Abstract
Generational labels such as digital native and the “net” generation may obscure the gap that exists between preservice music teachers’ personal uses of technology and how they will use technology professionally. The study’s purpose was to examine preservice music teachers’ personal use of technology, views toward technology in music teaching and learning, and experience with music technology. We distributed an online survey to collegiate members of the National Association for Music Education, with 360 undergraduate students providing responses. Participants reported using technology for a variety of purposes on a daily basis, but mostly in passive ways. Preservice music teachers were most comfortable using music technology common to undergraduate music curricula and less familiar with technology used in K–12 music classrooms. Skilled use of music technology in music teaching and learning situations requires meaningful and intentional facilitation in music teacher education curricula.
Technology is central to countless young people’s lives. Authors of a Pew Research survey reported that 92% of teens in the United States use the Internet daily, and 95% have a smartphone (Pew Research Center, 2018). The ubiquity of technology has led to the development of generational labels focused on technology such as the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998), Generation Y (Black, 2010), and perhaps most commonly, Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001a, 2001b, 2006). The use of these labels may lead to broad assumptions about young people’s propensity or capacity to use technology in a professional, educational, or music setting. Interestingly, these labels are not new. For example, Prensky’s (2001a) definition of digital natives includes anyone born after 1980. By that definition, digital native students have studied in music teacher education programs for more than two decades.
Is it reasonable to expect that those entering the music teaching profession since 2000 teach differently when it comes to technology? If ubiquitous connectivity and dependence on technology are critical for preservice and early-career teachers, will they naturally integrate technology into their teaching and learning? To this point, Hicks (2011) suggested, In the next 20 years, the educational system will see a drastic increase in the amount of technology used in the classroom, as well as a change in teachers’ attitudes toward technology and ability to successfully integrate and troubleshoot technology. (p. 190)
If Hicks is correct, effective technology integration in education may be a foregone conclusion as younger generations of educators enter the field. However, authors of a growing body of research have cast doubt on this prediction.
The Myth of Generational Labels
Scholars have challenged Prensky’s (2001a, 2001b, 2006) and others’ (Black, 2010; Tapscott, 1998) assertions about technology, young people, and the way they learn (Helsper & Enyon, 2010; Margaryan et al., 2010). Researchers have warned against assuming technological competencies based solely on a person’s age. For example, Hargittai (2010), in a study of undergraduate students at a fully “wired” campus, found significant variation in technology competencies. Similarly, Bennett et al. (2008) found that skills among undergraduate students were not uniform and that teachers’ technological skills often matched or surpassed those of their students, a finding that was corroborated by Guo et al. (2008). Selwyn (2009) effectively challenged the notion of the Digital Native, characterizing college students’ work with technology as “varied and often unspectacular” (p. 364).
Researchers in teacher education have further challenged the veracity of generational labels. In a study examining teacher candidates’ work with technology in environments where all students were issued a laptop, Donovan et al. (2014) noted, “our teacher candidates lack the instinctive ability to effectively integrate technology into teaching practices” (p. 122). Technology use occurs in different educational contexts. For example, teachers may become comfortable using technology for administrative tasks such as communicating with parents or maintaining a grade book (Mundy et al., 2012), but they may not as easily integrate technology into teaching scenarios. Funkhouser and Mouza (2012) found that preservice teachers often perceived technology as teacher-centered and rarely planned for technology to be used by learners.
Technology in Music Education
When examining technology integration within music education, researchers have highlighted additional challenges specific to the music content area. As in prior teacher education studies (Funkhouser & Mouza, 2012), music educators have been found to use technology primarily for administrative tasks (Dorfman, 2008, 2015; Ohlenbusch, 2001; Taylor & Deal, 2000). Technology usage in instructional scenarios has been less common, even though technology integration has been a desired area of professional development (Bauer, 2007; Bauer et al., 2003; Bowles, 2003).
Music technology is an emerging content area with growing support from school administrators (Abril & Gault, 2008; Dammers, 2012). Dorfman (2016) surveyed music education faculty members, who reported that preservice teachers were seeing technology modeled effectively in observations of K–12 educators, that stand-alone music technology courses were the most common method of technology integration, and that students felt prepared to teach using technology. Bauer (2012) investigated inservice teachers’ use of instructional technology through the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework. Participants rated their knowledge in technology-related domains lowest and indicated that personal exploration was one of their primary resources for learning in these areas. Similarly, Haning (2016) surveyed undergraduate preservice teachers about technology instruction and plans for technology implementation. Haning reported that most students had taken a technology-focused course and desired further training in technology integration. In many cases, teachers have developed technology-based courses and the teaching skills to support them through personal exploration and independent professional development (Bauer, 2012; Dammers, 2010a, 2010b, 2012).
