Connect and Collaborate: Developing Independent Learning with Online - - PDF document

Connect and Collaborate: Developing Independent Learning with Online Experiences

Music Teachers National Association, 2020 National Conference Chicago, Illinois → Virtual

• Dr. Robert D. Carney, Southwest Baptist University, Bolivar, MO

Presentation Description: New technologies need new pedagogical paradigms to inform best practice. Web-based instruction can supplement studio teaching and help facilitate independent learning. Research from various fields and practical applications are explored. Main Question: How can studio instructors help students prepare more thoughtfully and musically? Music Performance as an Ill-Structured Problem

Characteristics of Ill-Structured Problems (Ge et al 2016)

How Characteristics Relate to Performance

Problem is ill-defined; Goals unclear “Create a musical performance” What are goals/sub-goals? One or more problem elements unknown or uncertain What are the sub-components of a compelling performance? Information needed to solve the problem is unclear Uncertain style characteristics, practice strategies, etc. Could involve multiple solutions or solution paths OR no solution. There is no single correct performance.

Developing Problem Solving Skills

• Self-Regulation: self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically

adapted to the attainment of personal goals (Varela et al 2016, Hewitt 2015, Zimmerman 2000).

• Forethought: task analysis, self-motivation, and influences efforts to act.
• Performance: exercising self-control by managing one’s instruction/strategies and

self-observation by recording and experimenting through one’s efforts.

• Self-reflection: evaluation and causal attribution after performance efforts;

influences a person’s response to that experience.

• Cognitive and Metacognitive Prompting (Bixler and Land 2010)
• Cognitive Prompt examples: identify steps to complete a task, guide students

through activities, provide examples of whole tasks and task components, and remind students of knowledge needed for the task.

• Metacognitive Prompt examples: help students monitor their own progress, assist

students in developing their own plans for a complex task, remind students of the processes that they are using to complete a task, and model how an expert would think about engaging the complex task.

• Peer and Instructor Collaboration
• Has been shown to be an effective component of music performance instruction

(Partti and Karlsen 2010, Waldron 2013) and to validate performances by peers, teachers, experts that provide targeted feedback. (Brader 2013)

• Peer interaction may improve self-evaluation (Bergee and Cecconi-Roberts 2002)
• Online community often viewed as less threatening. (Garrison and Vaughan 2008)
• Trust: instructor-facilitated; necessary for challenging others (Thomas 2013)
• Authentic Learning: (Herrington 2006)
• Online ≠ Innovative: instruction from research-based pedagogy; not technology
• Real-world scenarios instead of artificially fragmented content.
• Expert Models: experts model the activities and thinking process
• Collaboration: provide the means and appropriate assignments
• Reflection: reflect on learning and expert comparison
• Coaching and Scaffolding: provided by instructor and more-able peers
• Task-Centered Instruction (Merrill, 2007; 2013; 2015)
• Whole tasks; not segmented; Complete and authentic real-world tasks
• Emphasis is on demonstration (worked examples) rather than on pure discovery

learning or minimally-guided exploration.

• Iterative – one whole task per cycle. Each cycle: a more difficult task.
• For Development: task first – not learning objectives first (Pebble in the Pond)

Diagram of the task-centered instruction implemented in four lessons. Each set of exercises revolves around the lessons using the self-regulation cycle described by Zimmerman and the iterative approach advocated by Merrill.

Workflow for Creating Task-Centered Instruction

The following is meant to serve as a general guide for developing and delivering online instruction. The suggestions outlined here could be implemented using a series of Discussion Boards possibly interspersed with other content/activities. The students will be submitting recordings of their performances and asking questions and discussing submissions within the online DBs. Deployment demonstrated using Schoology.com

Developing the Content

• 1. Works. Find several musical works of increasing difficulty (technically/musically) that are

all within the capability of the students.

• a. These works should be complete and increase in difficulty/complexity.
• b. They should include all the target knowledge and skills.
• 2. Requisite Skills/Knowledge. Identify all component knowledge and skills required to

produce a compelling performance of each work.

• a. For each work, list significant technical, analytical, and musical knowledge/skills the

students must already be able to accomplish.

• b. Then identify technical/musical issues that will stretch the abilities of some/all of the

students.

• 3. Strategies. Determine the instructional strategies for each work. Time spent on each work

has both demonstration (ie, forethought) and application (performance) phases. The guidance offered in the demonstration phase fades with each successive work presented. Most of the lessons also contain activities specifically for self-reflection. NOTE: instructors may find it helpful to show/discuss this online course during a face-to- face meeting first. Technological hurdles should be discussed as well.

• a. Getting Started DB: Provide students with a real-world problem.
• i. Describe a real-world scenario. Consider using a story.
• ii. Encourage students to recall times in which they found themselves in the

same scenario. They may also describe a similar scenario they could encounter in the future.

• b. Work #1 – “worked example”
• i. Demonstration Phase – teach component knowledge and demonstrate how

to apply it to the piece. The application should be quite explicit – possibly with detailed step-by-step directions. Create directions that are generic enough to work well for any new piece the student encounters. Create a video or audio narration demonstrating how to work through these steps.

• ii. Application Phase – students will work through the piece as demonstrated.

They are encouraged to ask questions and share preliminary work for

• discussion. Then they upload their final performance. Video is preferable,

but many students will prefer audio-only which is also easier to share/upload

• nline.
• iii. Reflection Phase – students can reflect on their learning process and consider

alterations to their methods for the next lesson. This may be handled within the performance DB for this first lesson if student experience is lacking.

