The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman 2 Ebook Full Chapter

The Music Professor Online Judith
Bowman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-music-professor-online-judith-bowman-2/
The Music Professor Online
The Music
Professor Online
Judith Bowman
1
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021951868
ISBN 978–0–19–754737–3 (pbk.)

ISBN 978–0–19–754736–6 (hbk.)
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.001.0001
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by Marquis, Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
Contents
Preface vii
Introduction 1
PART I . EX PO S ITION: TH E CH ANGING L ANDSC APE

1. In Person and Online: What’s the Difference? 7
tatus of Distance/Online Education
S 8
Status of Online Music Instruction 11
Commonalities and Distinctions 14
Standards 20
The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education 24
Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework 28
Correspondences: Seven Principles and Community of Inquiry 35
2. Teaching Persona: Who Are You When You Teach? 40

eacher Identity
T 41
Teaching Persona 44
Presence 46
Roles Teachers Play 49
Perspectives on Teaching Presence 52
Director of Learning: All the Things You Are 54
3. Pedagogy: How Will You Teach Music Online? 57

nline Teaching Competencies
O 57
Aligning Competencies with the Seven Principles and CoI 63
Effective Online Teaching 64
Signature Pedagogy 65
Pedagogical Challenges 72
PART I I . DEVE LOPME NT: PE RS PE CTIVES FROM THE FIEL D

4. Applied Music 85
ature of the Discipline and Signature Pedagogy
N 86
State of the Practice 87
Meet the Instructors 88
Some Lessons from the Field 107
vi Contents
5. Music Theory 112

rowth of Music Theory Pedagogy
G 113
Nature of the Discipline and Signature Pedagogy 114
6. Music History/Musicology 145

ature of the Discipline and Signature Pedagogy
N 146
7. Music Appreciation 175

usic in General Studies
M 176
Pedagogical Concerns and Solutions 178
8. Music Education 200

F uture of Music Education 201
PART I I I . R ECAPITU L ATION: E XPANDIN G YOUR OPTIONS

9. Moving Forward, Planning What’s Next 231
L earning from Practitioners 231
Easing toward Online Teaching: An Action Plan 234
Successful Online Music Teaching 237
10. Coda: Teaching in the Time of Pandemics and Other Disruptions 240
I nitial Response 240
Into the Future 241
Glossary 243
Bibliography 245
Index 261
Preface
This book originated from recommendations for future research in my

previous book, Online Learning in Music: Foundations, Frameworks, and
Practices (2014). Of particular interest were studies of practice to determine
what pedagogical techniques would work best for what types of online music
courses, with focus on “the techniques and strategies used by successful online
instructors, how they changed their approaches to suit the online environ-
ment, and how they determined what constitutes high-quality music learning
experiences in various types of music courses” (Bowman, 2014, pp. 219–220).
Brendan McConville and Barbara Murphy expressed the same thoughts: “We
think the next step in the study of online courses should be a more comprehen-
sive inquiry addressing specific teaching strategies, pedagogical frameworks,
and curricular approaches that are generating successful online music courses
in various sub-disciplines and degrees” (McConville & Murphy, 2017, Part II,
para. 10). A serendipitous conversation with McConville and Murphy at the
meeting of the Association for Technology in Music Instruction in 2016 led to
a panel discussion on this topic at the next year’s ATMI meeting, and the idea
gained momentum from that point.
Key to the development of the book were the contributions of the following
professors, who represent various music disciplines. In applied music: Pamela
Pike, Keith Dye, Kathleen Melago. In music theory: Barbara Murphy, Brendan
McConville, Greg McCandless, Anna Gawboy. In music history/ musi-
cology: Allison Alcorn, Dan Keast, Art Brownlow, Louis Epstein. In music
appreciation: Kim Davenport, Bethanie Hansen. In music education: William
Bauer, Jane Kuehne, Jill Reese. I’m grateful to these professors for agreeing to
be interviewed and for sharing their experiences and their advice for prospec-
tive online instructors.
Special thanks to Norman Hirschy for his initial enthusiasm for this topic
and for his continued support and expert guidance through all stages of the
development of the book.
Introduction
Since the first fully online music courses were offered in the early 2000s, on-
line instruction in music in higher education has continued to grow, with in-
dividual course offerings in bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral programs as
well as fully online graduate music degree programs. That growth has been
documented in recent surveys (Johnson & Hawley, 2017; McConville &
Murphy, 2017), showing increases in the number of classes offered and the
size of those classes. McConville and Murphy concluded, “We think the next
step in the study of online courses should be a more comprehensive inquiry
addressing specific teaching strategies, pedagogical frameworks, and curric-
ular approaches that are generating successful online music courses in various
sub-disciplines and degrees” (2017, Part II, para. 10). And I had previously
suggested a similar strategy:
now is the time to reconsider the broader musical, educational, and technolog-
ical contexts in which online education in music is implemented; to conduct qual-
itative studies of how people learn in online environments; to investigate specific
strategies for online learning in music; and to direct more attention toward devel-
opment of appropriate instructional models and practical teaching approaches.
(Bowman, 2014, p. 50)
Book Overview
This book addresses those recommended next steps. It provides a snapshot

of online music instruction in higher education in the disciplines of applied
music, music theory, music history/musicology, music appreciation, and
music education. The book is structured in three parts, like sonata form: an ex-
position that presents the main themes, a development that reveals how those
themes play out in the lived curriculum, and a recapitulation that revisits and
synthesizes the themes as worked out in individual circumstances.
The Music Professor Online. Judith Bowman, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.003.0001
2 Introduction
Part I, “Exposition: The Changing Landscape,” presents the main themes.

Chapter 1, “In Person and Online: What’s the Difference?” summarizes cur-
rent reports on the status of online learning in general and in music; explores
differences between online and face-to-face instruction; reviews standards for
online teaching and learning; and describes the Community of Inquiry (CoI)
theoretical framework for online learning together with the Seven Principles
for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Chapter 2, “Teaching
Persona: Who Are You When You Teach?” explores ways to evolve one’s ex-
isting teaching persona into an online teaching persona by focusing on
teaching presence as found in the CoI framework. Chapter 3, “Pedagogy: How
Will You Teach Music Online?” aligns the teaching roles of the CoI with the
Seven Principles, describes signature pedagogies, and explores some peda-
gogical challenges.
Part II, “Development: Perspectives from the Field,” contains five chapters
that feature profiles of music professors who are teaching online and
examples of how the main themes appear and vary within their music dis-
ciplines: Chapter 4, “Applied Music”; Chapter 5, “Music Theory”; Chapter 6,
“Music History/Musicology”; Chapter 7, “Music Appreciation”; and Chapter 8,
“Music Education.” Each chapter presents the nature of the discipline and its
signature pedagogy, the state of practice in that discipline, narratives in which
featured professors describe their online teaching, and summary lessons for
online instruction in the discipline. Instructor profiles and narratives were
developed through case study inquiry based on personal communications
in which the professors addressed topics that included personal background,
how they became interested in teaching online, online teaching techniques
they found effective and those they found less effective, challenges and how
they dealt with them, how well their students learned, how online teaching
might have influenced their face-to-face teaching, their advice to instructors
who anticipate teaching online, and any other topics they considered signifi-
cant about their work.
Part III, “Recapitulation: Expanding Your Options,” returns to the main
themes and recommends a course of action for the future. Chapter 9,
“Moving Forward, Planning What’s Next,” synthesizes the practices of cur-
rent professors and presents an action plan with ways to move toward online
teaching in music. Chapter 10, “Coda: Teaching in the Time of Pandemics
and Other Disruptions,” addresses responses to the coronavirus pandemic
and recommends building on current online experience in order to be pre-
pared for other disruptions that may impose similar restrictions on in-person
instruction.
Introduction 3
This book is for instructors who want to teach online; for those who have
been asked to teach online although they had not planned to do so; for cur-
rent online instructors who may be teaching a course in a different music dis-
cipline, for music teacher educators who want to prepare their students for
online music instruction at the K–12 level, for graduate students anticipating
college level teaching, for instructors who are already teaching online and are
interested in different approaches and fresh ideas, and for others who may be
assisting prospective online music instructors.
The aim of the book is to help music professors integrate online teaching
into their current pedagogical repertoires—to frame the path to successful on-
line teaching as the evolution of a familiar role, to showcase models and ideas
from practitioners in various music disciplines, and to provide tools to guide
their course design process. Given the continued growth of online instruc-
tion together with the sudden pivot to remote instruction, online learning will
continue to be a critical area for music in higher education.
PART I
EXPOSITION: THE CHANGING
LANDSCAPE
1
In Person and Online
What’s the Difference?
Online learning has reached a tipping point in higher education. It

has grown from a peripheral project of early tech adapters or a prac-
tice of the for-profit industry into an accepted way of delivering edu-
cation that is now deeply embedded in the majority of colleges and
universities.
—Kathryn Masterson, Online Education
Online learning has reached a tipping point—or so a recent report stated. Is