Through the present study, we addressed the assumption that contemporary preservice music teachers are knowledgeable and skillful when it comes to technology and are able to leverage those competencies in their work as teachers. The purpose of this study was to examine preservice music teachers’ personal use of technology, views toward technology in music teaching and learning, and experiences with selected music technology. In closely related studies, researchers investigated technology integration and professional development with inservice teachers nationally (Bauer, 2012), and preservice teachers in the state of Ohio (Haning, 2016). In this study, we add to the literature base by offering the perspectives of a national sample of preservice teachers and discuss the previously unexplored relationships between preservice teachers’ technology use in their personal lives and perceived competencies with technology in their professional lives, and frame this research in the context of generational labels and expectations of technological competence. The research questions were as follows:
Method
Survey Instrument Development
We designed a survey instrument to align with our research questions. To improve content validity, we consulted prior research and then generated questionnaire items about personal technology use and views toward teaching technology (Lei, 2009) and music technology (Webster & Williams, 2012, 2014). Conversations with preservice music teachers aided in identifying current social media and common technological devices. Two music education researchers (one older than 60 years of age with expert professional knowledge in technology and one younger than 40 years of age with intermediate professional knowledge in technology) and five graduate students younger than 30 years of age reviewed a draft of the survey instrument and provided feedback. Finally, we piloted the questionnaire with 91 undergraduate music education majors, which resulted in further revisions and clarification of survey items. For example, we refined our categorization of music technology tools and identified relevant social media sites through this feedback. The final questionnaire, which contained 23 items, was reviewed and approved by the university’s institutional review board.
We divided the questionnaire into six sections: (a) demographic information, (b) personal technology use, (c) experience with music technology coursework, (d) views toward technology for teaching, (e) experience with music technologies, and (f) open-ended questions. The first section covered information such as the region of the country in which the participant was attending college, gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, and age. In the second section, we asked participants to identify devices they own and use daily, and to report social networking activity and the frequency of different technology uses. Participants indicated how frequently they used technology for various purposes on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = never, 5 = a great deal). In the third section, we asked participants about their experience with music technology coursework at the K–12 and collegiate levels.
In the fourth section, we asked students’ views toward technology for teaching with statements based on Lei (2009), such as “Technology can help me teach better.” Participants responded to items addressing their views toward using technology for teaching using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). In the fifth section, we explored participants’ music technology skills based on Webster and Williams’s (2012, 2014) categories and our review of contemporary music technology textbooks and curricular resources (Bauer, 2014; Dorfman, 2013; Freedman, 2013; Manzo, 2016; Watson, 2011). We designed the music technology section to reflect general categories and to be understandable by those with little to no experience with music technology. Participants rated their experience with music technologies on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = no experience, 5 = expert). Internal consistency estimates for responses to items representing technology teaching views (α = .79) and music technology skills (α = .79) were acceptable (Russell, 2018).
We posed three open-ended questions in the final section related to anticipated future use of technology, current use of technology, and desired professional development in technology. Response rates for the three open-ended questions were 80% for question one, 76% for question two, and 78% for question three. While we did not calculate intercoder agreement, we reviewed a sample of approximately 20% of the responses and coded them together inductively so as to come to agreement on our coding scheme for these straightforward lists of technologies and descriptions of classroom activities. The remaining samples were divided between researchers and coded independently. We read open-ended responses multiple times and coded them descriptively based on participant responses (e.g., Finale). We then grouped responses into categories (e.g., notation software). If a participant listed multiple applications or uses such as notation, editing, and recording software, we counted each response separately.
Sampling Procedure
We invited collegiate members (N = 12,554) of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) to participate in the survey via an e-mail sent out by the organization. An e-mail reminder was sent a week after the initial invitation. NAfME indicated that the average click-through rate for research targeted at collegiate members was 5% (personal communication, 2018). Approximately 40% of the e-mails were opened, and, as predicted, our click-through rate (n = 655) was 5%. We received 423 completed questionnaires, but after eliminating 62 respondents who were graduate students and one respondent who was younger than 18 years, we ended up with 360 participants for an estimated response rate of 3% and a sampling error of ±5% (95% confidence interval). 1
Participants represented each of NAfME’s geographic regions, including Eastern (25%), North Central (29%), Northwest (4%), Southern (19%), Southwestern (13%), and Western (9%). Respondents identified as male (34%), female (65%), and nonbinary/other (1%). We invited respondents to select all racial/ethnic categories with which they identified. Participants identified as follows: white (83%), multiracial/ethnic (10%), Asian (2.5%), black or African American (1%), Hispanic or Latino (1%), Middle Eastern or North Africa, some other race/ethnicity and no response (1%). Ages of respondents ranged from 18 to 44 years, with an average age of 20 years (SD = 2.7).
