive domains of learning for guiding technology integration in music
music teaching and learning. The study contributes to the further development of TPCK by
bridging domain-specific aspects of music education (and more broadly the creative arts),
such as, affect, with the affordances of technology in the design process. The empirical
findings presented herein are indeed very promising. Furthermore, the contribution of this 195
research has also practical significance as it provides teachers with guidance on learning
design. The results of this study can be used as baseline data for future studies aiming at
developing theory and methodologies in instructional design and the creative arts.
Undoubtedly, including affect in the design process is a complex and mostly unexplored
area, and, thus, further investigations toward this direction of research are fully warranted.

References
Angeli, C. and Valanides, N. (2005), “Pre-service teachers as ICT designers: an instructional
design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge”, Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 292-302.
Angeli, C. and Valanides, N. (2009), “Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: advances in technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)”, Computers & Education, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 154-168.
Angeli, C. and Valanides, N. (2013), “Technology mapping: an approach for developing technological
pedagogical content knowledge”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 199-221.
Angeli, C. and Valanides, N. (2015), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Exploring,
Developing, and Assessing TPCK, Springer, New York, NY.
Angeli, C., Valanides, N. and Christodoulou, A. (2016), “The theoretical conceptualization of technological
pedagogical content knowledge”, in Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J. and Mishra, P. (Eds), Handbook of
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 11-30.
Archambault, L.M. and Barnett, J.H. (2010), “Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge:
exploring the TPACK framework”, Computers & Education, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 1656-1662.
Barrett, F.S., Grimm, K.J., Robins, R.W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C. and Janata, P. (2010),
“Music-evoked nostalgia: affect, memory, and personality”, Emotion, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 390-403.
Bauer, W.I. (2014), Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding
to Music, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Boal-Palheiros, G.M. and Hargreaves, D.J. (2001), “Listening to music at home and at school”,
British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Bond, J., Boyer, R., Campbelle-Holman, M., Crocker, E., Custodero, L., Davidson, M. and Soto, G.D.
(2006), Spotlight on Music, Vol. K–5, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Breeze, N. (2011), “Multimodality: an illuminating approach to unraveling the complexities of
composing with ICT?”, Music Education Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
Brown, A.R. and Dillon, S. (2007), “Networked improvisational musical environments: learning through
on-line collaborative music making”, in Finney, J. and Burnard, P. (Eds), Music Education with
Digital Technology, Continuum International Publishing Group, London, pp. 96-106.
Burdett, S. (2006), Making Music Animated Listening Maps, Pearson Education, Inc. and
Scott-Foresman Division, Glenview, IL.
Burnard, P. and Younker, B.A. (2004), “Problem-solving and creativity: insights from students’
individual composing pathways”, International Journal of Music Education, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 59-76.
IJILT Chai, C.S., Chin, C.K., Koh, J.H.L. and Tan, C.L. (2013), “Exploring Singaporean Chinese language
35,3 teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and its relationship to the teachers’
pedagogical beliefs”, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 657-666.
Coulson, A.N. and Burke, B.M. (2013), “Creativity in the elementary music classroom: a study of
students’ perceptions”, International Journal of Music Education, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 428-441.
Cox, S. and Graham, C.R. (2009), “Diagramming TPACK in practice: using an elaborated model
of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge”, TechTrends, Vol. 53 No. 5,
196 pp. 61-69.
Crow, B. (2006), “Musical creativity and the new technology”, Music Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 121-130.
Doering, A. and Veletsianos, G. (2007), “An investigation of the use of real-time, authentic geospatial
data in the K-12 classroom”, Journal of Geography, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 217-225.
Dogani, K. (2004), “Teachers’ understanding of composing in the primary classroom”, Music Education
Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-279.
Dunn, R.E. (2008), “The effect of auditory, visual, or kinesthetic perceptual strengths on music
listening”, Contributions to Music Education, Vol. 35, pp. 47-78.
Field, A. (2007), “New forms of composition, and how to enable them”, in Finney, J. and Burnard, P.
(Eds), Music Education with Digital Technology, Continuum International Publishing Group,
London, pp. 156-168.
Freedman, B. (2013), Teaching Music Through Composition: A Curriculum Using Technology, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Gall, M. and Breeze, N. (2008), “Music and eJay: an opportunity for creative collaborations in the
classroom”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 27-40.
Graham, C.R. (2011), “Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)”, Computers & Education, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1953-1960.
Green, L. (2007), How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music Education, Ashgate
Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.
Gromko, J.E. and Russell, C. (2002), “Relationships among young children’s aural perception, listening
condition, and accurate reading of graphic listening maps”, Journal of Research in Music
Education, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 333-342.
Hallam, S. (2011), “Music education: the role of affect”, in Juslin, P.N. and Sloboda, J. (Eds), Handbook of
Music and Emotion: Theory, Research, Applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 791-818.
Hargreaves, D.J., Marshall, N.A. and North, A.C. (2003), “Music education in the twenty-first century:
a psychological perspective”, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 147-163.
Harris, J.B. and Hofer, M.J. (2011), “Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action:
a descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional
planning”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 211-229.
Ioannou, I. and Angeli, C. (2013), “Teaching computer science in secondary education: a technological
pedagogical content knowledge perspective”, The 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary
Computing Education Proceedings of the International Conference in Aarhus, ACM, New York, NY,
pp. 1-7.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010), “Developing a technological pedagogical content knowledge framework for
science education: implications of a teacher trainers’ preparation program”, Proceedings of
Informing Science and IT Education Conference (InSITE), pp. 597-607.
Juslin, P.N. (2013), “From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: towards a unified theory of musical
emotions”, Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 235-266.
Juslin, P.N. and Sloboda, J. (Eds) (2011), Handbook of Music and Emotion: Theory, Research,
Applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kassner, K. (2007), “Animated listening maps”, General Music Today, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 35-39.
Kerchner, J.L. (2013), Music Across the Senses: Listening, Learning, and Making Meaning, Oxford Investigating
University Press, Oxford. TPCK through
Koehler, M.J. and Mishra, P. (2008), “Introducing TPCK”, in AACTE Committee on Innovation and music
Technology (Ed.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) For
Educators, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-29.
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. (2006), “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for
teacher knowledge”, The Teachers College Record, Vol. 108 No. 6, pp. 1017-1054. 197
Nierhaus, G. (2009), Algorithmic Composition: Paradigms of Automated Music Generation, Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg.
Niess, M.L. (2011), “Investigating TPACK: knowledge growth in teaching with technology”, Journal of
Educational Computing Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 299-317.
Nilsson, B. and Folkestad, G. (2005), “Children’s practice of computer-based composition 1”, Music
Education Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Paynter, J. (1992), Sound and Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Robin, H.K. and LeSage, A. (2009), “Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response
systems: a review of the literature”, Computers & Education, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 819-827.
Savage, J. (2007), “Reconstructing music education through ICT”, Research in Education, Vol. 78 No. 1,
pp. 65-77.
Savage, J. (2010), “A survey of ICT usage across English secondary schools”, Music Education
Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 89-104.
Savage, J. and Challis, M. (2001), “Dunwich revisited: collaborative composition and performance with
new technologies”, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 139-149.
Savage, J. and Challis, M. (2002), “A digital arts curriculum? practical ways forward”, Music Education
Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Scherer, K.R. (2004), “Which emotions can be induced by music? What are the underlying mechanisms
and how can we measure them?”, Journal of New Music Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 239-251.
Scherer, K.R. and Zentner, M. (2001), “Emotion effects of music: production rules”, in Juslin, P. and
Sloboda, J. (Eds), Music and Emotion: Theory and Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 361-392.
Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. and Shin, T.S. (2009),
“Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an
assessment instrument for pre-service teachers”, Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 123-149.
Shulman, L.S. (1986), “Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching”, Educational Researcher,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 4-14.
Swanwick, K. (2011), Teaching Music Musically, Routledge, London.
Tan, S. and Kelly, M.E. (2004), “Graphic representations of short musical compositions”, Psychology of
Music, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 191-212.
Todd, J.R. and Mishra, J. (2013), “Making listening instruction meaningful: a literature review”, Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 4-10.
Valanides, N. and Angeli, C. (2006), “Preparing pre-service elementary teachers to teach science through
computer models”, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education – Science, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 87-98.
Valanides, N. and Angeli, C. (2008a), “Learning and teaching about scientific models with a computer
modeling tool”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 220-233.
Valanides, N. and Angeli, C. (2008b), “Professional development for computer-enhanced learning:
a case study with science teachers”, Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 3-12.
IJILT Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J. and van Braak, J. (2013), “Technological pedagogical
35,3 content knowledge: a review of the literature”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 109-121.
Webster, P.R. (2007), “Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning: 2000-2005”,
in Bresler, L. (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, Vol. 16, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 1311-1330.
Webster, P.R. (2008), “Children as creative thinkers in music: focus on composition”, in Hallam, S.,
198 Cross, I. and Thaut, M. (Eds), Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 421-428.
Wise, S., Greenwood, J. and Davis, N. (2011), “Teachers’ use of digital technology in secondary music
education: illustrations of changing classrooms”, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 117-134.
Zentner, M., Grandjean, D. and Scherer, K.R. (2008), “Emotions evoked by the sound of music:
characterization, classification, and measurement”, Emotion, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 494-521.

Corresponding author
Charoula Angeli can be contacted at: cangeli@ucy.ac.cy

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com