that the case in the music disciplines? National reports on online education
provide mass data on online learning generally, and they are useful in terms
of overall trends, enrollments, and various administrative, instructional, and
technological issues. However, because they focus on large-scale matters, they
lack detailed information about specific academic disciplines and pedagog-
ical practices. In most of these reports, faculty views are provided by academic
leaders who may be chief academic officers, chief online officers, provosts,
deans, program directors, or chairs, and coverage of music disciplines is
not specifically included. However, there is a recent record of online music
courses and programs in music: McConville and Murphy’s national survey of
online music courses and programs (2017) provides valuable information on
online teaching and learning in the music disciplines that is not available in
any other national report.
The Music Professor Online. Judith Bowman, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.003.0002
8 Exposition: The Changing Landscape
Status of Distance/Online Education
Online Education: Heading toward the Future
The survey report Online Education: Heading toward the Future, published by
the Chronicle of Higher Education (Masterson, 2017), announced that “Online
learning has reached a tipping point in higher education,” and that since its
beginnings with early adopters, it has become “an accepted way of delivering
education that is now deeply embedded in the majority of colleges and uni-
versities” (p. 4). The report, based on a 2017 survey of 1,287 higher education
administrators involved with online education, identifies factors related to the
maturing of online learning: growth in numbers of online courses offered and
in numbers of students enrolled; growing consideration of online learning as
critical to institutions’ strategic plans; increased focus on quality (e.g., Quality
Matters certification); increasingly positive faculty attitudes toward online
teaching and learning, particularly among those who try online teaching and
engage with instructional designers or participate in training workshops; a
sense that online teaching resulted in improved face-to-face teaching; and a
tendency to use instructional designers in light of the different skills needed
in online course design.
For the future, it points to the continued and growing significance of online
education. It concludes with a recommendation to develop communities of
practice “where members can exchange ideas and stories of what worked for
them teaching online and what didn’t” (p. 33). For music professors consid-
ering online teaching, this kind of information from faculty with experience
teaching online in the music disciplines would be most helpful as they plan
and design their own online courses.
Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the

United States
Another report, Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United

States (Seaman et al., 2018), compiled by the Babson Survey Research
Group in partnership with the Online Learning Consortium, Pearson, and
Tyton Partners, focused on enrollments. It used information from the U.S.
Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, with
the most recent data from fall 2016. Enrollment categories included students
In Person and Online: What’s the Difference? 9
enrolled exclusively in distance education courses, those enrolled in a mix of

distance and on-campus courses, and those enrolled in a minimum of one
distance course. The sample consisted of all active degree-granting higher
education institutions: public institutions, private for-profit institutions, and
private nonprofit institutions.
The report revealed that despite an overall downward trend in higher edu-
cation enrollment, distance student enrollments (i.e., students taking at least
one distance education course) had increased for the fourteenth straight year,
from 25.9% of all higher education enrollments in 2012 to 31.6% in 2016. The
2016 enrollments consisted of a total of 6,359,121 students, divided almost
evenly between students taking exclusively online courses and those taking a
mix of distance and on-campus courses. Of the total number of students, more
than 1 million studied at the graduate level and more than 5 million studied at
the undergraduate level. The report also noted that students enrolled in a mix
of courses could be taking their distance courses on campus and that most
students taking exclusively distance courses tended to be in the same state as
their institution (56.1%).
It included lists of the top fifty institutions by total number of students,
total number of students taking at least one distance course, total number of
students taking exclusively distance courses, and total number of students
enrolled in distance-only institutions, but it did not include information about
specific degree programs or disciplines. An author of the report noted the “re-
lentless” growth of distance enrollments during periods of ups and downs in
the economy and in higher education enrollments, and a Pearson executive
anticipated increased institutional commitment to distance learning.
CHLOE 4: Navigating the Mainstream
The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) Project, a partner-

ship between Eduventures Research and Quality Matters, was created in 2016
to examine the structure and organization of college-level online education
in the United States, and the first report was released in 2017. The sample
consisted of chief online officers (COOs), assumed to be uniquely suited to as-
sess online learning at their two-year public institutions and four-year public
and private institutions. The number of participants has grown each year, with
367 participants contributing to the 2020 survey.
CHLOE 4, Navigating the Mainstream (Garrett et al., 2020), “presents
mounting evidence that online education is increasingly mainstream in
the fabric of U.S. colleges and universities” (p. 6). The report is extensive.
It covers multiple aspects of online learning, including enrollment trends,
course design, finances, support services, and organizational structure. As
indicated by the title of the report, online education is becoming increas-
ingly mainstream. Institutions are using a variety of approaches in adapting
their practices to support online education, and online education is likewise
adapting to institutional models. Although there was continued enrollment
growth in 2019, many schools reported stable rather than increased enroll-
ment. Fully online courses and programs continued to be more common
than blended models except at community colleges. Master’s programs were
the most commonly offered online programs, accounting for up to 35% of
online degree programs, with about 40% of master’s students studying on-
line. Faculty were the primary course developers, and instructional designers
were somewhat involved.
The report addresses learning activities in what might be considered a
typical online course. However, it notes that because direct observation
was not possible within the large sample, COOs provided that informa-
tion, and their insights on this topic were likely to vary. Nevertheless,
the findings showed that interaction with course materials (e.g., study of
materials, work on assignments) accounted for 50% of online student time;
interaction with instructors and other students (e.g., participation in dis-
cussion forums, team projects) accounted for 20% of their time; and time
spent with other staff (e.g., advisers) accounted for the remaining time. The
most common online student engagement techniques were assignments
and discussion board posts. Although online cheating continued to be a
commonly cited concern, 70% of the COOs found no difference between
their online and on-campus students; cheating was equally common or
uncommon.
Significantly, the report includes a qualification of the findings regarding
learning activities based on COOs’ opinions, which suggests that information
directly from online instructors would provide more clarity:
In summary, CHLOE 4’s examination of patterns of online student interaction

is useful but limited. The survey relies on the opinions of COOs in the absence of
more direct evidence, and despite clearer definitions it is likely that individual
respondents interpret similar arrangements differently, muddying the data. The
typical online course appears to be more materials-centric than the typical on-
campus one, but both modalities, on average and at the institutional level, warrant
additional characterization if important nuances and possibilities are to be under-
stood. (p. 53)
Moving Forward
The conclusion of Online education: Heading toward the future contains a rec-
ommendation for developing communities of practice for discussion of on-
line teaching practices and concerns, and the CHLOE 4 report points out the
limitations of its findings about student interaction due to lack of direct ob-
servation. It would be helpful for both current and prospective online music
professors to hear directly from practicing online music faculty about what
works and what does not work in their own disciplines, what pedagogical
practices they find most effective, and what recommendations they might
have for others in their disciplines who are engaged in or considering on-
line teaching. First steps in that direction are presented in this book in the
discipline-specific chapters of Part II.
Status of Online Music Instruction
What Is Online? A National Survey of Course Offerings

in Music and a Case Study in Music Theory
In line with the continued growth of online education in general, online

education in music also continues to grow, as reported in national surveys
conducted in 2013 and 2016 to identify specific music courses being taught
online. The 2013 sample consisted of members of the Association for
Technology in Music Instruction (ATMI) and the National Association of
Schools of Music (NASM). For the 2016 survey, the sample was expanded
to College Music Society (CMS) members listed as interested in online ed-
ucation and to 35 schools listed by NASM as offering distance-learning
degrees. The report of both surveys, “What Is Online? A National Survey of
Course Offerings in Music and a Case Study in Music Theory” (McConville
& Murphy, 2017), presents data on numbers of courses and programs as well
as some details regarding course size, faculty, content, delivery mode, course
materials, and instructional approach.
A comparison of the data obtained from the two surveys revealed an in-
crease in master’s and doctoral degrees, from 10 master’s and 6 doctoral
programs in 2013 to 14 master’s and 11 doctoral programs in 2016. Although
the number of respondents decreased, from 58 in 2013 to 43 in 2016, the
number of courses reported increased from 67 in 2013 to 76 in 2016. Most
of the online courses were 15-week, three-credit courses, in line with com-
parable face-to-face courses. Online courses were offered in fall, spring, and
summer, with the greatest number of courses offered during the summer.
Nearly 90% of the online courses were at the undergraduate level, and most
were lower-division courses.
There was little change from 2013 to 2016 in the courses offered. The
highest number of online courses remained in the subdisciplines of musi-
cology/music appreciation, music theory, music education, and music tech-
nology, with a greater variety of topics as indicated by course titles in 2016.
In contrast to the growth of online courses in these subdisciplines, courses in
music composition declined, and aural skills courses were no longer offered
in 2016, a decline that appears to support the idea that online learning is better
suited to knowledge-based courses than to skills-based courses.
In addition, there was a significant increase in typical class size: from fewer
than 50 students in 2013 to 75 or more in 2016. Because both classes and class
sizes increased, a question about the cause arose and was proposed as a po-
tential survey topic: whether class size increased because the class was offered
online or whether the number of classes increased due to increased class size.
Another change involved the instructors teaching the online classes, with
fewer classes taught by tenure-track and adjunct faculty and more classes
taught by non-tenure-track faculty. The authors speculated that this change
could be indicative of a general change in higher education. Some content
changes from 2013 to 2016 included small increases in online content (6.8%),
recorded lectures, and online assessments. However, there was a substantial
decrease in lecture/online meetings (15.6%) and online office hours (6%)—
another potential survey topic.
The kinds of materials used in online courses remained constant
(e.g., videos, audio examples, website links, slide presentations, and text
documents), but there was an increase in the use of social media and mobile
apps that suggests movement toward more active learning techniques. Course
development showed a significant change in 2016, with more faculty devel-
oping courses than publishers and professional authors, as in the findings of
the CHLOE 4 report. Further, online course development time increased in
tandem with the increase in faculty developers: 84.9% at a year or less, 6.6% at
one to two years, and 4.1% at two to three years, perhaps indicative of the lim-
ited time faculty may have available for development activities.
As a next step in studying online courses, the authors recommended “a
more comprehensive inquiry addressing specific teaching strategies, peda-
gogical frameworks, and curricular approaches that are generating successful
online music courses in various sub-disciplines and degrees,” and they con-
cluded, “Such a study, as well as a continued self-examination of our own on-
line offerings and blended learning course components, will ensure we are
taking the best steps towards more effective education in music” (McConville
& Murphy, 2017).
A Closer Look
Based on a random sample (40%) of NASM-accredited schools, Johnson and

