Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Jay Dorfman

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199795581

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199795581.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 26 September 2021

Accountability Concerns

Accountability Concerns

Chapter 8 (p.167) Accountability Concerns
Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction

Jay Dorfman

Oxford University Press

With the advent of technology-based music instruction, we are at an important juncture in terms of standards and accountability. To date, there are no sets of standards that directly address the ways in which TBMI teachers and students work, and therefore there is a lack of clarity as to how we are accountable to the larger educational culture. Several sets of standards exist that come close; they address either the musical or the technological portions of TBMI, but not both. Others address teachers’ roles or students’ roles, but not both. In this chapter, we will examine relevant sets of standards and explore how they imply accountability for TBMI teachers and students. In 1994, the Music Educators National Conference (now the National Association for Music Education) released a document outlining the National Standards for Music Education, in coordination with similar standards in theater, art, and dance. The nine music standards from 1994 were the following: Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines. Reading and notating music. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music. Evaluating music and music performances. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts. Understanding music in relation to history and culture. The NAfME standards suggest curricula that are distributed among performance, musical creativity, and connections between music and context. These are noble goals for which teachers should strive. The NAfME standards are widely accepted, and many teachers refer to them as benchmarks to assess the completeness of curriculum. In no way do the NAfME standards suggest that musical learning should be achieved through technology, nor do they contain suggestions about how students should meet any of them. In this way, the shapers of the NAfME standards are to be commended because the standards are flexible enough that they can be addressed in ways teachers see fit. Therefore, the standards passively suggest that technology-based music instruction is as valid a means of music learning as are other forms.

Keywords:   21st Century Skills Map, Association for Technology in Music Instruction, ISTE/NETS, MIDI, NAfME standards, TPACK, professional development

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .