Interactivity #3

• The group process required by this interactivity. Was it authentic collaborative?

I have my doubts that this was authentically collaborative. Communicating via e-mail and the chat window in Google Docs was not the most efficient or authentic way to do this -- nothing beats face-to-face interaction yet. I found it extremely frustrating to set up a document that everyone could edit. We had to create three different documents before one worked out for us. Also, the concept of "cultural transformation" was deleted after I submitted it. I felt this was important to highlight.

• What about the final inventory that emerged? Do you have any thoughts on these technologies as a collective for your particular content area?

A lot of these resources are the same old garbage, different package. There's nothing transformative in ordering music scores online or using notation software. I feel education has barely skimmed the surface on how technology could impact learning. As music educators, we have roughly a 20% participation rate by secondary school. That leaves an 80% of the school that will have no music experiences in secondary school -- this is simply unacceptable. The definition of insanity, put by Einstein, is "doing the same thing and expecting different results".

If you really want to transform education with technology, you need to stop thinking inside the band/chorus/orchestra paradigm. There's nothing inherently wrong with these programs, but they simply do not reach the majority of students. It is my belief that every student, as part of being an educated citizen in a democracy, needs to participate in music. And bypassing, or ignoring the student's prior experiences, culture, and interests outside of school is not the way to do it.

The best technologies on this spreadsheet were the ones which enable students to immediately create music, regardless of their music literacy. Students don't always (and I'm being nice here) want to study how to read music or practice an instrument for five hours a day before any "real" music making can begin. They just want to do. And they learn by doing.

And what these mobile apps like iMaschine, Reactable, Garageband for iPad, etc. have in common is that at least they give the opportunity for students to do more than simply perform and listen -- they can improvise, compose, and conduct in small ensembles. These skills are ignored by the majority of band programs, and it's educational malpractice and unrealistic in today's society (How many people are going to join a professional orchestra after school? Also, who says that being a highly qualified music ed teacher has anything to do with the ability to perform music? It's rubbish.)

• How might this technology inventory serve your purposes (if at all) in CURR 314 and READ 411 this semester?

I've already taken these classes -- I have not used these technologies for either classes specifically.

I believe the iBook author (textbooks) and kindle would make a huge impact on READ 411.

On a broader level, my READ 411 teacher was very focused on making all course materials and content relatable and meaningful to all students. I believe technology holds some of the keys to accomplishing this. That is, only if educators are willing to look ahead and take some risks with these devices and programs -- many schools are still banning the use of cell phones (sexting seems to be a big deal in the media right now), but they are truly an invaluable resource.

We need to think about the role of education in the 21st century in general -- schools are no longer designed to fit the needs of our students. They are outdated, largely prison-like, and built from this factory line, industrial era mentality.

So what I'm getting at is, our technology in general is only a fraction of transforming education. What needs to happen first is a fundamental change in how educators perceive and use technology. Without a change in our attitude and willingness to adapt these things, they will remain a novelty item.