Hawley (2017) found that 102 of the schools offered online classes, and they
further examined 60 programs from that sample. The findings showed ex-
ponential growth of online courses from 2007 to 2015, with music history,
music appreciation, and musicology as the most frequently offered online
courses. Graduate online music programs were briefly discussed, with music
education predominant, and audio engineering was representative of STEAM
courses due to its dual emphasis on artistic and technical aspects. (The ac-
ronym STEAM refers to science, technology, engineering, arts, and math.)
The authors acknowledged the pedagogical challenges involved, but they also
noted the opportunities for valuable learning experiences in various online
contexts: informal, formal, and STEAM. Their findings are similar to those
reported by McConville and Murphy (2017).
Littles (2014) surveyed 230 faculty from 160 randomly selected NASM-
accredited institutions and documented music faculty perceptions regarding
the suitability of specific music courses for online delivery, online music
faculty’s instructional practices, and features of online music courses. The
findings, based on a Likert scale, revealed that faculty generally considered
music appreciation, music business, music history, music research, music
theory, introduction to music education, and instrumental or choral litera-
ture somewhat suitable for online delivery, and they considered composition,
music education methods, aural skills courses, and applied lessons not suit-
able. These perceptions align with earlier views about the relative suitability
for online delivery of knowledge-based versus skills-based courses.
As an example, Phillips (2008) pointed out the successes with knowledge-
based content in online doctoral and master’s music education programs and
the challenges involved in developing musical and teaching skills. Hebert
(2007) also acknowledged the suitability of theoretical study for graduate-
level music education, but he also suggested that musical and instructional
skills could be addressed online when supported by technological advances.
Notably, most of Littles’s faculty respondents did not have prior experi-
ence teaching online, but those with online teaching experience rated the
knowledge-based courses, as well as aural skills and instrumental/choral
arranging courses, significantly more suitable for online delivery.
Commonalities and Distinctions
Research on the effectiveness of online learning has involved comparisons of

delivery media, which generally have resulted in findings of “no significant
difference” and the conclusion that learning advantages are due to instruc-
tional techniques rather than delivery media. With those findings in mind,
I move away from media comparisons and focus instead on characteristics
of face-to-face and online teaching and learning. I identify practical teaching
techniques and strategies that are effective in online courses and that lead to
high-quality learning.
“No Significant Difference” Phenomenon
Research has provided evidence that outcomes of online learning are at least as
good as those of traditional educational models. That is, the research showed
no significant differences in learning outcomes between online and face-to-
face instruction. The “no significant difference” phenomenon refers to a body
of media comparison studies that compare learning outcomes of students in
face-to-face courses with those of students in distance courses. Russell (1999)
collected and compiled a total of 355 of these kinds of studies dating back to
1928. Distance delivery modes included print materials associated with cor-
respondence courses, radio, television, and online. Examination of the studies
revealed that when course materials and methodology were held constant,
there were no significant differences in student learning outcomes between
the distance course and the face-to-face course. Because learning outcomes
in distance courses were neither better nor worse than those in face-to-face
courses, Russell named this result the “no significant difference” phenom-
enon. However, “no significant difference” does not mean unimportant; it
means that the media treatments being compared are not different and that
they have an equal impact on learning. However, the methodologies used in
these earlier studies have been criticized, as many lacked controls of course
and student variables that would influence outcomes, such as control groups
and random assignment; course materials and instructional methods; and
student preparation, motivation, and interest.
In contrast to the perceived design weaknesses of those studies, a frequently
cited and well-respected U.S. Department of Education meta-analysis of on-
line learning research (Means et al., 2010) used a rigorous screening process.
To qualify for selection, studies needed to report on learning that took place
primarily over the internet, compare online learning with face-to-face or
blended learning, report on completed research, measure learning outcomes

in the same way for all conditions, and use a controlled design. Findings re-
vealed that learning outcomes in online courses were “modestly” superior
to those in face-to-face courses (p. xiv), with a small advantage for blended
instruction. The authors noted that the learning advantages were due to
differences in curriculum materials, pedagogical aspects, and learning time,
rather than the delivery medium. These findings agree with the thinking of
Richard E. Clark, often cited about learning with media: “whenever learning
occurs, some medium or mix of media must be present to deliver instruc-
tion,” and “if learning occurs as a result of exposure to any media, the learning
is caused by the instructional method embedded in the media presentation”
(1994, p. 26). The report concluded, “The meta-analysis findings do not sup-
port simply putting an existing course online, but they do support redesigning
instruction to incorporate additional learning opportunities online” (p. 51).
Critiques of the Department of Education meta-analysis have indicated
some perceived shortcomings. Jaggars and Bailey (2010) disputed the finding
of superior outcomes in online and blended courses, stating that it did not
hold in the case of fully online courses in the typical college and university
settings, as only seven of the studies were conducted with undergraduate or
graduate students in full-semester courses. In addition, they raised questions
about implications regarding access and success for students in underserved
populations. In a report of research on online learning in postsecondary ed-
ucation not included in the Department of Education meta-analysis, Lack
(2013) found insufficient evidence to support claims that online or blended
learning is significantly either more or less effective than face-to-face learning
and noted the challenges involved in conducting rigorous research involving
educational outcomes and human subjects. On the other hand, Nguyen (2015)
considered the evidence of the effectiveness of online learning compared with
face-to-face learning strong but inconclusive and advocated moving beyond
the “no significant difference” phenomenon, citing Twigg’s work on the topic
and stating, “Online learning is a story that is still being written” (p. 316).
In her report for a Pew Symposium in Learning and Technology, Twigg
(2001) described discussions of how to go beyond the “no significant differ-
ence” phenomenon. She pointed out that although online courses provided
24/7 access and offered increased flexibility to students, most courses followed
traditional academic practices. She commented, “as long as we continue to
replicate traditional approaches online—and treat all students as if they were
the same—we will once again find the ‘no significant difference’ phenomenon
vis-à-vis quality” (p. 5). In response, symposium participants, who had several
years of direct experience with online learning, explored various innovative
models that might provide better approaches to improving the quality of stu-
dent learning. Among key points related to improving the quality of online
student learning were a focus on what instructors can do with technology
that they cannot do without it, the need to engage online students in active
learning, and awareness that students learn from one another and that they
take on the teaching role more frequently in distance courses than they do in
traditional classrooms. Participants expressed interest in learning from other
participants and using relevant elements from others’ approaches in their own
institutions. They concluded that individualization was the key to moving
beyond the “no significant difference” phenomenon, specifically by individ-
ualizing student learning and standardizing faculty practice, building consist-
ency based on knowledge about quality, access, and cost.
In a further exploration of the “no significant difference” phenomenon,
Conger (2005) cited two major criticisms of media comparison studies: lack
of control of variables (acknowledged as a fairly common issue in educational
research) and lack of grounding in educational theory. On the educational
theory issue, Conger advocated asking the right questions, such as, “If the
theory is that students learn better face to face, what is it about face to face
learning that we believe leads to better outcomes? Potential answers include
levels and type of interaction, teacher attention, and social learning” (pp. 2–3).
Although Conger cited these factors as elements of face-to-face instruction,
they are also integral features of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical
framework with reference to online and blended learning, discussed later in
this chapter. Conger also cited Twigg’s (2001) recommendations for improving
the quality of online learning and concluded that the best way to move beyond
the “no significant difference” phenomenon would be to focus on develop-
ment of pedagogies that make optimum use of current technologies.
Later, Twigg remarked that she was “somewhat mystified about the con-
tinuing concern about quality assurance in online learning. . . . The charac-
teristics of a good face-to-face course are the same as those of a high-quality
online-learning course” (in Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010). She men-
tioned student and faculty support, dependable infrastructure, and effective
assessment as determinants of any high-quality learning experience, regard-
less of delivery mode.
Gains, Losses, or Differences
When we first think about online teaching and learning, we may compare it
with features of face-to-face teaching and immediately notice what’s missing,
such as the ability to observe and respond to facial expressions, gestures,

and body language; dynamic presentations of musical concepts; animated
discussions; the opportunity for students to ask questions during or after class
and receive an immediate explanation; spontaneity, including those teaching
moments that arise unexpectedly; and intangibles—the “magic” that can
happen particularly in performance-based instruction. In other words, we
may think in terms of losses or drawbacks, what we can’t do because we’re not
with our students in the same place and at the same time. However, there are
also advantages, and both advantages and disadvantages of online teaching
and learning have been documented over several years. Music researchers
have studied both individual music courses and online music education de-
gree programs and have identified advantages and disadvantages. Some
findings apply primarily to courses in specific music disciplines, while others
apply to both individual courses and fully online programs.
Advantages and Disadvantages

Among frequently mentioned advantages of online graduate programs in
music education are the flexibility and convenience offered by the online
setting. Students can remain in their teaching positions while they pursue
graduate studies, a plus for those in more remote locations. They can apply
what they are learning in their own classrooms, and they can choose their
own best times to complete assignments. They are spared a commute to and
from classes following a full day of teaching, providing more time for work
on graduate assignments, their own class preparation, and other responsi-
bilities. Students may interact with other students at a distance, both in the
United States and internationally, and they may complete their studies in a
shorter time than would be possible in a summer program or a combined ac-
ademic year/summer studies program (Bauer, 2014; Groulx & Hernly, 2010;
Koutsoupidou, 2014; Sherbon & Kish, 2005).
The effectiveness of online graduate programs as a form of professional de-
velopment is also cited fairly frequently. Based on surveys and interviews with
graduates of a distance-learning music education master’s program, Walls
(2008) reported positive changes in their teaching philosophies, teaching
practices, and personal growth. These changes were related to interaction
with faculty and peers, real-world applications of learning, and academic
quality. Similarly, based on interviews with recent graduates of another online
graduate music education program, Kos and Goodrich (2012) reported ben-
eficial relationships between online program characteristics and professional
development. Course content was associated with changes in teaching philos-
ophy, and discussion boards were associated with informal peer interaction
and sharing of pedagogical ideas that sometimes resulted in rethinking in-

structional practices. Although the coursework in this program generally met
their professional development needs, some graduates felt that they would
have benefited from courses that were not offered online (e.g., conducting,
Orff approach). The researchers concluded that some students might be less
well suited to online learning and that some courses might be better suited to
face-to-face settings.
The relative suitability of particular students for online learning and spe-
cific courses for online delivery highlights the advantages and disadvantages
of online learning, and it often influences students’ choice of courses and of
graduate programs. Because online classes may not suit everyone’s learning
preference and because there are fewer elective course options in online
programs, sometimes related to the challenges of offering skills-based courses
online, students may enroll in an online or face-to-face graduate program
based on those preferences as well as on practical considerations such as the
ability to remain in their current teaching positions (Albert, 2015; Bauer,
2014; Groulx & Hernly, 2010).
Among frequently mentioned disadvantages of online learning are
lack of in-person interaction with classmates and reduced contact with
professors, both of which sometimes result in feelings of isolation (Bigatel
et al., 2012; Groulx & Hernly, 2010; Hansen, 2020; Koutsoupidou, 2014;
Walls, 2008). One researcher noted that graduate assistantships are not
available to students in online programs, with subsequent loss of poten-
tial mentoring opportunities with supervising faculty (Groulx & Hernly,
2010). Although the lack of in-person interaction with the professor
and classmates is most noticeable in asynchronous courses, the effect
is lessened when synchronous meetings are incorporated. On the other
hand, some students value flexibility and convenience over in-person
interaction.
A limited choice of electives is also cited as a disadvantage in online grad-
uate music education programs (Bauer, 2014; Groulx & Hernly, 2010).
Performance- based courses and other electives (e.g., Orff and Kodály
approaches, conducting, applied lessons) are typically not offered due to
movement requirements as well as audio quality, time delay, video issues, and
faculty availability to teach some of these courses online.
Finally, in their study of online graduate music education programs, Groulx
and Hernly stated:
the underlying belief is that an online degree in music education is not necessarily
better or worse than a school’s traditional campus-based counterpart. Rather, it is
simply a different method of achieving a university’s goal of raising the educational

level of the community it was created to serve. (2010, pp. 60–61)
Similarities and Differences

Although it’s understandable that we initially focus on what seems to be
missing or lost when we teach online, framing online instruction in terms
of what we can’t do may prevent us from seeing what might be possible. It
would be more productive to consider similarities and differences between
face-to-face and online teaching rather than to focus on losses. Course object-
ives, learning outcomes, and content are likely to remain the same, whether
the course is offered face-to-face or online. An obvious difference between
face-to-face and online classes involves time and location, one difference with
multiple implications for content presentation and interaction. Following
are some examples of similarities and differences within knowledge-based
courses.
The course design process is the same for both face-to-face and online
courses: setting goals and objectives; creating assessments to provide evidence
that students have achieved the objectives; planning learning experiences,
teaching techniques, and course materials that align with the objectives.
Face-to-face classes meet at a specific time in a specific location and follow
a set schedule. Online classes are not bound to a specific time and location,
but they may include synchronous meetings at specific times. Like face-to-
face classes, they typically follow a set schedule, but students have the flexi-
bility to choose the most convenient time to access course content.
Content presentation in the face-to-face music classroom may include a lec-
ture, playing of musical excerpts, and spontaneous musical demonstrations,
with opportunities for student input and questions—an effective approach
when instructor and students are together at the same time and in the same
place. Online, short video presentations are more effective given student
viewing behaviors, and some presentation applications (e.g., VoiceThread)
support interactivity.
Discussions in face-to-face classes occur within the time allotted for the
class, which places certain limitations on student participation: some students
are talkative, some are more reticent, and sometimes class ends before eve-
ryone has had an opportunity to contribute. Online classes support sev-
eral discussion options. As in the face-to-face format, discussions in online
classes may be held synchronously using videoconferencing applications.
Asynchronous discussions, typically open for at least several days, provide the
opportunity for students to think about what they want to say and craft their
responses before posting to a discussion board. Time does not run out, eve-
ryone in the class must contribute, and there is a written record of the conver-
sation. Video discussion platforms (e.g., VoiceThread, Flipgrid) offer a similar
time advantage.
Both face-to-face and online classes can support active learning approaches
such as group work and project-based learning. In face-to-face classes, part of
the class meeting time can be allotted to small-group discussion culminating
in summaries by a spokesperson for each group. A similar format is easily ar-
ranged in online classes by assigning small groups to breakout rooms during
synchronous meetings. And both face-to-face and online classes can accom-
modate student projects that involve reflection, application, and writing about
course concepts, with in-person presentations in face-to-face classes and syn-
chronous or asynchronous presentations online.
When the same course is taught both face-to-face and online or a face-to-
face course has been redesigned specifically for online delivery, the course
objectives and learning outcomes will remain the same, while content pre-
sentation and interaction will differ due to the separation of instructor and
students in time and location.
Standards
Accreditation and other standards provide direction for development and

implementation of online courses. Featured in this section are the National
Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and Quality Matters (QM). NASM
publishes accreditation standards for distance learning in music. The QM pro-
gram provides standards for developing quality online and blended courses,
as well as a peer review process and certification of quality online courses.
National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)

on Distance Learning
The NASM Handbook (National Association of Schools of Music,