Results
Personal Technology Use
Most participants reported that they owned multiple devices (range = 1 to 8; median = 3). Almost all (98%) participants owned a smartphone and laptop, with other less commonly owned devices being gaming consoles (43%), tablets (38%), e-readers (21%), mobile music players (16%), desktop computers (14%), and personal video cameras (12%). The devices used daily (range = 1 to 6; median = 2) included smartphones (99%), laptop computers (91%), tablets (16%), gaming consoles (11%), and desktop computers (10%).
Most participants used social media sites regularly (range = 1 to 7; Mdn = 3). The most frequently used social media sites were Facebook (88%), Snapchat (83%), and Instagram (74%). Less commonly used platforms included Twitter (37%), Pinterest (29%), Tumblr (12%), LinkedIn (8%), and other (2%). The majority of participants characterized their use of social media as “I post occasionally but check often” (66%). Few posted and checked frequently (12%).
Participants reported the frequency with which they used technology for a variety of reasons, including school, practical purposes, entertainment, social/communication, and self-expression. They used technology for school most often, for all other purposes frequently, and for self-expression occasionally. For complete results related to technology use, please see Table 1 (available in the online Supplemental Material).
Views Toward Technology for Teaching
Respondents’ attitudes toward technology in music education were overwhelmingly positive. Percentages reported represent combined scores of 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). Participants were interested in learning technologies to help them teach in the future (85%) and believed that technology could both help them teach better (81%) and help students learn better (80%). Over half (60%) expected to do well with technology for music teaching. Participants were split (56% agreeing) on whether technology was necessary for quality music teaching. Fewer participants (43%) felt knowledgeable about technology for use in the music classroom.
Experience With Music Technology
For each music technology competency, respondents indicated their experience level with the skill or tools. Participants’ self-ratings of their experience are presented in Table 2.
Ratings of Experience With Music Technology Skills.
Participants reported the highest levels of experience in using Internet resources for music, followed by notating music and performing/practicing with the help of technology. Participants rated themselves as beginners with skills including creating music with technology, sharing music online, recording and editing audio, using instructional software for music, and working with Musical Instrument Digital Interface. Participants were least experienced mixing and mastering audio, with most responses ranging from no experience to beginner.
We generated cumulative experience scores for music technology (M = 23.48, SD = 6.69) by summing responses across the nine competency areas and then compared the responses of male and female participants. We found that participants who identified as male had significantly higher, t(339) = 4.74, p < .001, d = 0.54, music technology experience scores (M = 25.75; SD = 7.40) than participants who identified as female (M = 22.23, SD = 5.98). Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.54) indicates a moderate practical significance.
We used a Pearson correlation to assess the relationship between attitudes toward technology in music education scores and music technology experience scores. There was a moderate positive correlation, r(345) = .349, p < .001, with music technology experience scores explaining 12% of the variation in attitudes toward technology in music education. In other words, positive views toward technology in music education were moderately associated with greater music technology experience.
Experience With Music Technology Coursework
Few participants reported that technology was used effectively in their K–12 experiences (18%). Just 17% of respondents attended a K–12 school that offered a course focused on music technology such as music production, beat making, or music technology. Of those who attended a K–12 school offering a music technology course, 43% (n = 26) had taken such a course. Most participants viewed their college’s use of technology favorably (58%).
When asked if professors assumed they had more knowledge of music technology for teaching than they actually had, 47% agreed. The majority of respondents (64%) believed their professors were more knowledgeable than them about the use of music technology for teaching. Nearly half of the respondents (45%) indicated music education majors were required to take a music technology course, 30% indicated that music technology courses were elective for music education majors, 13% indicated that their music school did not offer technology courses, and 12% were uncertain. Many participants (40%) had already taken a course in music technology, and those who had were significantly more experienced with music technology (M = 26.03, SD = 7.09) than those who had not, M = 21.78, SD = 5.84; t(343) = 6.08, p < .001, d = .67.
Open-Ended Questions
The numbers in this section refer to the frequency of each response. In the first free response question, we asked participants what, if any, role they expected technology to play in their future career as music educators. Participants responded that technology would play a significant role (54) in their future teaching, indicating that technology was “integral to 21st-century instruction,” and “employers want technology.” Others (25) expected technology to play little to no role in their future teaching: “None, as technology will be a distraction for my choir students” and “it depends on what form of teaching I do.” Teaching context was the determining factor for some participants who anticipated using technology when teaching music theory (16), marching band (10), general music (5), or music history (1).
Participants anticipated using technology for creative tasks (40), such as arranging and composing, while fewer specifically mentioned engaging students in those tasks (10). Others anticipated using technology for recordings (both making and playing; 52), assessment (38), presenting (26), notating (25), communicating (21), organizing (18), practicing (18), and editing audio/video (7). Participants also mentioned a variety of devices—digital tuners (17), digital metronomes (13), tablets (8), and digital keyboards (4)—which they might use in future music teaching. Specific software platforms, such as SmartMusic, and apps, such as ForScore, were identified as potential classroom tools, along with various online resources that could be used to procure sheet music or plan lessons. Several respondents expected to teach a music technology course (11), including courses in music production and beat making.
Many participants (103) wrote of technology as an expected supplement, aid, resource, or support. Other participants believed technology could be an avenue for diversifying, differentiating, adapting, and engaging learners (53) with comments including “Music technology helps me to engage many different types of learners and . . . allows them to engage with music in multiple ways in the world beyond school.” Many respondents felt technology was an inevitable part of their future work, for example, one respondent indicated “I anticipate that technology will play a very large role in my classroom . . . as schools nationwide are beginning to ask teachers to integrate technology and digital literacy activities into their classrooms.”
In the second open-ended question, we asked What skills in music technology are the most important and useful to you as an undergraduate music education major? Why? Participants overwhelmingly mentioned using notation software (104). Using technology for recording (40) was also frequently cited and included listening to recordings, accessing recordings, and making recordings. The general category of online resources (30) included participants’ use of, for example, websites for research and digital sheet music libraries. Participants also mentioned using technology for creative activities (33), editing and mixing sound files (27), practicing (25), and preparing documents or presentations (11). One participant’s response reflected the typical uses of technology: I think most of the skills I have found most important and useful include the use of Microsoft Word applications and composition software (i.e., Sibelius or MuseScore or Noteflight) . . . Compositional software has been more of a role as I’ve gone through school since I have more occasions for writing arrangements and adjusting parts. I also heavily use streaming services (i.e., Spotify) and YouTube fairly regularly to watch performances and recordings of pieces in preparation for rehearsals and count it as part of my practice time. I also heavily use metronome/drone apps on my phone in my personal practice time with my instrument.
In the final open-ended question, participants described their desired opportunities for learning about technology as preservice music teachers. Participants felt that music teacher educators should assist students in becoming aware of music technologies that they may encounter in their future classrooms. Common suggestions for improving music technology awareness included designated courses (65), workshops (42), and general resources (39), with some participants (25), indicating coursework should be required “Every music education major should have a course with an emphasis in music technology.” Another wrote “We should learn about technologies we will use in the classroom for music not just technologies in general.”
The largest number of participants mentioned wanting to learn about specific technology tools including notation (27), recording (20), audio-editing/mixing (20), instructional software (17), and equipment such as sound systems (17) and interactive whiteboards (9). Some participants indicated a desire to have technology integrated across coursework: “Opportunities to try many different programs, and they should be integrated into all our classes, not limited to one technology course.” Others noted that using technology as a college student could be different from how they would use it as a music teacher: “[I want to learn] more ways that technology can be used to interact with students, not just ways to help us” and “Students should get a chance to both research and practice with technology, ideally in a classroom or mock-classroom setting.” Several participants were concerned about access to technology and the potential cost for students.
Discussion and Implications
In this study, preservice music teachers reported their personal use of technology, views toward technology in music teaching, and their experience with selected music technology. We suggest that technological skills are not innate nor a product of a person’s birth year. Music teacher educators can meaningfully impact preservice teachers’ expertise with and knowledge of technology.
Our findings for technology access were similar to those for broader surveys of U.S. teenagers (Pew Research Center, 2018); virtually all of our participants owned both a laptop and a smartphone and indicated they used their smartphone daily. Passive consumption in the form of viewing websites, streaming videos, or reading social media are among young people’s most common uses of technology (Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Lei, 2009; Selwyn, 2009; Yong & Gates, 2014) and participants in this study reported frequent passive use. Roughly 9 out of 10 respondents reported frequently checking social media sites, while just 1 out of 10 indicated that they often post content. Similarly, respondents rated self-expression as the least frequent use of technology, substantially below entertainment and social communication.
Teacher educators should consider the nature of their students’ technology use as they include technology in coursework. Selwyn’s (2009) assessment of digital natives’ technology uses as “varied and often unspectacular” (p. 364) should inform curricular decisions as faculty may be asking students to use technology differently than they typically do. Additionally, student identities, such as gender, may intersect with students’ self-perceptions of music technology competency. We found differences in music technology experience scores between female and male identified participants. Researchers have shown that girls and women may underestimate their music technology abilities and that music technology classrooms, like the field of music technology itself, can be male-dominated spaces (Armstrong, 2011). When designing classroom experiences with music technology, music teacher educators can disrupt gendered narratives about technological ability by naming and rejecting stereotypes that may be present in our own classrooms and in the future classrooms of our students.
Preservice teachers would benefit from examples of technology integration in music education settings, but they may be more likely to encounter administrative or teacher-centered uses of tech in the field (Dorfman, 2008, 2015; Funkhouser & Mouza, 2012; Mundy et al., 2012; Ohlenbusch, 2001; Taylor & Deal, 2000). Without meaningful experiences using technology as a part of their “apprenticeships of observation” (Lortie, 2002), preservice teachers may be unsure of how technology could be a part of their established models of successful music teaching. Music teacher educators may consider technology integration as a criterion when selecting field observation sites and student teaching placements. Additionally, they should seek observation and internship experiences for preservice teachers where technology is used actively by students in curricular activities. Like Haning (2016) and Dorfman (2016) recommended, seeing concrete examples of technology integration would help students understand some of the affordances and benefits of technology and possibly demonstrate TPACK in a clear and compelling way.
It is noteworthy that participants showed enthusiasm for teaching using technology, despite fewer than half feeling knowledgeable about technology for music teaching. Curricular experiences within music teacher education programs may have helped build interest. We identified a relationship between music technology experience scores and music technology coursework. Many respondents were interested in dedicated, mandatory music technology classes, but others wanted integration across classes and a specific music education focus. As teacher educators consider curriculum and course offerings, they might look to both stand-alone courses and tech-integration throughout their programs. As Dorfman (2016) and Bauer (2012) have previously recommended, the TPACK model may be a useful heuristic for embedding technology in music teacher education curricula. Stand-alone technology courses may offer opportunities to focus solely on technological content knowledge and the applications and affordances of common music technology products and skills, an area specifically requested by respondents in this study’s open-ended questions. Integration throughout the curriculum would allow for distributed practice in multiple settings to develop “strategies for combining music, technology, and teaching and learning strategies (TPACK)” (Bauer, 2012, p. 57). Broad technology integration may aid in raising preservice teachers’ perceptions of their technological skills to match their enthusiasm for technology as part of their teaching.
Educators from older generations have a great deal to contribute to preservice teachers’ development of technological skills. Prensky’s (2001a, 2001b) dichotomous labeling of people as either digital natives or digital immigrants prevents a nuanced view of how people learn to use technology. For example, nearly half of the “digital native” respondents believed their professors overestimated their students’ music technology knowledge, and almost two thirds of respondents thought they were less knowledgeable than their professors in music technology. Faculty members, regardless of digital native or immigrant status, should recognize that students are looking to them to support their growth in this area. Faculty should not assume technological skills are present nor should they believe that they are unable to support their students in developing these skills. Faculty members’ professional expertise in using technology in music teaching and learning is an asset to their students. Similarly, as faculty learn about music technology, they should recognize that the training, support, and resources they use would likely also benefit their students.
Music teacher educators can build on the technological experiences that preservice music teachers already report receiving within music theory courses (using music notation software), music history courses (listening to music online or accessing digital recordings), and applied lessons (using tuner and metronome apps). Given the evidence showing that with greater technology experience undergraduate students become more positive about using technology in music education, preservice music teachers should be provided with multiple opportunities to develop music technology expertise within their methods courses and gain pedagogical skill in using music technology to teach K–12 students within their early field experiences and student teaching.
Conclusion
Music teacher educators are challenged to help preservice music teachers (a) recognize professional uses of technology and build skills that transcend passive consumption to include creative applications of music technology and (b) view technology as an essential component of effective music learning experiences in K–12 schools. Music teacher educators should not assume that students will figure technology out on their own. Students need support and the two greatest tools available to music teacher educators are curricular integration and field experiences where students can interact with and see effective technology integration. With appropriate changes made to how music teaching technology is introduced within the music education curriculum, preservice music teachers can build the knowledge and skills needed to teach successfully with technology in their future K–12 positions.
Supplemental Material
JMTE_19_0031_Supplemental_R3 – Supplemental material for Digital Natives Unplugged: Challenging Assumptions of Preservice Music Educators’ Technological Skills
Supplemental material, JMTE_19_0031_Supplemental_R3 for Digital Natives Unplugged: Challenging Assumptions of Preservice Music Educators’ Technological Skills by Julie K. Bannerman and Emmett J. O’Leary in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
