Technological Directions in Music Learning Sixth ...richardrepp.com/research/docs/tdml6pres.pdf · Technological Directions in Music Learning Sixth International Conference January

Technological Directions in Music Learning Sixth International Conference January 30, 1998

The feasibility of technology saturation for intermediate students of applied voice

The feasibility of technologysaturation for intermediatestudents of applied voice:

Phase I

Richard ReppTechnological Directions in Music

Learning Sixth International ConferenceJanuary 30, 1998

Introduction! Feasibility: Does it work?

! Technology saturation:

" As much as possible

! Intermediate Students

" Undergraduates without much singing

experience

! Applied voice

" Need for applied research

! Phase I: Part 1 of a 2 semester project

Background

! History of technology use

" Manuel Garcia, laryngoscope,

! Bias against technology

" Centuries of tradition

! Scientific versus experiential

THE STUDY OF VOICE and vocal mechanism hasdegenerated from the quest of spiritual law and theutterances of eternal verities to a material, mental

attitude based purely on the phenomena produced by aPHYSICAL INSTRUMENT ONLY. In like manner, with

the automotive salesman, minutely describing the“entrails” of the newest car. The history of the world is a

chronicle of discoveries of deeper laws than those

produced from physical phenomena. . . . There remainsan EXISTENT SOMETHING not included in our concept

of mechanical movement. The fact is, we are dealingwith a LIVING INSTRUMENT, not a dead one. Can aninstrument which expresses the SPIRITUAL FORCESof man in action be measured by an earthly yardstick?

(McLean, 1958)

Related Literature

! Technology and voice use

" Voice science: Titze, Cleveland, Hirano,

Miller

" Computer use: Rossiter, Welch, Howard,

Ester, Repp

! Music education literature

" Berz and Bowman, Higgins, Williams and

Webster, Rudolph et al (TI:ME), IMR

Research Question

! Impact of technology

" Teacher!s perspective

" Student reaction

! Subquestions relate

" Web Pages

" Spectral analysis

" Smartmusic (Vivace)



Design

! Eight weekly 45-minute lessons

" Each incorporate a separate technology

! Students have access outside of

lessons

! Final concert

" Using Smartmusic accompaniment

Data Collection! Weekly questionnaires to students

! On-line forms

! Teacher observations

Population

! Five undergraduates and one graduate

students

! No voice majors

! Volunteers

" Source of bias

! Willing to use email and the Web

Other Sources of Bias

! Experimenter effect

! Novelty effect

! Hawthorne effect

Results

! Individual technologies

" Internet

" Spectral analysis

" SmartMusic

! Comparison of technologies

! General attitude measures

Web and Email

! Informational purpose

" Used in lesson

to illustrate points

" Used outside lesson

to reinforce

! Communication

! Data collection



Informational! Awkward to use in lessons

" Loss of eye contact

" Split student attention

! Outside of lessons

" Well received

" Not used extensively

Communication! Worked well

! Some students did not check email

regularly

! Might not work in schools without

computer resources

Data Collection

! Saved time in transferring data to

database

! Students did not always fill out form

before lesson started

! Computer glitches

Spectral analysis

! Two times during semester

" not available outside of lesson time

! High degree of training necessary

! Specialized equipment

Three parts:

! Time based (Spectrogram)

! Snapshot (Voce Vista)

! Electroglottograph

Time-Based Spectrogram

! Demonstrates spectral makeup of voice

! Shows changes over time

! Helps to explain formant differences

! Sung vowels a,e,i,o,u



Snapshot

! Light blue line

shows theoretical

[a] vowel

! Yellow line

Shows actual

sung vowel

EGG

! Long research tradition

! Difficult to administer

! Questionable results

SmartMusic! Accompaniment feature

! Tuner

! Warm-up

feature

Accompaniment

! Well received by students

! Works well in lessons

" Does not react to singer well

! Students able to use on own

! Some challenges in performance

situation

" Does not always pick up entrances

" Switching disks

Tuner! Visual feedback for pitch discrimination

! Surprisingly well received

! Worked in

and outside

of lessons

Warm-up Feature! Keeps hands free

! In lessons, I prefer to use the keyboard

" Lose pitch

! Students without piano skills found

effective



Ranking for Use in Lessons

Variable Mean Std.Dev.

Tuning 1.67 .82

Accomp. 1.67 .82

SmartMusic(General)

2.00 .63

Warmup 2.33 .52

Spectogram 2.33 1.21

Web 2.50 1.05

EGG 3.00 1.55

On a 7 point Likert scale, 1 = most effective, 7 = least effective

Outside of Lessons

Variable Mean Std.Dev.

SmartMusic(General)

1.33 .52

Accomp. 1.50 .84

Tuning 1.67 .82

Warmup 2.00 1.10

Web 2.17 .98

On a 7 point Likert scale, 1 = most effective, 7 = least effective

In Lesson vs. On Own

Number of 2-tail Variable pairs Corr Sig Mean SD SE of Mean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lesson 10.1667 3.312 1.352 6 .911 .012 ON OWN 8.6667 3.204 1.308 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paired Differences | Mean SD SE of Mean | t-value df 2-tail Sig ----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------

1.5000 1.378 .563 | 2.67 5 .045 95% CI (.053, 2.947) |

Students found the technology more effective when used on their ownAverage .25 points on a 7 point Likert scale, p=.045

Attitude ChangesNumber of 2-tail Variable pairs Corr Sig Mean SD SE of Mean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINEDTEC 2.6667 .516 .211 6 . . PREEDT 2.0000 .000 .000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paired Differences | Mean SD SE of Mean | t-value df 2-tail Sig ----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------- .6667 .516 .211 | 3.16 5 .025 95% CI (.125, 1.209) |

! Attitude toward educational

technology worsened by .5 on a 7-

point scale (p=.025)

Discussion

! Initial attitude unrealistically high

! Novelty wore off

! Final survey at the end of the semester

" Attitudes poor in November generally

! No control group for comparison

Feasibility of Technologies

! Smartmusic

" Very effective from teacher and student

point of view

" Not just for accompaniment

! Tuner

! Warm-up

" Particularly effective outside of class for

student use



Internet

! Awkward in lesson situation

! More beneficial for student use

! Less well received

" Less novelty

! Questionable feasibility for average

teacher

Spectral analysis

! Well received

! Questionable teaching applications

! Questionable validity/reliability

! Technical training necessary

! Not feasible

Conclusions

! Best group I have ever had

" No no-shows

" Even better than paying customers

! Bias apparent

Future Research

! Repeat Spring semester

! New students

! Vary technologies

" Internal control groups

! Work to limit bias

URLs! Home Page http://www-

camil.music.uiuc.edu/Projects/tbmi/rrep

p/lessons/index.html

! Spectrogram

http://www.monumental.com/rshorne/gr

am.html

! Smartmusichttp://www.Smartmusic.com/

! Voce Vista

http://www.missouri.edu/~musicjd/vocevista.html

Documents

Technological Directions in Music Learning Sixth ...richardrepp.com/research/docs/tdml6pres.pdf · Technological Directions in Music Learning Sixth International Conference January