2021) contains accreditation standards that provide benchmarks for quality
distance programs. It lists general standards for distance education “appli-
cable to programs that are partially or entirely delivered by distance learning”
(p. 80). Programs with more than 40% of requirements fulfilled via distance
learning are designated as distance-learning programs. Notably, in line with
concerns regarding the effectiveness of online learning, two of the standards
require equivalency between on-campus courses and distance courses. Other

standards address appropriate delivery media and issues related to student
verification.
Standard III.H contains all the requirements for distance education.
Standards most closely related to instruction are as follows:
3. Standards Applications
a. Distance learning programs must meet all NASM operational and
curricular standards for programs of their type and content. This
means that the functions and competencies required by applicable
standards are met even when distance learning mechanisms pre-
dominate in the total delivery system.
...
4. Standards
...
b. Delivery Systems, Verification, and Evaluation
(1) Delivery systems must be logically matched to the purposes of
each program. Delivery systems are defined as the operational
interrelationships of such elements as program or course con-
tent, interactive technologies, teaching techniques, schedules,
patterns of interaction between teacher and student, and evalua-
tion expectations and mechanisms.
(2) The institution must have processes that establish that the stu-
dent who registers in a distance education course or program is
the same student who participates in and completes the program
and receives academic credit. Verification methods are deter-
mined by the institution and may include, but are not limited to,
secure login and password protocols, proctored examinations,
and new or other technologies and practices.
...
d. Program Consistency and Equivalency
...
(2) When an identical program, or a program with an identical title,
is offered through distance learning as well as on campus, the in-
stitution must be able to demonstrate functional equivalency in
all aspects of each program. Mechanisms must be established to
assure equal quality among delivery systems.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER VII.
LABOUR WAS SQUANDERED ON PYRAMIDS,
BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE BOTTLED UP.
Faute de mieux.
It is essential to the right understanding of any age that we have a

