The Case For Technology In Music Education

The Case for Technology in Music Education By Andrew T. Garcia INTRODUCTION Technology has the ability to enhance the educational outcomes for students enrolled in music education classes at the secondary level because it utilizes a hands-on approach and can more readily reflect the individual needs and experiences of students. These approaches have been shown in general education literature to positively affect student learning (Hammond & Collins, 1991). In addition, technology is an attractive medium for students and much of the technology used in a music technology classroom can be purchased and utilized at home at once weakening the divide that previously existed between school and home resources (Rudolph, 1996) and strengthening the relationship between home (community) and school. This paper will provide an argument for the role music technology to enhance and assist in the learning of traditional music education objectives. A restructuring of the secondary general music ed. curriculum through the use of technology is suggested. The use of technology is suggested as a means of connecting with student learners in meaningful ways (Boody, 1990) and as a way of embracing relevant, existing paradigms related to constructivist learning and a postmodern society and (Rudolph, 1996; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Rideout, 1998). TRADITIONAL FORMS OF MUSIC EDUCATION Most public school music programs consist of three basic areas of curricular focus: “General” Music, Instrumental Music and Choral Music. General Music programs typically begin in kindergarten or first grade and continue in some form for all students through the middle school years (about 8th grade). In High School, if there is a non-performance (general) music program it usually takes the form of electives in music theory or history. Instrumental Music programs are typically offered in grades 4-12 and provide opportunities for students to study their instruments in small groups and to perform in various bands modeled after the military bands of 65 years ago. Choral music programs are typically discrete parts of middle school and high school music programs but singing in some form is usually incorporated into the elementary general music curriculum. General music programs often exist to teach the basics of music theory (steady beat, basic time signatures and rhythms) but not much else. Often the methodology is teacher-centered with the teacher explaining the concept and the students “doing” or echoing what the teacher asked them to. In good programs, small instruments will be available for students to demonstrate the concepts they learned. Even so, these skills are helpful for the students who ultimately plan to play in band or sing in chorus. Students who do not elect to play or sing, however, must continue to be subjected to “general music” in some form long after they have decided it’s not for them. Arguments for keeping general music programs in the public school curriculum have focused on such obtuse arguments as “music makes you smarter” (citing studies that SAT

scores are higher for students who participate in the arts) or “music teaches skills useful in other subjects”. While there may be kernels of truth in these arguments they certainly miss the boat as far as music education is concerned. The obvious problem is that they focus on outcomes unrelated to music (Gee, 2000, p. 957). Band and Chorus programs are often highly visible because they provide entertainment for local communities. For this reason they tend to be popular and generally enjoy a high level of community support even if the programs have hardly changed in decades. Most Band programs consist of a teacher, students, instruments and a conducting baton which is used to start students playing, conduct time and stop students from playing when a “mistake” is detected (usually by the conductor). The mistake is pointed out and the process repeats itself. This ubiquitous approach has been criticized by Colwell (2000) and others because true music literacy is overlooked in favor of the short-term goals of preparing for concerts. Choral programs are run much the same way. In both instances the learning environment is highly teachercentered with the teacher setting the tone, rehearsal process and outcomes each day, week and year. The extent of learning by students in these circumstances is questionable even if they ultimately attain a high level of musical performance. HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC AND MUSIC EDUCATION Musicians have always been great users of technology (Boody, 1990). Evidence of this is the way in which instruments have evolved over time. Pianos evolved from mechanisms that pluck the strings to short, hammered arms that strike the strings, brass instruments developed valves which allowed them to play in different keys, conducting “batons” went from large staffs that would be pounded on the floor to sleek, efficient wands. Efficiency of keys and levers on instruments are always being improved and string makers are always attempting to find the right wood and lacquer that will produce that perfect sound. As early as 1980 education professionals were justifying the use of technology by arguing that it allowed for students to learn by doing and by thinking about what they do (Taylor, 1980). These arguments were grounded in the theories of Dewey, Piaget and Montessori. The main argument then was that a computer can greatly assist student learning of all kinds. Once these declarations were accepted by the educational community applications for all subjects areas were sought. In general education, computers still provide much the same as they did then- an electronic word processor and a place to organize information. The internet has added an encyclopedic, one-stop-shopping element to school research projects and programs such as Microsoft’s Powerpoint have increased the possibilities and pizzazz of student work by providing the opportunity to work with multimedia and prepare organized slide shows, however, no strinkingly new technologies have been developed that change the way students use technology in general education. In music, applications have been a bit more ambitious. MIDI, SEQUENCERS, CD-ROMS and MP3’s

In music, early technologies were focused on attempting to get computers and musical devices to communicate. The result (in 1983) was the creation of MIDI which is an acronym for Musical Instrument Digital Interface. It is a language used to transmit information between electronic instruments and computers. MIDI allows a musician to play their MIDI capable instrument and have the music get “captured” by the computer as a MIDI file. Once MIDI was up and running, instruments of all kinds were created to become “MIDIcapable”. So, now we have keyboards for pianists, wind controllers for wind players, electric string instruments and MIDI-xylophones and electronic drum sets for percussionists. Software followed the creation of MIDI so that a performance by a musician (or student) could not only be recorded but could be notated in actual music notation as well. It is very much like having a private recording studio where the musician gets to record in “real time” (following and keeping a steady beat played by the software).

Sequencers have been around since the early part of recording technology in some form or another but became more accessible to musicians in time. The term familiar to most people is the 4 track recorder (and/or 8 and/or16 track). Sequencers are different than MIDI because they record actual sound. (MIDI converts music to a language recognizable to a computer.) In the case of the 4 track recorder, 4 different instruments or tracks can be recorded. For example, in a typical rock band, the drums and bass can be on one track while the vocals, guitar and keyboards can each be on another track. Following the creation of MIDI, sequencers began appearing as software on computers. The problem early on was that computer memory capabilities were limited and couldn’t handle the memory strain of pure recorded sound (sound files take up much more space than text-only files). Now, however, sequencers have become common and are used frequently by musicians and non-musicians alike. What used to be the exclusive technology of recording engineers is now readily available to the average person in the form of inexpensive or even free software. Both MIDI and sequencing applications have changed the music world by creating an accessibility that did not exist to the average person. Both have changed the possibilities for music education and opened the door of access to music much wider, especially for the non-performing student. In our present day, we can add CD-Roms, Mp3 and wave files, digital recording technology and interactive web-pages to MIDI and sequencers as tools for learning about and understanding music. An increasing amount of music is being produced by individuals with no formal training in music performance because of these technologies. CD-Roms are packaged multimedia encyclopedias containing information about any aspect of music, typically, history and style. Mp3 files are CD quality (wave) files that take up much less space on a computer hard drive. Most sequencing programs can convert to wave and mp3 files for easy accessibility and sharing. Digital recording

technology allows live music to be captured directly to a computer for processing and “burning” to CD’s. All of these are real world possibilities that can and should be exploited in the music classroom. MAKING THE CASE Non performing students of general music classes probably fare far worse in terms of music literacy. The first thing I am advocating for is a much broader, even primitive definition of music. The second claim I am making is that in a post-industrial world, technology has allowed for the decentralization of education. Embracing it and using it to meet music education objectives can empower students by rightfully giving them more control and access to their own (music) education. My final claim is that the use of music technology has the potential to strengthen the position of music in schools. I firmly believe it is important for the music education profession to embrace the technologies that have been with us for two decades now and to expand the borders of what is possible as outcomes of music in our schools. Research has shown that even band students learning in traditional environments, have a limited understanding of music after graduating high school (Colwell, 2000).

CRITICISM OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Concern about and criticism of technology in education takes several forms. Stoll (1999) in his book The High Tech Heretic, makes the claim that technology is potentially a dangerous form of entertainment that can detract from real learning. Healy (1990) has questioned the role of computers in schools in terms of thinking skills. She raised concerns about what we really know about the brain’s improvement through typical computer use. In a later criticism (Healy, 1998), she wrote about concerns related to computer cost and adequate planning, disconnections between computer use and curriculum intent, blind acceptance of technology as the savior of educational problems, health concerns and the inability of educators and researchers to show real evidence of improvement in learning. Neil Postman (1995) in his intriguing book, The End of Education, expressed his concern that education not “make a god” of technology. He doesn’t argue against computers or technology in schools but he does offer warnings to those that embrace it without question as the panacea for the ills of education. He worried that technology might have the effect of marginalizing human and social values, a worthwhile speculation. Folkestad (1996), writing about his fears about the potential alienation of students through the use of technology in music shared the same view. In his scathing article, The Computer Delusion, Todd Oppenheimer (1997) finds nothing positive about technology. His big claim is that many technologies have promised to be THE technology that will transform education. He uses the TV as an example. He quotes from a variety of sources to make his case. For example he quotes form a survey that found that teachers found technology to be more “essential than the study of European history, biology, chemistry,

and physics; than dealing with social problems such as drugs and family breakdown; than learning practical job skills; and than reading modern American writers such as Steinbeck and Hemingway or classic ones such as Plato and Shakespeare” (p. 46). He also criticizes the computer’s

promotion of passivity in children and doubts that there is anything useful to learn from the internet. Closely related to the topic of this paper is his mention of school districts which have dropped their music programs in favor of either computer equipment or technology teachers. Indeed, abuses of technology abound. Healy (1990) found much of it when she studied the use of technology in schools. Cuban (2001) argued that computers have been oversold as a vehicle for reforming educational practices and are generally underused as an instructional tool by teachers at all levels of education. Specifically, Cuban argued that despite widespread use of computers by teachers outside of the classroom, instructional practices and school culture have not incorporated computer-based technologies into regular instructional practices. Cuban claimed that teachers lack an understanding of how technology can be integrated into regular classroom instructional practices. This notion is supported by a U.S. Department of Education (2000) survey in which only one third of teachers reported feeling either well prepared or very well prepared to use computers and the Internet for classroom instruction. In response to Stoll’s concerns, I would ask what makes entertainment counter to the aims of education? This view seems to be popular in the world of education. Music teaching, in fact, is often unknowingly belittled by non-music teachers when they state that music teachers are “lucky” because they have such “talented” students who just get to “play” as if students arrive with perfect ability to perform music at a high level and that the teaching and learning of music involves nothing more than entertainment. The learning of music is a long and winding road but, yes, ultimately that learning can and is displayed in the form of performances that provide entertainment. And to engage in the act of performing with students can be immensely pleasurable and entertaining. I know from experience that music is one of the most powerful of the subjects to truly engage students in its processes. Technology only opens the doors to more students. Stoll would be right about the use of technology, if its use wasn’t grounded in rigorous educational objectives and if teachers did not guide the process of the use of technology by students. He would be wrong to insist that all technology is only fodder for disengaged students. Most educational software today is designed with learning objectives in mind. Many even have a scope and sequence built in. Healy’s (1990/1998) claims were grounded in real experiences. Nobody can dispute what she saw in certain schools as teachers used technology for no purpose at all except to pass time. However, her main issues beyond the abuses of technology had to do with a lack of understanding about musical intelligence as it relates to the use of technology. The fact today is software is being designed more and more to match how humans think rather than the other way around. And gains in student learning have been documented when compared to more traditional methods of learning (Christmann & Lucking, 1991). Clements (1995) found gains in student creative thinking through the use of technology.

In answering Postman’s concerns and especially Folkestad’s concerns, Brown (1999) offers a compelling argument. He imagined digital media as more than tools for learning. He argued that digital media can become an instrument for music expression and even a medium for musical thought. He makes two powerful and thought-provoking claims: 1- “Coming to a humane conception of technology requires acknowledgement that being technological is a human trait not an independent force” (p.11) and 2-The relationship between humans and computers should be revised where the conception of computer as a tool “is replaced by one of partnership where computers are conceived as instrument; controlling and utilizing are replaced by notions of engaging” (p.12). The problem cited by Cuban was addressed in the field of music education to some extent by the Music Educator’s National Conference (MENC) which is the national professional organization for music educators in 1999. That year MENC created the Opportunity-to-learn standards for music technology which provides technology guidelines for PK-12 music education regarding curriculum, scheduling, staffing and equipment. In addition, there exists a professional organization called Technology Institute for Music Education (TI:ME) which provides certification standards for music teachers who use technology in teaching. Finally, Oppenheimer’s writing may be savvy and he may have used factual information at the time but he also uses a little slight of hand to make his arguments. First, he focuses on technology exclusively as a tool and secondly he juxtaposes technology with ALL of the issues in education. He quotes Steve Jobs as saying “what’s wrong with education can’t be fixed with technology”. It is obvious that Oppenheimer felt he was a key figure to support his argument since Jobs is the founder of Apple Computer. Surely the comment was taken out of context since Apple leads the market as a supplier of technology to schools. Even so there ARE many things wrong with education. Most have nothing to do with technology. To make the claim that technology can’t fix these things is correct. The implication that anyone in education would think that technology is the savior of all things gone wrong is unfounded. Using the teacher survey to dichotomize technology and traditional subjects is also a convenient way of making his point. Rating systems are unique to the questions being asked on a survey. The fact that computers may have been rated higher than the teaching of Shakespeare doesn’t necessarily mean that all teachers feel technology is needed instead of the teaching of classics. He makes the same mistake by pointing out that music programs have been lost in favor of technology. Of course, this is an undisputed fact but it is an unnecessary one. Educational Technology is not an “either or” proposition it is a “both and” one. It is not the fault of technology that music programs were lost. It is the fault of short-sighted administrators who didn’t appreciate that technology can coexist with all that is already happening in school, not replace subjects.

NEW MODES OF LEARNING FOR A NEW WORLD Research on Teaching and Learning has shown that learning is contextual (Anderson, Blumenfeld, Pintrich, Clark, Marx, & Peterson, 1995; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996 ) and that school

represents a process not, simply a place (Thornburg, 2002). Schools can no longer represent factory-model modes of instruction. Schools in a postindustrial world need to embrace holistic and non-linear modes of thinking including multi-sensory stimulation and inquiry-based learning. A 1998 study by ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education highlighted the ways in which new learning environments can be compared to traditional ones:

Traditional

New Learning Environments

Teacher Centered Instruction Single Sense Stimulation Single Path Progression Single Media Isolated Work Information Delivery

Student Centered Learning Multisensory Stimulation Multipath Progression Multimedia Collaborative Work Information Exchange Active/Exploratory/Inquiry-based Learning Critical Thinking and Informed Decision Making Proactive Planned Action

Passive Learning Factual, Knowledge-based Reactive Response

Fig 1. Recommendations by the International Society for Technology in Education (1998).

Students can no longer be considered “products” of a learning system that “teaches” them one independent concept at a time in irrelevant ways since we know that information devoid of context is meaningless-especially to children who often claim their favorite subject was Kindergarten because learning was linked to play which was linked to snack time which was linked to music which was linked to recess which was linked to riding the bus, etc…In other words the distinction between school and “the real world” was not yet apparent because learning was still a holistic process then (Garcia, 1999, 2003). Music Technology has the ability to blur the lines in later years for students while engaging them in the process of music-making. Literacy in general education is the ability to read and write. Literacy in music education is the ability to read and write music. Music technology can unleash the possibility for all students to become musically literate. It is at once the medium and the message.

CONSTRUCTIVISM Constructivist modes of learning argue that learners are likely to become intellectually engaged when they are “working on personally meaningful (italics in original) activities and projects” (Kafai & Resnick, 1996, p.2). When students interact with music in computer-assisted formats, they can be fully engaged in the process. Webster (2000) described the use of music technology this way:

There is no better way to teach music as art than to routinely encourage our students to create music thoughtfully through performance, improvisation, composition, and active listening. When we ask children to exercise their own aesthetic judgments in this way, we are helping them to construct their understanding of music as art. (p. 20). Students can now create music using notation programs, perform and improvise on midi instruments and listen to a variety of genres and styles all through the use of a computer, software and a midi instrument. An analogy can be made here. One pastime students often talk about enjoying is playing video games. When asked about why they like them, students will remark that video games are engaging because they, themselves are in charge, that graphics and sound are entertaining and there is an objective to the game being played, thereby, lending it purpose (Garcia, 1999). All of these elements exist in the latest music software which only gets better and better in terms of quality. In this way music technology is like some real world experiences students engage in, such as playing video games. The process of learning with computers is influenced by the medium to dynamically represent formal constructs and instantiate procedural relationships under the learner’s control (Kozma, 1991, p. 205). If students are affectively and intellectually engaged they are likely to learn (Gardner, 1991; Papert, 1993; Kafai & Resnick, 1993). These ways of learning are congruent with constructivist theory.

REDEFINING THE PURPOSE OF MUSIC EDUCATION As stated earlier, I am advocating for a much broader, even primitive definition of music. If the definition of music is the “organization of sound” and we didn’t attach subjective notions such as good or bad to this definition, students would be much freer to create and enjoy producing their own music and by default becoming musically literate in the process. We have to become less critical of music’s aesthetic qualities at first and simply allow students to “play” sound. Once they are comfortable with the process of producing sound (via midi instruments, sequencers, etc..) music teachers can lead them to the process of organizing the sound. An infinite number of examples can be used by playing any number of works by any number of composers in any number of styles in order to teach how choices about the organization of sound was made by composers in various time periods. Here, an exploration of historical aspects of composition can be explored via CD-Rom, for example. Composition like any act of creation involves decision making. Decisions about musical sounds and styles have always been rooted in their historical time periods. In our postmodern day, we enjoy and tolerate a wide variety of expressive choices by musicians all of which can be replicated using computers and music software. Students have never before had the opportunity to dabble in the creative processes and use the actual tools that artists use more than right now. Even 50 years ago, Leonard Bernstein, had to bring a new composition of his to the New York Philharmonic to try it out. Now, since synthesizers are built into notation programs, students have infinite

possibilities to combine instruments and sounds they desire to meet please their personal sensibilities as composers. The point is music technology opens doors for students. It allows them to experience music making as easily as if they were playing in a sandbox. If general music teachers can cultivate this sense of play and then slowly introduce structured approaches and music theory, they will have gained students trust and interest and more importantly taken a giant step toward increasing the music literacy quotient of the schools where we teach which has always been a desired outcome of music education.

A NEW WORLD In a post-industrial world, technology has allowed for the decentralization of education. It is now commonly known that business leaders do not need to be in the office to be “connected” and in touch with what is going on thanks to communications and information technologies. Music specialists need to understand that what they do (read, write and perform music) is accessible to anyone, anywhere today. Schools are not the only places where students can be exposed to music in a performing or, especially a creative context. It used to be that school was the place where students could get musical training (outside the church) particularly in band or chorus. There is more to music and music literacy, then playing in a band or singing in a chorus. Technological innovations in music have allowed for the same kind of opportunities for general music students. What a teacher uses at school to teach can be purchased and used by a student at home. This notion of decentralization levels the playing field for students and teachers and expands the possibilities, definition and role of music programs-enriching them and students for the better. In a music technology class, a student can e-mail a file home and work on it later or access the same web-site he or she was working on in class to continue on a project. The great divide between home and school is transcended when these forms of teaching and learning are embraced and the number of students touched by the process has the potential to grow exponentially.

CONCLUSION Ultimately, the question of using music technology should not be whether its use makes learning more efficient but whether it enhances the student’s ability to learn music. In school music programs, technology should be used as a tool rather than an entertaining and distracting medium unto itself even as it holds great potential (Postman, 1995; Stoll 1999). The lightening-speed-fast evolution of computer processing and memory capabilities on electronic machines can and should positively influence what will be possible in the music world and, by relation, music education. Rideout (1998) suggests that music education is stuck in a modern world view in a postmodern world. If this is true (and so much practice in schools suggests it is) then technology is a way of embracing the postmodern paradigm without jettisoning core music education values. If traditional education represents a

modernistic view, the delivery of the curriculum through the use of technology can at least represent present day post-modernism as it is playing out in schools throughout our nation and in all aspects of society. The time is ripe for its implementation. We cannot be anywhere but the present and if we are pining for a past that has no relation whatsoever to today’s society or schools, the future of music education is in trouble. What is technologically possible and relevant is played out daily in our student’s real world complete with technological gizmos tailored to their specific tastes. Differentiation is played out all the time in the marketplace because businesses understand the bottom line: the individual. Technology allows for differentiation and this is appealing to human beings young and old. There is nothing more educationally relevant than a class of students engaging in personally relevant projects in real time for real purposes. Music programs have often been at the whim of the political and financial health of school districts. If a significant investment is made in music technology by establishing a lab in the general music classroom, and ALL students were involved in the music program, school districts would be hardpressed to justify dropping the program when times get tough. Technology, taken as a whole and projected onto the educational scene has the potential to irrevocably change the role of all teachers and learners. Music teachers must heed this suggestion, in particular, because of music’s close historical relationship to technology and its overweight dependence on nostalgic, band-and-chorus-based music making in American schools. These statements are not as nihilistic as they seem. Music teachers need to continually assess how technology for teaching can be made more effective. It is still and always will be the student’s task to learn but the teacher’s job will be to lead students to where learning can take place including those places that exist. No teacher can be as dynamic and ever-present as a software program. Nor can every teacher effectively tailor every lesson to the needs of every music students. By embracing music technology students can learn in their way in their own time while exploring interests close to their hearts and by becoming musically literate in the process. In so doing, the music classroom begins to appear much more like the real world. References Anderson, L. M., Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P. R., Clark, C. M., Marx, R. W., & Peterson, P. (1995). Educational psychology for teachers: Reforming our course, rethinking our roles. Educational Psychologist, 30, 143–157 Boody, Charles G.; TIPS: Technology for Music Educators; published by MENC, Reston, VA; 1990. Brown, A. (1999). Music, media and making: humanizing digital media in music education. International Journal of Music Education, 16(2), 197-213.

Christmann, E. & Lucking, R. (1991). Microcomputer-based computer-assisted instruction within differing subject areas: A statistical deduction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281-296. Clements, D. (1995). Teaching creativity with computers. Educational Psychology Review,7(2), 141-161. Colwell, R.J. (2000). Assessment’s potential in music education. In R.J. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), New handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educator’s National Conference (pp.-11281158). New York: Schirmer Books. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Folkestad, G. (1996). Computer-based creative music making: Young people’s music in the digital age. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Garcia, A.T. (1999) Schooling and student perceptions: understanding meaning and relevance of ‘the place called school’ in the lives of middle school children. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, North Adams, MA. Garcia, A.T. (2003). Middle school student’s conception’s of learning. Unpublished study. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books. Gee, C.B. (2000). The “use and abuse” of arts advocacy and its consequences for music education. In R.J. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), New handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educator’s National Conference (pp.941-961). New York: Schirmer Books. Healy, J. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York: Simon & Schuster. Healy, J. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds, for better or worse. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hammond, M. & Collins, R. (1991) Self-Directed learning. Critical practice. London: Kogan Page. International Society for Technology in Education. (1998). Technology foundation standards for all students.[Online] http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_stands.html.

Kafai,Y. & Resnick,M. (Eds.). 1996. Constructivism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York: Columbia University. Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 280(1), 45-62. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. New York: Knopf. Rideout, R. (1998). On leadership in American music education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Rudolph, T. E. (1996) Teaching Music with Technology. Chicago: GIA Publications. Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic: Why computers don’t belong in the classroom and other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday. Taylor, R. (1980) (Ed.) The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York,NY: Teachers College Press. Thornburg, D. (2002). The new basics: education and the future of work in the telematic age. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Reston, VA. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century. A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: Author. Webster, P. (2000). Reforming secondary music teaching in the new century. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(1), 17-25