See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262218976

Utilizing music technology as a model for creativity development in K-12

education

Conference Paper · June 2013

DOI: 10.1145/2466627.2466670

CITATION READS
1 983

3 authors, including:

David Rosen
Drexel University
16 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Drexel University ExCITe Center's Summer Music Technology Program View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Rosen on 23 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Utilizing Music Technology as a Model for Creativity
Development in K-12 Education
1st Author Name 2nd Author Name
Affiliation Affiliation
Address Address
e-mail address e-mail address
Optional phone number Optional phone number
ABSTRACT
The cognitive and neurological benefits of music training
have been well-established, with previous work identifying
improved reading comprehension, math skills, auditory skills,
speech processing, working memory, and attention for musi-
cians. Despite this, the current music education system in
the United States reaches only 20% of the student population.
Many students are highly engaged, motivated, interested, and
intellectually stimulated by music outside of the classroom.
In 2012, the overall education system in the US ranks 17th
among developed countries. A major commonality in nations
outperforming the US is a deeper focus on the arts. We argue
it necessary to find new ways to engage the majority of stu-
dents in music education. In this initial work, we demonstrate
that the teaching of music technology provides an affordable
point of entry for non-trained music students to express their
musical sensibilities, without the need for a formal music ed-
ucation. Computer-based tools have become the standard for
the music industry; software is now used overwhelmingly
to record, compose, improvise, edit, mix, and produce mu-
sic digitally. We posit that music technology classes serve
as an excellent environment for creative development, self-
awareness of one’s creative process, experiential flow learn-
ing, critical thinking skills, and the ability to integrate teacher
and group feedback to refine a creative product.
Author Keywords
Music technology; creativity development; education; music
training; non-traditional music student (NTM)
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.5. Sound and Music Computing: Methodologies and
Techniques
Submitted for review.
1
3rd Author Name
Affiliation
Address
e-mail address
Optional phone number
INTRODUCTION
Classrooms across the globe are filled with students who are
engaged with and passionate about various genres of music.
Due to its high interest level, music holds the potential to en-
gage, motivate, and serve as an outlet for deep student learn-
ing. Yet, the lack of participation in music education pro-
grams is quite troubling. Based on data collected by Rick
Dammers, only about 20% of the students in the United States
are active in their high school’s music education classes [16].
United States school districts, faced with difficult fiscal times,
have decided to make significant cuts to arts and music pro-
grams. If we examine school policy and music education
from a business perspective, these economic decisions are not
unwarranted. When funds have to be allocated to so many
different subject areas, more investment should be put into
the subjects that offer instruction to a majority of the student
population.
Over the past five years, school districts have started to ad-
dress the exclusivity of school music programs. A push is
finally being made to expand the reach of K-12 music pro-
grams by introducing music technology courses for students
without formal music training. The goals of this educational
paradigm shift are two-fold. First, students who are not tradi-
tionally trained in music (NTM) or uninterested in the tradi-
tional music curriculum have the opportunity to still partici-
pate in music programs. Thus, a larger segment of the student
population can be engaged in music and arts at an academic
level. Secondly, exposing students to music technology is
important unto itself. These new technologies play a critical
role in modern music and have changed the industry in many
ways: recording, editing, mixing, production, composition,
and performance.
This paper will outline the potential cognitive, neurological,
behavioral, and academic effects for deeper integration of
music and music technology within our education system.
We believe that broadening music classes’ accessibility is
paramount. Additionally, we predict that under the right guid-
ance and implementation, music technology and production
courses can be a breeding ground for developing student cre-
ativity and self-awareness of the creative process through ex-
periential learning and authentic assessments. The argument
will be made that creativity can only be understood through
experience. Thus, we want to create learning situations and
environments that facilitate creativity and creative“flow” for
adolescents.
Why Music?
How does creative thought in music impact other domains?
While domain-specific and domain-general creativity is still a
topic of debate, the neurological and cognitive benefits of mu-
sical training have been well documented. Some of these ben-
efits include improved reading comprehension, math skills,
auditory skills, speech processing, working memory, and at-
tention. Predominantly, these studies have only analyzed stu-
dents with traditional music training on any given instrument.
It has been noted that further studies need to be conducted in
order to determine the effectiveness of different music train-
ing approaches [30]. We take the position that music tech-
nology courses are essential to develop creativity and foster
well-rounded, educated musicians, and further examine the
neurological and cognitive effects of music technology pro-
grams (as a type of musical training) compared with tradi-
tional music programs.
Paper Outline
After reviewing the critical background research, we will dis-
cuss how low participation in school music programs is an
issue that can and should be addressed by offering alterna-
tive modes of music education. Music technology and music
production classes increase student participation and engage-
ment. It will be argued that with proper implementation, these
classes will allow students of diverse musical backgrounds
to develop their creative thinking skills and gain a sense of
their own creative process. We will then delve into previous
research of the cognitive and neurological benefits of music
training, and discuss future research goals for a more quan-
titative assessment of music technology programs. The dis-
cussion and conclusion sections will offer ideas for future re-
search, observations from a music technology classroom, and
a summarization of the core components of our position.
