Music Technology Curriculum Inquiry Using the National Standards and Educational Domains

Music Technology Curriculum Inquiry Using the National Standards and Domains

Our objective with this mixed-methods study was to test a music technology curriculum in an elementary school in Miami-Dade. We conducted an intervention design in ten cycles. We used a researcher-constructed scale that measured group achievement on selected National Music Standards and educational objectives classified by either cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domains. We also used field notes and researchers’ journals.

Methods

Fourth and fifth-grade students (N = 132, eight groups per week) participated in a ten-session curriculum from October 2019 until February 2020. We facilitated a school-university partnership through a collaborative action-research model. The curriculum design was cyclical with input from each session’s data after measuring multiple indicators. Reflective notes were written daily along with field notes during each session. We also documented the action/reflections of every weekly meeting.

For the qualitative data, we performed first-level coding, categorizing, focused coding, and diagramed the interrelationship between the curriculum activities, materials, and teacher and students’ responses. For the ratings, we obtained descriptive statistics and used non-parametric correlations between standards and objectives.

Findings 

Our psychomotor objectives addressed safety protocols regarding music technology equipment. However, the low correlation (rs = .02) with music technology standards (mean achievement = 74%) suggests that equipment handling procedures are not being accounted for in the selected standards.

Presently, music technology standards are targeting cognitive abilities, as evidenced by our highest input rate (63.5%) and the positive correlation with the cognitive domain (rs = .36). Furthermore, the negative relationship with the affective domain (rs = .05), leads us to think this area is not being accounted for in the selected standards.

However, the connect #11 standard (mean achievement = 46%) had a significant correlation with the affective domain (rs = .8); thus, we conclude that to target affective development in music technology, the use of connect standards are necessary.

Despite positive alignment of our selected standards and objectives (rs = .21), the weak relationship can be explained by our inclusion of cognitive (mean achievement = 65.41%) psychomotor (mean achievement = 73.17%) , and affective objectives (mean achievement = 42.3%). 

When we fostered a classroom environment conducive for exploration, students’ were able to resolve creative problems autonomously. We observed students’ overcome language barriers through musical expression. Stress from the music technology curriculum was alleviated when we included general music activities to reinvigorate the process. 

Implications

Research

Further research could explore more connections between the music technology standards and the multiple levels within each learning domain. Such knowledge can help refine national music standards and music curriculum processes. Action-research through university-school partnerships can help advance theoretical and practical issues using evidence to test educational techniques.

Practice

The music educator can change the course of action by infusing cycles of data collection and empirical observations to yield higher achieving results in music technology programs. Also, insight about students’ development can be gained by using the three learning taxonomies when designing and assessing activities and goals.