general knowledge of its monetary and economical condition. This,
which in ordinary histories is passed over with little or no notice,
does, in truth, largely affect the character of men’s works and deeds,
their manners and customs, and even their thoughts and feelings. It
had much influence on the history of the old world: we see it
distinctly at work in that of the Roman Empire. And we are now
beginning to understand how largely it is influencing the course of
events amongst ourselves at the present moment. With respect to
the Pyramids, who was to build them, the means by which they were
to be built, and that they were to be built at all, depended on the
monetary and economical condition of the Egypt of that day. To
elucidate this is to advance a step in the reconstruction and
revivifying of the period.
Herodotus tells us that he saw inscribed on the Great Pyramid
how many talents of silver (1,600 was the number) had been
expended in supplying the hands employed on the work with
radishes, onions, and garlic. He says he had a distinct recollection of
what the interpreter told him on the subject. We believe this,
because he was no inventor of fables, but an accurate and veracious
recorder of what he saw and heard. The idea of history—that is, of
what is properly called history, which is exclusive of intentional
deception and misrepresentation—was the uppermost idea in his
mind. The internal evidence of his great, varied, and precious work
demonstrates this.
There is, however, another reason for our believing this particular
piece of information he gives us about the Great Pyramid, which is,
that it is in strict accord with what we know of the period to which his
statement belongs. Silver was at that time not coined but weighed,
and therefore, necessarily, the inscription would speak of such a
weight of silver, and not of so many coins of a certain denomination.
At that time there were not in existence any coins of any
denomination. In the history of Joseph we have frequent mention of
money without any qualifying terms; but on the one occasion in the
narrative, where it becomes necessary to speak precisely on the
subject, Joseph’s brethren do so by saying that their money was in
full weight. Money then, we may suppose, as late as the time of the
Pentateuch, was silver that was weighed, and not coined. This is in
accordance with another statement of Herodotus, that the Lydians,
the most mercantile neighbours of the Greeks, were the people who
first coined money.
Now that the Egyptians had at this time no coined money, proves
that their taxes—as is very much the case at this day with their chief
tax, that on land—were paid in kind. In an age when silver was so
scarce that the idea of coining it, for the purpose of giving to it easy
and general circulation, had not occurred, and it was passing from
hand to hand of the few who possessed it by weight, the actual tillers
of the soil, always in the East, and not less so in Egypt than
elsewhere, a poor and oppressed class, could not have had silver to
pay their rents and taxes. The wealth, therefore, of Pharaoh must
have consisted mainly of produce.
The next point is, that no profitable investments for what silver, or
precious things, a few might have possessed, were known, or
possible then. It was not only that there were no Government stocks,
and no shares paying dividends, but that there was nothing at all that
could be resorted to for such purposes. If a man had invested money
in anything he would have stood out before the world as a rich man,
and so as a man to be squeezed. Doubtless there was less of this in
Egypt than elsewhere in the East, but in those early and arbitrary
days there must have been, at times, even in Egypt, somewhat of it.
People, therefore, would not, as a general rule, have invested had it
been possible. But it was utterly impossible, for the double reason
that there was nothing to invest, and nothing to invest in.
What people invest is capital. Capital is bottled-up labour,
convertible again, at pleasure, into labour, or the produce of labour.
But in those days labour could not be bottled up, except by a very
few in the form of silver ingots. In these days every kitchen-maid can
bottle up labour in the shape of coin, which is barren bottling-up, and
invest it in a saving’s bank account, or in some other way, which is
fruitful bottling-up. I ask permission to use these incongruous
metaphors, one on the top of the other. Every grown-up person in
the kingdom can bottle up labour, and invest it; and, as a matter of
fact, there are few who, at one time or other of their lives, do not.
Some have succeeded in doing it to such an enormous amount that
they might with the accumulated store build a Pyramid greater than
that of Cheops. It is, indeed, with the labour that has been bottled up
by private individuals that we have constructed all our railways,
docks, and gas works, and with which we carry out all our
undertakings, great and small, in this country. There is no limit to our
capacity for bottling up labour. It is one of our greatest exports; we
send it all over the world, to Russia, to America, to India, and to
Egypt itself. It is estimated that we store up somewhere about
150,000,000 pounds worth every year.
But in the time of Cheops nothing of this kind was done, nor could
it have been. It is true that the nation could then produce a great deal
more food than it needed for consumption, but, at the end of the
year, it was none the richer. Its surplus labour had not been fixed and
preserved in a reconvertible form for future needs. Its surplus
production had not been thus stored up for future uses. To repeat
ourselves there were, speaking generally, no ways open to them for
bottling up this surplusage either in the temporarily barren, or in the
continuously fruitful fashion. But there were ways open to them by
which they might squander, or consume, their imperfect chances.
They might, for instance, throw away their surplus food, and capacity
for surplus labour, by doing no productive work for a portion of the
year. They were engaged in this way in the long and numerous
festivals of their gods, in their funeral processions, and other matters
of this kind. The effect was the same when they made military raids
on their neighbours. To this method also of using up their surplus
labour and food they had frequent recourse. To these matters they
were disposed more than ourselves, because, unlike ourselves, they
could not save what they were thus squandering. Or they might
spend much of it in excavating, sculpturing, and painting acres of
tombs; or in piling up Pyramids; or in building incredible numbers of
magnificent temples. This explains the magnitude and costliness of
many of the works, and undertakings, of the old world elsewhere, as
well as in Egypt. The point which it is essential to see is, that they
could not bottle up their surplus labour of any kind in the time of
Cheops; while with us every form of surplus labour, even every odd
half-hour of every form of it, may be bottled up, and the interest on
what has been secured in this way may itself also be secured in like
manner. The only approach to this among them was made by the
king when he built a treasury, which we know was sometimes done
by the Pharaohs, and locked up in it his ingots of silver, and what
gold, precious stones, and costly stuffs he had acquired.
But this form of bottling up labour, and which only one man in the
kingdom could practise, had two objections. It was of the utterly
barren sort: it paid no dividends. He had no enjoyment of any kind
from it. This was the first objection; and the other was, that if it was
continued too long—and this might be the result at any moment—the
man who was thus hoarding up his treasures would prove to have
been hoarding them up for others, and not for himself; and so he
would get no particle of advantage from them.
What, then, was he to do? How was what he had to be spent in
such a manner as that he might himself get something from it? How
was he to have himself the spending of it? A Pyramid is utterly
unproductive, and all but utterly useless. It is a building that does not
give shelter to any living thing, in which nothing can be stored up,
excepting a corpse, and that cannot even be entered. Still it was of
as much benefit to the man who built it as leaving the surplus labour,
and food he had at his disposal, and the valuables he had in his
treasury, unused would be. And those who built Pyramids had at
their absolute command any amount of labour, and any amount of
food. Here, then, was a great temptation to raise monuments of this
kind to themselves. What treasure they had might as well be sunk in
stones, as remain bottled up barrenly. They would, at all events,
spend it themselves, and get for it an eternal monument. They would
have the pleasure of raising themselves their own monuments. They
would have the satisfaction of providing a safe and magnificent
abode for their own mummies.
If they had had at home Egyptian Three per Cent. Government
Consols, or could have bought Chinese, Hindoo, or Assyrian Five
per Cent. Stocks; or if the thought had occurred to them, which not
long afterwards did occur to their successors, of reclaiming from the
Desert, by irrigation, the district of the Faioum; or if they had
foreseen that in times to come the Hyksos and the Persians might
invade Egypt, and that possibly a rampart from Pelusium to the
metropolis, such as was afterwards constructed, might assist in
keeping them in check in the Desert, where there would be a chance
of their perishing from thirst; or if Egypt had been, like Ceylon, a
country in which mountain streams could be dammed up in the wet
season for irrigating the land in the dry; or, like Yucatan, where
enormous tanks for the storage of the rainfall are indispensable; then
it is evident that the surplus labour and food, and the silver ingots in
the King’s treasury, would have been spent in some one or other of
these ways. But some of these things were not possible in Egypt,
and the time for thinking of the others had not yet come. There was,
therefore, no alternative. It must be something as unproductive as a
Pyramid, or a temple. The intense selfishness of man, such as he
was in those early days, prevented his having any repugnance to the
idea of a Pyramid all for himself: it rather, on the contrary,
commended the idea to his mind. And so it came about that the
Pyramids were built. The whole process is as clear to us as it would
be, had we ourselves, in some well-remembered stage of a previous
existence, been the builders, and not Cheops and Chephren. We
see the conditions under which they acted, and the mental process
by which they were brought to the only conclusion possible to them.
The question may be propounded—Why was there given to these
structures that particular form which from them has been called the
pyramidal? Mathematics and astronomy have been summoned to
answer the question; and lately the Astronomer Royal for Scotland
has, in a large and learned work, endeavoured to prove that the
Great Pyramid of Gizeh was intended to perpetuate for ever a
knowledge of scientifically-ascertained natural standards of weight,
measure, and capacity. If this was the purpose of the Great Pyramid,
will he allow an old friend to ask him—what, then, was the purpose
of each one of those scores of other Pyramids that were constructed
before and after it? No two, probably, of the whole series were
precisely of the same dimensions, except, perhaps, accidentally. All
suppositions of this kind have their origin in the unhistorical, or rather
anti-historical practice of attributing to early ages the ideas of our
own times. The first requirement for enabling one to answer this
question rightly is the power of, in some degree, thinking with the
thoughts of the men who themselves built the Pyramids. Though, of
course, there is no more reason for doubting that every Pyramid in
Egypt was intended for a tomb and sepulchral monument, just for
that and for nothing else, than there is for doubting that the Coliseum
was built for the spectacles of the amphitheatre, and London Bridge
for enabling people to cross the Thames.
Sir John Mandeville, the greatest English traveller of the Middle
Ages, and who, during his thirty-three years of wandering in the
East, had served in the armies both of the Sultan of Egypt and of the
Emperor of China, writing between 1360-70, of what he had seen
about twenty-five years previously, tells us the Pyramids were the
granaries Joseph built for the storage of the corn of the years of
plenty. This is instructive: it shows how readily in ages of ignorance
—the same cause still has, where it remains, the same effect—men
connect old traditions, particularly if there be anything of religion
about them, with existing objects: being prompted to do this by a
craving to give distinctness, and a local habitation, to such traditions.
He anticipates and bars the objection that neither he, nor anyone
else, had inspected the interior of the Pyramids, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether they were adapted for granaries, by telling us
that they were full of serpents. This is set down apparently without
any other design than that of recording a curious fact, which it would
be as well to mention. And, doubtless, as far as the knight knew
himself, he had no other object. But in matters of this kind,
experience teaches us that such people do not know themselves.
Here, then, we have an instance of the way in which extremes
meet. The old knight accepts his theory without one jot or tittle of
evidence in its favour, and directly in the teeth of all that had ever
been recorded of the Pyramids. It is a theory which allows at most
seven years for their construction; and which supposes them to have
been designed for a purpose which is flatly contradicted by their
form, and by all that is seen of their exterior, and known of their
interior; and, too, by the history itself. One grain of science of any
kind in the old knight would have lost us the lesson to be drawn from
his theory.
What he did was to yield to what was to him a temptation. And
this, and I say it with all due deference, is precisely what the
Astronomer Royal for Scotland appears to have done. He, too, has
yielded to a temptation. The old knight, five centuries and an half
back, was tempted to find in these mighty monuments the Biblical
narrative; and he found it. The modern Astronomer is tempted to find
in them most unexpected and surprising indications, facts, and
conclusions of profoundest science; and he finds them. Each was
tempted after his kind.
History, which had only an embryonic and potential existence in
the time of the old knight, and which even now is only beginning to
assume its proper form and lineaments, and to become a living thing
with power to teach, to guide, and to save from error—formerly what
was taken for history often only misled—would readily have enabled
each of them to have escaped the temptation that was besetting him.
It is worth noticing, by the way, that Mandeville was one of the last
who saw the original inscriptions on the Great Pyramid. The
construction of Sultan Hassan’s Mosk, the materials for which were
supplied by the outer flakes of this Pyramid, was completed about
the middle of the fourteenth century. Mandeville was in Egypt
immediately before its commencement, and mentions the
inscriptions. Notices of them are also to be found in several Arabian
and other writers of earlier date. These were what Herodotus saw,
and refers to. Some others, both in Greek and Latin, had been
added during the period of Ptolemaic and Cæsarian domination.
When the Father of History saw, and had them interpreted to him,
they were more than 2,000 years old. The knight of St. Albans, 1,700
years later, looked upon them in blank ignorance. Here we have
brought together, as it were, in a single canvas, the primæval
Egyptian, the inquisitive Greek, and the adventurous Englishman.
What would not one now give to behold such inscriptions, on such a
building, and with such a history? They had stood for nearly 4,000
years; and were capable, probably, of standing 4,000 years more: at
all events, at this day, we might, certainly, be reading what Cheops
had inscribed, and Herodotus and Mandeville had seen, if (we need
not say anything about Sultan Hassan) Mohamed had been less of
an ignorant barbarian. What destroyed these inscriptions, just as it
had overthrown a civilization it was incapable of reconstructing, was
the grand and luminous formula that ‘God is God, and Mohamed his
Prophet.’ This, which the true believer takes for a summary of all
knowledge, is, in fact, nothing but the profession and apotheosis of
all ignorance. It does excellently well for Mecca, and still better for
Timbuctoo. But, however, as it is the summary of all knowledge,
those who utter it have attained (how easy then is the achievement)
the highest point man can reach. They can have on intellectual
sympathy, or moral connexion with the ages that preceded its
announcement. So also the ages that are to come (why there should
be such ages does not appear) can never be, in anything, one step
in advance of them. God can never be anything but God, and he
never can have any prophet but Mohamed: that is to say, men must
never conceive the idea of God otherwise than as Mohamed
conceived it. This was what destroyed the inscriptions Cheops had
placed on the Great Pyramid, and turned it into a quarry for Mosks
and palaces at Cairo.
Religion, however, sooner or later, has its revenge on the theology
which endeavours to confine it within narrow and inexpansive limits
of this kind. The day comes when ‘the engineer is hoist with his own
petard,’ that is, when the theology is strangled with its own
formularies. History, too, which theologies generally ignore, has its
revenge in pointing, as a warning, to the indications, scattered
throughout all lands, of their former existence, and of the causes of
their decay and extinction. Religion is a living thing that, from time to
time, advances into a higher form. Theologies are often only fossils
of forms of religion that have passed away.
But to return to our question: why was this particular form given to
these tombs and sepulchral monuments? Of course, it was because
this was the form which presented itself to the minds of the men of
those times as the natural and proper form. But why did a thought,
which does not appear obvious and appropriate to us, appear to
them natural and proper? It was because in the ages that had
preceded the times of the Pyramid builders, and which had left some
of the ideas that had belonged to them still impressed on men’s
minds, tools for quarrying and squaring stones had been scarce; and
it had resulted from this scarcity of tools (sometimes it was an entire
absence of them) and from the corresponding embryonic condition of
the primitive ideas of art, that the tombs and sepulchral monuments
of those ages had consisted merely of a shallow grave covered over
with a pile of inartificially heaped-up stones, or earth. That was all
that the natural desire in the survivors to perpetuate the memory of
the dead had found possible. Such was, with the Aryan race, the
primæval idea of a tomb and sepulchral monument, throughout the
whole Aryan world. Cheops and Chephren, and their predecessors
for many generations on the throne of Egypt, had acquired tools, and
an unlimited supply of labour; but they had not acquired new ideas
about tombs and sepulchral monuments. So when, with the vigour of
thought, and boldness of conception, that belonged to a young
world, conscious of its strength, they resolved to construct such
tombs and sepulchral monuments as should endure while the world
endured, no other form occurred to them, excepting that of the
simple antique Aryan cairn. They wanted a tomb, and a sepulchral
monument, and nothing but a cairn could be that. And so they built
the cairns of Gizeh.
Solomon’s Temple indicated that it had been preceded by a time
during which the House of God had been a tent; the marble
Parthenon that it had been preceded by a time during which the
ancestors of its architects had built with wood.
Suppose that it were discovered that in the language of old Egypt
the word for a sepulchral monument meant literally a heap of stones,
should we not be justified by the known history of the power words
have over thought, in feeling certain that in those early times there
could not have been a man in Egypt capable of forming any other
conception of a sepulchral monument? We have some little ground
for presuming that something of the kind was at work in the minds of
the builders of the Pyramids. The force, that is to say, of words, as
well as the force of tradition, may have constrained them to adopt
the pyramidal form. At all events, we know that the word pyramid
may mean the mountain, perhaps the mound, perhaps really the
cairn, the heap of stones.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GREAT PYRAMID LOOKS DOWN ON THE
CATARACT OF PHILÆ.
Now I gain the mountain’s brow,

What a landscape lies below!—Dyer.
There is some interest in the comparison contained in the

following figures. The Great Pyramid was originally 480 feet high. In
consequence of the sacrilegious removal of its outer courses by the
Caliphs to provide materials for the construction of the Mosk of
Hassan, and other buildings at Cairo, its height has been reduced
twenty feet, that is to 460 feet. It stands at the northern extremity of
the valley of Egypt. The First Cataract is at the other, or southern
extremity. These two extreme points of the valley are separated by a
distance, following the windings of the river, of 580 miles.
Throughout this distance the river falls on an average five inches a
mile. This gives an uniformly rapid stream. To ascend this distance in
a steamboat, such as are used on the Nile, requires seven days of
continuous work; no time having been allowed for stoppages, except
of course during the night. I need hardly say that the voyage is never
accomplished in so short a time. But supposing a week has been
spent in the ascent of the river, when, at the end of it, you land at the
Cataract, you are at very little more than half the height you had
reached when you were standing, at the beginning of the week, on
the top of the Pyramid. So it would be supposing the Pyramid stood
on the level of the river-bank, instead of standing, as it does, on a
spur of the limestone ridge that overlooks the valley. To think, when
you are entering Nubia, that a building in the neighbourhood of
Cairo, so many hundred miles away, is still towering nearly 240 feet
above your head, and that it has been there from an antiquity so
remote that, in comparison with it, the most ancient monuments of
Europe are affairs of yesterday, an antiquity that is separated from
our own day by more than 5,000 years, makes one feel that those
old Egyptians understood very well what they were about, when they
undertook to set for themselves a mark upon the world, which should
stand as long as the world endured. Judging from what we still see
of the casing at the top of the Second Pyramid, we feel certain that, if
the destroying hand of man had not stripped off its polished outer
casing from the Great Pyramid, the modern traveller would behold it
precisely as it was seen fifty centuries ago, when the architect
reported to Cheops the completion of the work.
I have been speaking of the relation, in respect of height, of the
Great Pyramid to the Cataract of Philæ only; it may, however, be
noticed, for the sake of enabling the fireside traveller to picture more
readily to his mind the peculiarity of the hypsometrical features of
this unique country, that this Pyramid looks down, and always from a
relatively greater height, on every part of the cultivated soil of the
whole land of Egypt.
CHAPTER IX.
THE WOODEN STATUE IN THE BOULAK
MUSEUM.
Vivi vultus.—Virgil.
In the museum of Egyptian antiquities at Boulak, the harbour of

Cairo, is a wooden statue of an old Egyptian. It was found in a tomb
at Sakkara, and belongs to one of the early dynasties of the old
primæval monarchy. It is absolutely untarnished by the thousands of
years it had been reposing in that tomb. There is no stain of time
upon it. To say that it is worth its weight in gold is saying nothing: for
its value is not commensurable with gold. It is history itself to those
who care to interpret such history. The face is neither of the oval, nor
of the round type, but as it were, of an intermediate form; the
features and their expression are just such as might be seen in Pall
Mall, or in a modern drawing-room, with the difference that there is
over them the composed cast of thought of the wisdom of old Egypt.
As you look at the statue intently—you cannot do otherwise—the
soul returns to it. The man is reflected from the wood as he might
have been from a mirror.
He is not a genius. His mind is not full of that light which gives
insight. He cannot communicate to others unusual powers of seeing
and feeling. He cannot send an electric shock through the minds and
hearts of a generation. He is no prophet whose lips have been
touched with fire, no poet whose words are creations, no master of
philosophical construction, no natural leader of men.
And this piece of wood tells you distinctly not only what manner of
man he was not, but also exactly what manner of man he was. How
this Egyptian of very early days thought, and felt, and lived, are all
there. He was accustomed to command. He was a man of great
culture. His culture had refined him. He was conscious of, and
valued his refinement. He was benevolent on conviction and
principle. It would have been unrefined to have been otherwise. He
was somewhat scornful. He was very accurate in his knowledge, his
ideas, and statements. Very precise in his way of thinking, and in all
that he did. He shrunk from doing a wrong, or from using an ill-
placed word, as he would have from a soiled hand. He was as clean
and neat in his thoughts as in his habits. He was as obstinate as all
the mules in Spain. Had there been any other party in those days, he
would have belonged to the party of order; and, if things had gone so
far, he would not have shrunk from standing by his principles; but he
would not unnecessarily have paraded them. If he had been called
upon to die for his principles, he would have died with dignity, and
with no sign of the thoughts within. In his philosophy nothing so
became firmness of mind as composure of manner.
His servants respected him. They had never known him do a
wrong thing; and they had known him do considerate things. But
they did not like him. They could not tell why, but it was because they
could not understand him. He was an aristocrat. He cultivated and
valued the advantages his position had given him; and was
dissatisfied with those whom circumstances had forbidden should
ever be like himself. He saw that this feeling was inconsequential,
but he saw no escape from it, and this vexed his preciseness and
accuracy; and he combated the disturbing thought with greater
benevolence and greater accuracy, and became more precise where
preciseness was possible. He was fond of art, of his books, and of
his garden. He was not unsocial, still, in a sense, nature attracted
him more than man; and he preferred the wisdom of the ancients to
that of the moderns.
Such was this Egyptian of between five and six thousand years
ago. He was the creation of a high civilization. He could have been
understood only by men as civilized as himself. That he was
understood is plain, from this piece of wood having been endowed
with such a soul.
In the Boulak Museum is also a statue in diorite, one of the
hardest kinds of stone, carefully executed and beautifully polished, of
Chephren, the builder of the second Pyramid, with his name
inscribed upon it. The features are uninjured, and are seen by us at
this day just as they were seen by Chephren and his Court 5,000
years ago. It was discovered by M. Mariette at the bottom of the well,
which supplied the water used for sacred purposes in the sepulchral
temple attached to Chephren’s Pyramid. This statue must have
been, originally, erected in the temple; and we can imagine that it
was thrown into the well by the barbarous Hyksos, or iconoclastic
Persians, where it lay undisturbed till brought again to light by M.
Mariette. Probably the well had been filled up with the rubbish of
demolitions contemporary with the overthrow of the statue, and,
having been thus forthwith obliterated, had been lost to sight and
memory to our day.
CHAPTER X.
DATE OF BUILDING WITH STONE.
When time is old and hath forgot itself,

And blind oblivion swallowed cities up,
And mighty states characterless are grated
To dusty nothing.—Shakspeare.
Manetho tells us that in the reign of Sesortosis, a king of the third