CREATIVITY: PRODUCT, PERSON, PROCESS & THEORY
In this section, we will briefly review creativity research. We
will stress the salient aspects of creativity: products, process,
and personality traits. Then, we will discuss the literature
about facilitating creative thought and “flow” in the class-
room.
P vs. H Creativity
For the purpose of this research, a working description of cre-
ativity as it applies to the student is imperative. An essential
distinction in constituting a creative product is the difference
between psychological (P-creativity) and historical creativity
(H-creativity). Margaret Boden stated, “P-creativity involves
coming up with a surprising, valuable idea that’s new to the
person who comes up with it. It doesn’t matter how many
people have had that idea before. But if a new idea is H-
creative, that means that (so far as we know) no one else has
had it before” [4]. In order to understand the psychology of
creativity, it is P-creativity that is essential to this line of re-
search. The development of creativity is concerned with how
one arrived at a new idea which they had never had before.
This distinction puts great weight on individual progress and
views creativity as a step-by-step process of building, learn-
ing, and fine-tuning one’s creative mind.
2
While degrees of creativity vary from person to person, the
current belief is that creativity is not a mysterious process
based on divine inspiration or reserved only for those who are
considered to be geniuses [62]. Therefore, creative thought
and problem solving are skills that are accessible to everyone
if developed properly. It is a widely held view that creative
thought is a critical element for our definition of intelligence
in our modern day society [6]. As part of our definition for
intelligence, creativity must be developed and assessed with
the same rigor as other areas associated with intelligence.
Product
Most experts agree that creative thinking in all disciplines is
driven by a problem and a need for its solution [61]. These
problems may have an aesthetic or artistic base, as in the arts,
or may be grounded in another discipline, such as science,
medicine, or law. Introducing students to difficult situations
and problems, which call for novel thought, can incite ap-
plied creative thinking and creative output in various fields.
Creativity involves generating ideas that are novel and valu-
able [4]. Novel and valuable in tandem is of great importance.
We can be certain that high creativity is not just a matter of
breaking the rules haphazardly. One can break the rules of
any genre rather easily, but the result will almost always be
uninteresting and aesthetically unappealing [26]. The novelty
of an idea must coexist and have balance with the group’s
definition of what is valuable and vice versa.
Person
Creativity researchers have examined the product, the pro-
cess, and the personality traits that come together when we la-
bel someone’s thinking about a problem to be ‘creative’ [39].
While certain researchers have defined creativity as a funda-
mentally product-centered task, others attribute creativity to
core personality characteristics such as confidence, being in-
tellectually playful, and persistence [2]. In addition to these
creative traits, it has been concluded that a lack of conven-
tionality, the recognition of similarities and differences, flexi-
bility to change directions, willingness to question norms and
assumptions, and motivation and energy are common descrip-
tors given to people when they think creatively [55].
Process
While certain behaviors are characteristic of creative think-
ing, the process of creativity integrates several cognitive
tasks: retrieval, logical reasoning, memory recovery, atten-
tion, visualization, etc. [62, 46]. Given these cognitive el-
ements, creative thought oscillates between strategies that
require both divergent and convergent thinking skills [21].
Switching between cognitive styles is valuable in a process
where different sub-elements have to be gathered and synthe-
sized into a whole. Wallas proposed that the creative process
involved four key steps: preparation, incubation, illumina-
tion, and verification [59]. Within each step, great variability
may occur; however, artists’ descriptions of the creative pro-
cess has seemed to follow these four stages [61].
Facilitating and Understanding Creative Thought
Experience is crucial for one to understand their own creative
process. In order to engage in creative thought, David J. El-
liott, author of Music Matters, believed that there needed to
be a combination of the familiar and unfamiliar based on the
creator’s prior experiences [18]. Carefully designed school
activities and projects should be able to further these creative
experiences, while also having clear learning objectives and
goals. In addition, creative experiences in the classroom are
highly correlated with student engagement. High levels of
engagement during tasks in high school classrooms has been
a significant predictor of continuing motivation and commit-
ment as well as overall performance in college [53]. An envi-
ronment which promotes and incorporates creative thinking
acts on both intrinsic and extrinsic student motivation. In-
trinsic motivation, alone, elevates individuals’ desire to seize
opportunities to learn, read, work with others, and gain feed-
back in a way that serves as a bridge to more complex tasks
[52]. Receiving feedback and reflecting on one’s work moti-
vates students to seek the information and capacities needed
to progress. Such intrinsic motivation leads to lifelong learn-
ing, an attitude that must be cultivated to counter general stu-
dent apathy [35]. For adolescents, extrinsic motivation can be
greatly influenced by peer approval and social identification
[33]. By allowing students to express themselves and create
projects closely tied to their own interests, many of the neg-
ative associations of traditional school music programs could
be alleviated.
