Article #9 - The intersections of curriculum development: Music, ICT and Australian music education

Article 9

Southcott, J., & Crawford, R. (2011). The intersections of curriculum development: Music, ICT and Australian music education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 122-136. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/southcott.pdf 

Summary: This qualitative study focuses on the difference between using technology as a tool to support skills based learning, and using technology “as a platform for collaborative and creative learning that resonates with students” (p. 122). The article used document analysis to examine state curricula (music and ICT). It notes that the place of music in the Australian curriculum is contentious, referring to the 2005 National Review of School Music Education (Australian Government, 2005) which stated that music was “poorly resourced, often neglected, and that general primary teachers were unprepared to deliver effective, sequential music education” (p. 124), as well as noting the importance of technology to music education. Music ICT has tended to offer support to ear training, sight singing and notational skills - using technology as computer aided instruction (CAI), often in highly-structured, teacher led learning environments that focused on skills acquisition. In contrast, it is suggested that ICT has potential to encourage creativity and independent learning (p. 125), using computer aided learning (CAL). The importance of inter-disciplinary learning is noted, as is the general nature of most curricula in describing the connections between music and ICT. The findings state that there was disparity between how “how writers of ICT curricula in Australia see the arts and music and how the writers of music curricula understand the role and use of ICT” (p. 131). It was hypothesised that as the emphasis on authentic, student centred learning increases, that the use of technology in Australian music education will move away from CAI and towards CAL. The lack of theoretical frameworks and curriculum models to address technological issues in music education was noted. Dialogue between ICT and music educators was recommended.

Evaluation: The comment on busy teachers in relation to keeping up with change is a valid point - as is the attraction of music technology for students (p. 123), and its potential to close the gap between students’ in-school and out-of-school music and technology experience and knowledge. The study has at least one missing reference (Bray, 2005). Perhaps because of the publication date (including the publication dates of the curriculum documents) the implications of Web 2.0 for music education technology (such as wikis) are not considered.

Source: Both authors hold academic positions at a leading Australia university - in particular, Jane Southcott has a long and distinguished publication history on a wide range of music education topics. As noted for Article 8, the journal should be considered a quality source. 

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: The contrast between CAI and CAL may be partly a result of the differences between curricula in the USA, UK and Australia. The CAI/CAL distinction is a useful framework for teachers to evaluate how music technology may contribute to different kinds of learning activities and outcomes. It is the first Article to explicitly examine the relationship between ICT and music education.