dynasty, the method of building with hewn stone was introduced. He
reigned about 3,600 b.c. It will be observed that this date is about
thirteen centuries earlier than that assigned to the flood on
Archbishop Ushers authority, and which is placed on the margin of
our Bibles; and only between three and four centuries subsequent to
the date assigned, on the same authority, to the creation of the
world. To examine, however, this date of Manetho’s for the hewing
and dressing of building stone, is now our immediate object. A little
investigation of the subject will, I am disposed to think, show that it is
inadmissible, and that it must be thrown back to a very much more
remote antiquity.
Manetho made this statement in the time of the Ptolemies. We are
therefore, under the circumstances, justified in supposing that the
author of the date, whether Manetho himself, or some earlier
chronographer to whom he was indebted for it, meant by it little more
than an acknowledgment, that he was not acquainted with any stone
buildings earlier than the reign of Sesortosis. A question of this kind
was then very much what it is now, one of antiquarian research; it
being necessary then, as now, to collect the evidence for its decision
from the monuments. But if our acquaintance with the monuments of
the primæval period is as extensive and profound as Manetho’s was,
or even more so; and if in addition, we have advanced far beyond
what was possible in his day in the direction of universal history, we
may be able to show that there is some error in his date; or at all
events may be able to explain it in such a way, that it may be brought
into closer conformity with what is now known, than it would seem to
admit of, if taken literally.
It is, then, evident, that he was unacquainted with any buildings of
hewn stone earlier than the time of Sesortosis. No surprise need be
felt at this. Sesortosis reigned more than 3,000 years before the time
of Manetho. Let us recall what is the effect of 3,000 years upon
ordinary stone buildings in a country that has, during that period,
been growing and prospering.
Our Saxon forefathers used stone largely in building. One
thousand years only have passed: and now there is not a building in
the country we can point to, and say with certainty, that it was raised
by their hands. There are a few doubtful exceptions in the form of
church towers. But these, if authentic, are exceptions of the kind
which prove the rule: for when everything else disappeared, they
could have been preserved only by a combination of chances so rare
that it did not occur in one out of ten thousand cases. It was much
the same after five hundred years had passed.
The Roman world was covered, in the time of Constantine, with
magnificent cities and villas. But how many of the houses that were
then inhabited are now standing?
The reasons of this are evident. First, there is the ever-acting
disintegration of natural causes. Whatever man erects upon the
surface of the earth, nature is ever afterwards busy in reducing to the
common level. Then comes fire, the best of servants, but the worst
of masters, which no dwelling-house can be expected to escape for
a thousand years. Earthquakes, too, and war have, in any long
series of years, to be credited with much destructive work. These are
all in the end complete undoers of man’s handiwork. But I am
disposed to assign the greatest amount of obliteration to the ever-
changing fashions and wants of man himself. The houses of one
generation are not suited to the tastes and requirements of the
generations that succeed. They must therefore be pulled down to
make way for what men wish to have. Perhaps, they become
quarries to supply the materials needed for the new buildings. Those
who act in this way are only doing what their predecessors did, and
what their successors will do. Palaces, and the chief public buildings,
in a city are, from a variety of causes, transferred to new sites; and
the cities, of which they must be the centres, must correlate
themselves to the sites of the new buildings. Or the capital, or city,
itself, may, from, again, a variety of causes, be transferred to an
entirely new site. In either case more or less of the old city is no
longer inhabited. Sometimes the old materials are wanted,
sometimes the ground upon which the deserted buildings are
standing is needed for cultivation.
If we sum up the effects of these causes, we cannot expect that
the contemporaries of the Ptolemies should have found in Egypt any
buildings dating from the first period of the Old Monarchy, that is
nearly four thousand years old. They had before them the Pyramids,
which were then certainly more than three thousand years old, and
which, it is evident, had defied all the destructive causes we have
enumerated, simply on account of their exceptional form and mass,
and because the enormous stones of which they were constructed
had been so nicely fitted together as to exclude moisture and air;
and so, because they found no earlier buildings, and because the
stones of these had been so carefully and truly wrought, they
assigned, as the commencement of the practice of building with
wrought-stone, the reign of Sesortosis, that is, they carried it back
two hundred years beyond the date of the commencement of the
Great Pyramid.
This is altogether inadmissible. Men could not pass in two hundred
years from the first essays in cutting stone to the grandest stone
structure, and, in nicety of workmanship, one of the most perfect
instances of stone joinery that has ever been erected. There were
great builders long anterior to this date of two hundred years before
the commencement of the Great Pyramid. Some of the Pyramids
themselves, and many of the tombs, are older than the Pyramids of
Gizeh, and even than the time of Sesortosis. A Pyramid had been
built in the Faioum as far back as the first dynasty of all, that of
Menes himself. Their system of religion, and their system of writing,
had both arrived at their perfected condition in the time of Menes;
and each of these two facts imply considerable advance in the art of
building, of course building with stone, of which there were such
ample materials everywhere throughout the valley of Egypt. They
could not have had a perfected religion, such as was theirs, without
temples. Nor is it possible that they could have advanced to the art
of writing without having advanced previously as far as the art of
cutting and dressing stone. And this is more obvious when we
consider that the very peculiarity of Egyptian writing grew partly out
of the idea that its characters were to be sculptured and incised on
stone: this is what is implied in its very name of hieroglyphics.
I do not imagine that the date we are considering was a mere
fiction. To invent history was not an Egyptian custom. What might
have been rightfully assigned to the time of Sesortosis might not
have been rightly understood, and so came to be wrongly described.
They had hewn and built with stone centuries before his time. But
there was an architectural improvement which must have
commenced somewhere about his reign, which we see perfected in
the Pyramids, and which the Egyptians ever afterwards retained, and
that was the practice of building with enormous blocks of stone, cut
and fitted together with the utmost care and precision. We can
accept Manetho’s statement, when interpreted to mean this.
The Egyptians had already had a long national existence. They
were a very observant and thoughtful people. Of all people of whom
we know anything, they had the strongest craving to leave behind
them grand, and, if possible, everlasting historical monuments. But
they observed that all buildings constructed with small stones,
sooner or later, but at all events, in a few centuries, passed away
without leaving a record. They fell to the ground, or they were taken
down to supply materials for new buildings, or the stone they were
built of was burnt for lime. The consumption of lime has always been
great in Egypt; and although the limestone mountains are not far
from the river, and throughout the greater part of the country seldom
more than two or three miles from it, old buildings have always been
made to supply much material for this purpose. Mehemet Ali,
notwithstanding that the limestone ridges of Thebes were close by,
threw down one of the magnificent propylæa of Karnak to get lime
for some paltry nitre-works he was setting up in the neighbourhood.
To secure, then, as far as possible, their great monuments and
tombs against these causes of decay and overthrow, they, at about
the time of the date we are discussing, changed their method of
building, and began to use such large stones, that it would generally
be less troublesome and costly to get new stone at the quarries for
building and for lime, than to overthrow an enormous structure,
which could not be done without some machinery, and much tackle
and labour. But their ideas, and the knowledge and the skill shown in
these great buildings agree with other considerations in obliging us
to carry back the art of building with hewn stone to a very remote
epoch, far beyond any contemporary monuments, and far beyond
Menes, whose name is the first to appear in the annals of Egypt, and
who must have reigned not far from six thousand years ago. At this
period, we cannot now entertain any doubts on the subject,
civilization in Egypt was in a very advanced state; not very different,
indeed, from what we find it at the date of the oldest of the still
existing monuments. Upon the earliest of these we see the public
and private life of the Egyptians sculptured and painted by their own
hands. This, of course, must have required long antecedent periods
of slow advance, for in this matter it is the first, and not the later,
steps which require most time.
No inference, in respect of the point before us, can be drawn from
the preservation of buildings standing on such sites as those of
Pæstum and Palmyra. As soon as those cities began to decay, all
temptation to use the stones of old structures in the erection of new
ones, or to burn them for lime, completely ceased. They became
useless and valueless, and this it was that saved them. During the
four thousand years that had elapsed between Menes and Manetho,
Egypt had been a populous country, generally in a state of
prosperity, and, during the whole of the time, building, which often
implies pulling down, had been actively going on: every stone,
therefore, in every old disused building of the early dynasties was
likely, in one way or another, to have been reused. No one can
suppose that in such a country as ancient Egypt the pressure of this
temptation would be long resisted.

The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman 2 Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman 2 Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Music Professor Online Judith

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021951868

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​754737–​3 (pbk.)

PART I . EX PO S ITION: TH E CH ANGING L ANDSC APE

2. Teaching Persona: Who Are You When You Teach?  40

3. Pedagogy: How Will You Teach Music Online?  57

PART I I . DEVE LOPME NT: PE RS PE CTIVES FROM THE FIEL D

5. Music Theory  112

6. Music History/​Musicology  145

7. Music Appreciation  175

8. Music Education  200

PART I I I . R ECAPITU L ATION: E XPANDIN G YOUR OPTIONS

This book originated from recommendations for future research in my

This book addresses those recommended next steps. It provides a snapshot

Part I, “Exposition: The Changing Landscape,” presents the main themes.

Online learning has reached a tipping point in higher education. It

Online learning has reached a tipping point—​or so a recent report stated. Is

Status of Distance/​Online Education

Online Education: Heading toward the Future

Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the

Another report, Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United

enrolled exclusively in distance education courses, those enrolled in a mix of

CHLOE 4: Navigating the Mainstream

The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) Project, a partner-

In summary, CHLOE 4’s examination of patterns of online student interaction

Status of Online Music Instruction

What Is Online? A National Survey of Course Offerings

In line with the continued growth of online education in general, online

Based on a random sample (40%) of NASM-​accredited schools, Johnson and

Commonalities and Distinctions

Research on the effectiveness of online learning has involved comparisons of

“No Significant Difference” Phenomenon

blended learning, report on completed research, measure learning outcomes

Gains, Losses, or Differences

such as the ability to observe and respond to facial expressions, gestures,

Advantages and Disadvantages

and sharing of pedagogical ideas that sometimes resulted in rethinking in-

simply a different method of achieving a university’s goal of raising the educational

Similarities and Differences

Accreditation and other standards provide direction for development and

National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)

The NASM Handbook (National Association of Schools of Music,

require equivalency between on-​campus courses and distance courses. Other

It is essential to the right understanding of any age that we have a

Now I gain the mountain’s brow,

There is some interest in the comparison contained in the

In the museum of Egyptian antiquities at Boulak, the harbour of

When time is old and hath forgot itself,

Manetho tells us that in the reign of Sesortosis, a king of the third

You might also like

ISBN 978–0–19–754737–3 (pbk.)

2. Teaching Persona: Who Are You When You Teach? 40

3. Pedagogy: How Will You Teach Music Online? 57

5. Music Theory 112

6. Music History/Musicology 145

7. Music Appreciation 175

8. Music Education 200

Online learning has reached a tipping point—or so a recent report stated. Is

Status of Distance/Online Education

Based on a random sample (40%) of NASM-accredited schools, Johnson and

require equivalency between on-campus courses and distance courses. Other