Creative Flow in the Classroom
Highly creative artists and scholars have reported the expe-
rience of flow when engaged in their best work [14]. Flow
is a mental state of completely focused motivation. It rep-
resents the ultimate experience in harnessing emotions while
performing and learning [13]. Individuals seek to replicate
flow experiences and report much gratification and positive
emotions after working in this elevated, all-consuming mind-
state. “Through creative-based training, one is experientially
introduced to the selective mechanisms into psychological
functioning that fosters growth” [38]. If one can be aware of
the mechanisms necessary to enter flow, then, increased lev-
els of creativity and creative thought should occur. Students
should be deeply absorbed in activities that lend themselves
to a flow state, and this will lead to the optimal learning ex-
perience [52].
Certain key features have been identified which mediate the
ability to enter a flow state. The skills needed and difficulty
of a task are of the utmost importance. For one attempting
to induce this experience, it is important to remember that
one’s skills should neither be overmatched nor underutilized
to solve a given problem [13, 52]. Teachers should ensure
students have a firm grasp of activities and what is expected
of them. This can be done by providing clear goals, criti-
cal feedback, peer mentoring, and reflective discussion [32].
Additionally, activities should be constructed in a way so the
stresses of failing or being judged harshly are not distractors
from the work at hand. While instructional guidance can be a
great asset, there must be a well-defined and sensitive balance
3
that encourages the individual to feel in control of their work
and choices, as well [13].
Figure 1. A revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
[42]
MUSIC EDUCATION, TEACHERS, AND CURRICULUM
In this section, we will outline the argument that creative
thought in the 21st century is a necessity and highly desir-
able skill. We will emphasize how schools’ philosophies,
curricula, and teachers must be reevaluated to meet the needs
of students today, with special attention to music education.
Lastly, we will offer an example of how our institution is al-
ready using these ideas to teach music technology concepts
in the community.
21st Century Skills
It can be argued that creative thinking is the most valuable
cognitive ability for humanity to troubleshoot, progress, and
adapt in an ever changing world with countless crises and
global problems. As seen in Figure 1, the revision of Bloom’s
Taxonomy elevates creativity to the most complex of the cog-
nitive processes [23]. Human society has entered the Con-
ceptual Age, where creativity offers workers and businesses
a competitive advantage [47]. While much of science discov-
ery can be credited to creative thought, business and industry
leaders also express a need for a more creative workforce. We
live in a world where automated technology can handle many
of the rote tasks humans were once needed for. “Creativity
is now the world’s most valuable commodity: it can’t be out-
sourced or automated, and it generates the innovations that
lead to new businesses and industries” 1 . Even with regard
to the global economy, in an interview, Thomas Friedman
said that countries who desire economic success will require
imagination and creativity to become a leader in the 21st cen-
tury marketplace” [48].
Creativity is a highly desired 21st century skill which must be
cultivated. This can be done through adjustments to our K-12
education system by allotting more resources and time for
activities, projects and assignments that require imagination,
creativity, and innovation [1]. The arts in our schools can be
an effective medium for developing such human capacities.
1
http://www.ncsu.edu/iei/index.php/
emerging-issues/creativity
Developing Creativity in our Schools
Within recent years, the results produced from the American
education system are far from stellar. This year, the United
States placed 17th in the developed world for education 2 .
After examining curricula from nations who are outperform-
ing the United States academically, research identified that
other leading nations show a greater dedication to providing
a well-rounded curriculum, educating their children deeply
in a wide range of subjects including the arts. Core subjects,
such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, are important to the
student’s education, but they cannot be the full extent of edu-
cation [36].
For our schools to keep pace with the rest of the world, out-
dated education curricula and teaching philosophies need to
change. It is also necessary to have clearly defined theories
and models which allow teachers to commit themselves in-
tellectually to the change [9]. These changes must take place
immediately in school districts and teacher education training
programs. In general, many schools have not respected the
principle that anyone can develop creative habits. They have
rewarded intellectual conformity with the end being analy-
sis rather than complex reasoning and creativity [1]. Teach-
ing and evaluating students must take place through vari-
ous modes. Ultimately, our assessments of student progress
should include creative thought. There is a necessity for all
students to put elements together to form novel, coherent per-
formances, and original products to face an ever-changing
world [29]. These are the types of learners our education sys-
tem must be nurturing.
Notable educators and psychologists agree that learning is en-
hanced when it is pursued as a creative, self-directed, per-
sonal, and self-actualizing passion [28, 7]. A self-actualized
learner can better understand his/her own learning style and
take ownership of that. Alan C. Kay sees this process as the
layering of cognitive bricks, which he calls “new technologies
for thinking.” Through these new ways of thinking, individ-
uals are able to explore more of the world and gain a deeper
understanding of their own ability to learn. By developing
creativity further in K-12 education, every person could real-
ize their potential to do some sort of valuable original work.