• c. Work #2 – prompting without demonstration, then student attempts.
• i. Demonstration Phase – learners are prompted to refer to work #1 as they

prepare a performance for upload. Any new/lacking knowledge/skills are discussed and demonstrated as needed. Students should also be prompted to identify possible issues/questions and describe the process they will use.

• ii. Application Phase – students refer to additional instruction and present their

final product.

• iii. Reflection Phase – students are instructed to reflect on their learning process

and consider alterations to their methods for the next lesson.

• d. Work #3 – prompting persists but is fading.
• i. Demonstration Phase – learners are prompted to refer to material from tasks

1 and 2 then upload their performance. Similar to #2, students should explain potential issues and describe their process in detail before attempting the first upload.

• ii. Application Phase – instructors may decide to provide summative feedback
• nly and not require an additional upload. The goal is to provide as little

feedback in the process as possible.

• iii. Reflection Phase – students are instructed to reflect on their learning process

and consider alterations to their methods for the next lesson.

• e. Work #4 – possible assessment phase. The students will work through the piece

entirely on their own without any prompting/guidance. A final product will be uploaded for evaluation and/or discussion.

• f. NOTE: additional works could be added after works 2 or 3 as needed. Instructors

may decide to have such additional works available but disabled (the content is ready within the LMS but not viewable by students).

Works Cited

Bergee, Martin J and Lecia Cecconi-Roberts. “Effects of Small-Group Peer Interaction on Self- Evaluation of Music Performance.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 256-268. Biasutti, Michele. “Assessing a Collaborative Online Environment for Music Composition.” Journal

• f Educational Technology & Society 18, no. 3 (July 2015): 49-63.

Bixler, Brett A., and Susan M. Land. “Supporting College Students' Ill-Structured Problem Solving in a Web-Based Learning Environment.” Journal Of Educational Technology Systems 39, no. 1 (September 2010): 3-15. Brader, Andy, and Allan Luke. “Re-Engaging Marginalized Youth through Digital Music Production: Performance, Audience and Evaluation.” Pedagogies 8, no. 3 (May 2013): 197- 214. Brook, Julia, and Rena Upitis. “Can an Online Tool Support Contemporary Independent Music Teaching and Learning?” Music Education Research 17, no. 1 (March 2015): 34-47. Deniz, Jale. “Video Recorded Feedback for Self Regulation of Prospective Music Teachers in Piano Lessons.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 39, no. 1 (March 2012): 17-25. Garrison, D. Randy, and Norman D. Vaughan. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and Guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Ge, Xun, Victor Law, and Kun Huang. “Detangling the Interrelationships Between Self- Regulation and Ill-Structured Problem Solving in Problem-Based Learning.” Interdisciplinary Journal Of Problem-Based Learning 10, no. 2 (September 2016): 86-98. Herrington, Jan. “Authentic e-Learning in Higher Education: Design Principles for Authentic Learning Environments and Tasks.” Keynote address at World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN), Honolulu, Hawaii, October 13-17, 2006. Accessed April 23, 2017. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/5247/ Hewitt, Michael P. “Self-Efficacy, Self-Evaluation, and Music Performance of Secondary-Level Band Students.” Journal of Research in Music Education 63, no. 3 (October 2015): 298-313. Mayer, Richard E. “Applying the Science of Learning: Evidence-Based Principles for the Design of Multimedia Instruction.” American Psychologist 63 no. 8 (2008): 760-769. Merrill, M. David. “A Task-Centered Instructional Strategy.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40, no. 1 (2007): 5-22. __________. First Principles of Instruction : Identifying and Designing Effective, Efficient, and Engaging Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2013.

__________. “A Pebble-in-the-Pond Model for Instructional Design.” Performance Improvement 54, no. 1 (January 2015): 42-48. Oliver, Ron, Jan Herrington, and Thomas C. Reeves. “Creating Authentic Learning Environments Through Blended Learning Approaches.” In The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, 502-516. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing, 2006. Partti, Heidi and Sidsel Karlsen. “Reconceptualising Musical Learning: New Media, Identity, and Community in Music Education.” Music Education Research 12, no. 4 (December 2010): 369- 382. Thomas, Laura R. Facilitating Authentic Learning, Grades 6-12: A Framework for Student-Driven

• Instruction. Thousand Oaks: Corwin, 2013.

Varela, Wynnpaul, Philip C Abrami, and Rena Upitis. “Self-Regulation and Music Learning: A Systematic Review.” Psychology of Music 44, no. 1 (2016): 55-74. Waldron, Janice. “User-Generated Content, YouTube and Participatory Culture on the Web: Music Learning and Teaching in Two Contrasting Online Communities.” Music Education Research 15, no. 3 (2013): 257-274. Watson, Scott. Using Technology to Unlock Musical Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Xun, Ge, Chen Ching-Huei, and Kendrick A. Davis. “Scaffolding Novice Instructional Designers' Problem-Solving Processes Using Question Prompts in a Web-Based Learning Environment.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 33, no. 2 (March 2005): 219-248. Zimmerman, B. J. “Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective.” In Handbook of Self- Regulation, edited by Monique Boekaerts, Paul R Pintrich, Moshe Zeidner, 13-39. New York, NY: Academic Press, 2000.