These educational changes could curtail many adults’ sense
of futility about doing something original [57].
Meeting the Needs of Today’s Students
With a plethora of creativity research, it is a wonder why mu-
sic programs have not uniformly supported a more creative
environment for their students. A previous study examined
30 general music teachers’ use of instructional time and re-
ported that improvisation activities comprised only 3% of the
classroom curriculum [41]. As mentioned earlier, much of
this has to do with the music education received by these
teachers. Many teachers will adhere to traditional types of
music instruction because this is what they were taught [15].
However, to teach and develop creativity, teachers must have
a deep understanding of the creative process themselves.
2 3
http://www.thelearningcurve.pearson.com/the-report
4
Music educators must understand the alternate musical lives
that many students experience outside of school. John Slo-
boda points out that the musical enthusiasm, aspirations, and
passion of many young people are not addressed in music ed-
ucation [54]. This is a missed opportunity across the country
and globe . Although many potential music students may not
have a formal training background, many young people have
selective tastes and are familiar with several genres of mu-
sic. Something that is often overlooked is that core creative
skills in music are related to listening experiences. A wide
range of listening experiences and analysis may lend towards
more expressive projects and compositions. If teachers un-
derstood the listening interests of their students, a common
vocabulary and language could be taught and established, so
students could effectively analyze and communicate what as-
pects of a song they like or dislike and become more critical
listeners [60].
What is troubling is that even in an expressive art such as
music, students are being streamlined to view music as hav-
ing particular rules and structures only within the paradigms
of the classical and jazz genres. Much music, though, ex-
ists outside of these realms. Rather than music educators
trying to teach adolescents specific composition styles, they
should create an environment where adolescents can develop
their own strategies for composition and assist as needed [51].
While, traditional music programs do offer valuable knowl-
edge, it cannot be the full extent of music education programs.
If curriculua and schools are going to focus more on creative
thought and creativity-based activities, teachers must change
to foster this new culture of education.
Music Technology and STEM at (redacted) University
Our institution has been a leader in music technology edu-
cation. In 2006, we initiated a series of lessons designed
to introduce high school students to music technology [3].
Adolescents with no background in music production have
learned to work with digital audio workstation (DAW) soft-
ware in a few hours and make entirely new music. Students
exhibit high levels of engagement and are very excited to
share their work. Projects are designed to focus on an ar-
ray of areas within music technology and have clear, spe-
cific goals and objectives that students understand upon com-
pletion of the program. These music technology topics in-
clude: GarageBand (music software/ DAW) tutorials, remix-
ing, recording, using plug-ins, looping, and use of effects.
The summer technology music program (SMT) was devel-
oped to be inquiry-based and facilitate creative problem solv-
ing techniques. After displaying impressive results and high
levels of community interest, several of the STM program’s
activities were integrated into the Franklin Institute’s STEM
Scholars Program3 .
LOW ENROLLMENT/STUDENT DROP OUT
It is our assertion that the arts, specifically music, can be
a subject that lends itself to developing creativity, but cur-
rent K-12 music programs are extremely exclusive in nature.
The current standards for music education are not sufficient,
http://fi.edu/STEM-Scholars/
and the formal system of music education inhibits participa-
tion [10]. Currently, United States music classes only involve
20% of our students4 . By engaging such a small percentage
of students, it is no wonder arts programs have been the vic-
tims of significant budget cuts. Dammers elaborates upon this
point and believes that to have integrity as a profession, public
school music education must broaden its reach and offerings
to involve the other 80%’ [16].
A key issue is that students’ music consumption is primarily
ignored in schools, and this leads to a decrease in music par-
ticipation. McPherson et al.’s 2010 study of 3,037 students in
grades 6-12 and revealed that music was the least favored of
all school subjects, but it was one of the most preferred activ-
ities outside of school [33]. Music becomes a strong area of
identification for many adolescents, and the negative percep-
tions of school music programs can greatly influence student
participation.
Over the past five years, the non-traditional music students’
(NTM) needs have begun to be addressed. By using current
music technology tools, the very foundation for what is con-
sidered music education is being challenged. However, a na-
tionwide survey revealed that only 14% of students nation-
wide have access to technology based music courses [16].
These courses are in high demand by students, and the ini-
tial participation results are rather staggering.
William Kuhn instructs various music recording and technol-
ogy courses at his high school in Lebanon, P.A. He writes that
adding music technology course options has increased the
size and reach of his music department by more than a factor
of two. There has been no detriment to the performing groups
and other classes that had previously been offered. Instead,
it has brought 21st century music production techniques into
the classroom. In addition, these courses offer skills to a wide
range of students, from beginners who want more general ex-
perience to formally trained students who want to enrich their
breadth of musical knowledge [31]. The flexible nature of
music technology makes it an excellent tool for differentiated
instruction, a topic that will be addressed further in the next
section.
MUSIC TECHNOLOGY
In the Music Technology section, we will explain the in-
creased accessibility and affordability of music technology.
We discuss why music technology is so engaging and serves
as an excellent tool for creative development. Lastly, we will
contend that music technology’s flexibility is valuable and al-
lows both non-trained and trained musicians to create music.
What is Music Technology?
For those who are unfamiliar with Garageband or other mu-
sic creation software, the term ’music technology’ can be
vague. In Figure 2, we have provided a screen shot of a
Garageband session. This screen is referred to as the ’arrange
window’. This is where audio and midi data can be easily
moved, altered, recorded, layered, spliced and looped within
4
http://leadingnotes.org/2011/02/15/dammers-3/
5
the context of a song. At the introductory level, Garage-
band’s simple interface allows for fast learning. Garageband,
like other DAWs, follow basic standardized rules, so as one
becomes accustomed to using Garageband, they are gaining
global skills that will help them interact with more compli-
cated DAWs in the future. In most DAWs, each row signifies
a different layer/instrument in the song. The horizontal axis
represents time, with the beginning of the song on the left and
the end on the right. At the bottom of the window, the basic
functions for recording, playing, looping, and adding instru-
ments are displayed. On the far left of the screen, small icons
and titles have been created to quickly identify each musical
layer. For each layer, the options to record, monitor, pan, and
adjust volume exist. The vertical white line in the middle of
the window indicates the location in the song where one is
working or listening. By simply clicking in the arrange win-
dow, musicians and composers can quickly hear any section
of a song in real-time. The simplicity of the Garageband in-
terface makes it an accessible gateway into music technology
and music creation.
Music Technology Accessibility
At its onset, the price of music technology tools was incred-
ibly high and not a feasible possibility for many school dis-
tricts to purchase. However, the price of music hardware and
software has incrementally decreased over the past twenty
years. It is now possible for young people to produce music
of extremely high technical quality in their homes. Indeed,
many powerful musical tools that were previously housed ex-
clusively in the professional recording studio are now avail-
able freely over the Internet or at minimal costs [49]. For ex-
ample, GarageBand is included for free with the purchase of
Mac OS X. Scott Watson, a music production teacher, points
out that teachers and their students in music classes have more
tools at their disposal for expressing musical creativity than
ever before [60].
Student Engagement and Music Technology
Today’s students want everything now. Youths can spend
hours playing video games or other activities in which they
are interested. Harnessing and incorporating student inter-
ests into real world, authentic problem solving tasks should
be taken advantage of. High engagement has been shown
to take place with authentic academic work that intellectu-
ally involves students in a process of meaningful inquiry that
extend beyond the classroom [40]. Building upon this no-
tion, research suggests that student engagement may be influ-
enced by the relevance of instruction, perceived control, and
positive emotion [52, 17]. Of particular importance are posi-
tive emotions in association with academic material. Creating
and collaborating in a music technology classroom is inher-
ently fun. Experiencing positive emotions while learning is
not something to be overlooked. Both academic intensity and
a positive emotional response appear to be integral parts of
optimal engagement in classrooms [52].
The literature indicates that when a teacher provides students
with the readiness and skills to create their own music, music
becomes the property of the students themselves and is in-
trinsically meaningful. Using music technology, all students,
regardless of music background can begin to feel ownership
over their musical education. The technology offers students
the ability to engage in choices that affect rhythm, instrumen-
tation, arrangement, timbre, structure, and the musical role
and function of instruments [12]. These technology tools, pri-
marily DAWs (e.g., Logic, Protools, Garageband) and com-
positional software (e.g., Sibelius and Finale) have become
indispensable to music makers outside of the world of edu-
cation. In Figure 2, we provide an example of Garageband’s
interface. In many cases, schools are purchasing computers
with music software pre-installed, but they are not being uti-
lized to their maximum potential.
Figure 2. A Garageband session.
Music Technology as Support for Creativity
The creative thinking process in music appears to be driven
by a product intention or goal that is observable through mu-
sic improvisation, composition, and analysis activities. It has
been made clear that these modes of learning, which focus
on creative output, are distinct from instrumental or theoret-
ical music abilities. There is no evidence that a relationship
exists between scores on traditional aptitude tests in music
and creative thinking in music [61]. Therefore, a creativity-
based approach to teaching music is needed, at minimum, as a
supplement to traditional training. Taking a creative-product
approach to music (or anything) “makes sense because of the
way our brains are wired. We have a need to create. Not
taking advantage of our students’ creative impulse in our ap-
proach to teaching is to overlook an effective source of mo-
tivation and mode of learning” [60]. However, without any
music knowledge, composition and improvisational tasks are
nearly impossible for a student. To help bridge this gap, Pa-
pert sees computers as particularly suited to the facilitation of
this type of learning because the computer software and tasks
can be matched to children’s needs [43].
Just the act of employing music technology is not enough to
produce creativity. Rather, we are reminded frequently that
information technology (IT) is a means, not an end, in sup-
porting the quest for genuinely musical activities. We do
not merely want to use IT for its own sake but rather utilize
technology to enhance musical expression and creativity [45].
However, not everyone is in agreement about the legitimacy
or musical value of music technology [12]. A classroom ex-
ample from Scott Watson’s music technology course is rele-
vant. At times, he has observed students engaging in fun, but
6
not necessarily useful, activities when working on a project.
He has witnessed students randomly clicking 32nd and 64th
notes wildly all over the staff. While these behaviors may
be original, they are not very creative. A behavior such as
random clicking of a mouse could be evidence that a student
has very little experience creating and may need additional
support [60].
Additionally, some express the concern that the computer is
programming the learner while others hold the vision that
the learner, in programming and interacting with the com-
puter, develops a personal mastery over a modern and power-
ful technology [43]. When working with any tool, whether it
is an instrument, a hammer, or computer, one must have mas-
tery of it to reach its maximum capabilities. Current music
technologies, specifically the DAW, are designed in a way so
one can easily perform basic functions; however, the depth,
available options, and ability to manipulate audio are vast.
These new composing environments allow for a more experi-
mental process by which students “assimilate a vocabulary of
music expression, hand-in-hand with their creative imagina-
tion” [49]. But, to truly become a master of the software, one
must commit the same time and dedication as one would to a
musical instrument.
With such a wide-range of choices, how the technology is in-
tegrated into a larger music education philosophy and curricu-
lum is crucial. By having clear goals and learning objectives,
we can make sure interactive computer technology (ICT) is
an asset that enhances creativity, makes learning easier, and
encourages exploration and independence [5]. It is important
to emphasize that the relationship between music and ICT
should not “be one of servant and master, but rather a sub-
tle, reciprocal and perhaps empathetic one in which the very
nature of what constitutes musical practice is challenged, me-
diated and redefined through performers and composers uses”
[49].
Music Technology for Non-Traditional Music Students
(NTM)
We can use technology to help unlock the creative potential
of both the novice and experienced musician. The same tech-
nologies allow for differentiated instruction and application.
Recent studies have reported that the benefits of music train-
ing may be accessible to everyone and not just to those who
show an aptitude towards music [30]. Music technology al-
lows people to compose, interact with, and manipulate music
in ways not previously possible. Many people, who would
never consider themselves as being musicians in the tradi-
tional sense can create and communicate music using their
computers. By greatly increasing the level of accessibility of
music creation through music technology, traditional musical
skills or conceptual understanding are no longer prerequisites
to engage with music on a deeply intellectual and creative
level [12]. This is not to belittle the virtuoso instrumentalist
or the skills necessary for this type of musical training. How-
ever, it is important to acknowledge that just as an advanced
instrumentalist is able to mold an instrument’s sound through
highly technical abilities, students could also manipulate the
very core of sonic material and its structure through music
technology software [49].
Students with non-traditional music training (NTM), are be-
coming more involved in high school music programs where
music technology courses are offered. In 2011, survey data
from 35 music technology/production high school teach-
ers, which described their students and class. Some of the
most common characteristics for NTM students were: “non-
participant in traditional performing ensembles, having a mu-
sic life completely independent of school music, may play an
instrument (likely drums, guitar, or sing), may or may not be
able to read traditional music notation, unmotivated academi-
cally or having a history of discipline problems” [63]. There-
fore, we see academic music opportunities for students there
would be no place for within the traditional music setting .
Furthermore, we must look to the current state of music itself,
in the real world. At this point, even the genres of classical
and jazz are recorded digitally, and many classical composers
turn to compositional software to arrange, edit, and preview
their work in real-time. Also, the roles of the producer and
engineer have completely revolutionized popular music with
the widespread acceptance and utilization of current music
technology. NTM students may find their own musical niche
by experimenting, interacting, and creating with technology.
Teachers in William’s survey reported that NTMs are often
artists in areas of music production. Some move into tradi-
tional programs over time, and others may excel in a studio as
a jack-of-all-trades. One teacher reported that approximately
35% of his most advanced students were accepted into col-
lege for music recording, tech, and composition.
NTM students might possess great musical ideas and sensi-
bilities, but are limited in expressing them. Music technology
aids students in expressing what they genuinely are imag-
ining. Another added benefit is that the technology assists
in teaching students the musical language as they perform,
record or improvise. Most DAWs show the chords and notes
that are being played as MIDI data is collected. This informa-
tion is very useful, so students can communicate with others
and be exposed to a common music language while in the
process of creating. This feature is valuable for overcoming
theory deficits or a lack of formal training [60].
Some will argue that simple music activities like putting to-
gether a playlist, remixing a track, composing a loop-based
piece, or generating a harmonic backing to a song will not
engage pupils in musical traditional theory and notation, per-
formance and ensemble skills [12]. While these ideas do hold
merit, the music producers, engineers, and composers of to-
day often do not have a formal training background. People
who are not musicians in the traditional sense are utilizing
technology to create novel and valuable music that impact the
lives of millions of people every day. Therefore, introduc-
tory activities and lessons for NTM student will be “some-
what derivative, but as students create in this way, they build
a vocabulary of compositional devices and add to their own
intuitive ideas about songwriting, composing, and arranging”
[60].
7
MUSIC TRAINING’S COGNITIVE AND NEUROLOGICAL
BENEFITS
In this section we will contend that music training has cog-
nitive benefits across domains and has a positive influence
on academic performance. We will also review past studies
showing neurological plasticity in the brains of musicians and
propose future research to evaluate musical technology train-
ing programs’ neurological effects.
Academic Payoffs
One of the most intriguing aspects of this area of research is to
determine what skills learned in music technology/production
classes can be applied to other domains. Margery Vaughan
stated that creative thinking in music can provide a concep-
tual model of interconnectedness and can exemplify the prin-
ciples of the creative process. These models are needed to
nurture creativity, the pinnacle of cognitive functioning in the
human brain [58]. Furthermore, due to the high levels of en-
gagement, motivation, and positive emotions elicited by mu-
sic technology courses, it seems fitting that the conceptual
model for creative thinking starts here. In addition, there is
a distinct possibility that an integrated view of creative de-
velopment would result in a double pay-off for students. Not
only would skills be acquired with respect to music, but these
skills could also be used in the science lab, math class, theater
or on the playground [58].
Still, there are many questions about how much creativity is
domain-specific. It has been theorized that there may be some
domain-generality, but the most likely scenario is probably
a hierarchical model with some abilities contributing mod-
estly to creativity across domains, others only to creativity
with a given domain, and others only on specific tasks within
a domain, such as poetry within the larger domain of cre-
ative writing [49]. While domain-general creativity is still
an area that needs further research, there is much evidence
that direct experiences in creating art is an essential element
positively relating to other academic achievement [25]. Stu-
dents who reported involvement in school music education
showed increases in reading, language skills, mathematics
skills, thinking skills, social skills, motivation to learn, and
positive school environment ratings [19]. A meta-analysis of
24 studies of music and reading found that a strong correla-
tion existed between music and performance on verbal tests
[8]. Also, previous studies reported that students with high
levels of involvement in music education, during the middle
and high school years, outperformed their peers on standard-
ized math assessments in the 12th grade [11].
Music Training and the Brain
As children study music, the connections between the two
hemispheres increase as they age [50]. The left hemisphere
is predominately the logical and analytical side that processes
information sequentially as in “mathematics, logic, and lan-
guage. It is also the verbal side that is structured, factual,
controlled, rational, organized, planned, and objective” [34].
In contrast, the right hemisphere is the nonverbal, creative
side which is “spontaneous, emotional, disorganized, exper-
imental, empathetic, subjective, intuitive, and seeking rela-
tionships” [27]. It houses many of the processes needed to
make sense of art, color, pictures, and music. Creative music
composition tasks require deep interaction between both the
left and right hemispheres.
Recent research by Habib et al. reveal that there is evidence
that music training induces changes in the brain. Indeed, the
musician’s brain has been used as a model of neuroplastic-
ity [22, 64]. These studies acknowledge that more specific
research needs to be conducted regarding the different types
of musical training that may be offered. In regards to our
study and future work, we want to evaluate music technology
and production training. We aim to discover to what degree
this mode of music education has cognitive, functional, and
structural impact upon the individual. The cognitive benefits
provided through music training are rather astounding, and in
this section, we will outline some of the most prominent ones.
Studies have revealed that music training induces functional
and structural changes in the auditory system [24]. Musicians
develop fine-grained auditory skills that are relevant, not only
for music stimuli, but also, for speech. [37]. While music
and speech are perceptually distinct, they share many com-
monalities at both an acoustic and cognitive level [30]. In
order to process music and speech, long term memory, work-
ing memory and attention are required. Also, both music
and speech involve the ability to synthesize discrete acous-
tic events into a coherent perceptual stream based on learned
syntactic rules [44]. Through years of training, these auditory
skills can transfer to other domains, such as speech, language,
emotion and auditory processing.
In addition, past studies have found that children who are mu-
sically trained and have gained these auditory skills have a
better vocabulary and reading ability compared with children
who did not receive music training [20, 56]. Consistent with
this proposal, it can be argued that active engagement with
music promotes an adaptive auditory system that is crucial for
the development of listening skills [30]. Are these auditory
skills only developed through traditional music methods? It
seems that active, critical engagement with music and audio,
regardless of the form, would also impact auditory develop-
ment and refinement.
Another relevant benefit from music training deals with pick-
ing out important sounds in environments with variable noise
levels. In order to successfully perceive speech in noise, in-
dividuals must extract relevant signals from other sounds, a
task that requires selective attention, sensory representation
of sound, and various cognitive skills that include auditory
stream segregation and voice tagging. Musicians demonstrate
superior performance in each of these skills compared with
non-musicians [56]. Therefore, musicians exhibit enhanced
cognitive and sensory abilities that give them an advantage
for processing speech in challenging listening environments
like the classroom [30]. It is clear that the benefits of music
training offer advantages beyond the realm of music, thereby
necessitating a higher quality and expanded accessibility of
our music programs.
8
DISCUSSION
Based on creativity theory, education theory, and the known
neurological and cognitive benefits of studying music, the
stance in favor of offering music technology courses in our
schools leaves little room for debate. Not only would we be
making music education accessible to a greater percentage of
the student population, but these classes would also be an en-
vironment to spawn creative development and thought. In an
interview with music technology teacher Scott Watson, he ex-
pressed his students’ strong desire to compose music. They
often work on projects outside of class and even ask for ac-
cess to the music lab after school and on weekends. This
is evidence that the motivation to be creative is there from
the beginning, and courses like his facilitate this creativity as
opposed to more formal training where creativity is often ig-
nored. This motivation to create is a key element for students
to become highly engaged with their own education, to make
intellectual progress in any subject area, to experience deep
learning, and to produce creative work.
We believe that addressing the needs of the NTM student in
our education system is one of the most valuable qualities mu-
sic technology has to offer. It is difficult to fully understand
this type of music learning environment without experienc-
ing, first-hand, the energy, focus, and engagement that takes
place. In December 2012, we scheduled a preliminary visit
to observe Scott Watson’s music technology class at Park-
land High School in Allentown, PA. During this class session,
students were in the middle of creating songs for an assign-
ment. Students collaborated in small groups to make a song
with original lyrics that could serve as an advertisement for
washing your hands. After working for a few class periods,
students presented their demos. Each group performed or
played their piece, received critical and complimentary feed-
back from other students and the instructor, and then contin-
ued working on and improving their compositions.
An important point of interest was how the same task could
produce such different musical products ranging from hip-
hop to reggae to folk to indie rock. Also, seeing such a high
level of collaboration among students as they discovered their
roles and skills within the creative process was exceptional.
Watching these demo presentations, raised many questions.
How did each of the groups reach this point? What was
each group’s creative process? What were the musical back-
grounds of the different groups? According to Scott Watson,
about 25% of his students are formally trained in music and
are in either jazz ensembles or orchestra, but the majority of
students have no formal music training. His class serves as
a model for developing music and creativity in an academic
setting for a wide variety of students.
CONCLUSION
We are not proposing that music technology programs are a
panacea or quick solution to the many deficits of our educa-
tion system. We believe music technology is a critical aspect
of music in the world today. We posit that music technology
programs will make music education more accessible, help
develop creative thought in an academic environment, and in-
duce positive neurological and cognitive changes. We have
discussed and reviewed many studies outlining the cognitive
benefits of traditional music training, but the literature calls
for a need to examine other training methods, specifically
courses that utilize music technology . Through future obser-
vations, formal studies, individual academic achievement and
longitudinal academic progress, we hope to better understand
what it is these programs really offer their students. While
music technology courses can serve as an excellent environ-
ment for creative development for a wide range of students,
we seek to better understand the specific skills gained from
these programs and the degree to which they transfer to other
domains. For future research, we would like to formulate
quantitative studies that can evaluate structural and functional
changes in the brain after participating in a music technology
program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by NSF Grant (redacted for double
blind review).
REFERENCES
1. Baker, R. The Relationship between Music and Visual
Arts Formal Study and Academic Achievement on the
Eighth-Grade Lousiana Educational Assessment
Program (LEAP) test. PhD thesis, Louisiana State
University, 2011.
2. Balkin, A. What is creativity? what is it not? Music
Educator’s Journal, 76 (1990), 29–32.
3. Batula, A. M., Morton, B. G., Migneco, R., Prockup,
M., Schmidt, E. M., K., G. D., Kim, Y., and Fontecchio,
A. K. Music technology as an introdcution to stem. In
Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference (San
Antonio, Texas, 2012).
4. Boden, M. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.
Routledge, London, 1994.
5. Bray, D. Teaching Music in the Secondary School.
Heinemann, London, 2000.
6. Buchanon, B. Creativity at the meta-level: Aaai-2000
presidential address. AI magazine 22, 3 (2001), 13.
7. Burleson, W. Developing creativity, motivation, and
self-actualization with learning systems. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63, 4 (2005),
436–451.
8. Butzloff, R. Can music be used to teach reading?
Journal of Aesthetic Education 34, 3-4 (2000), 167–178.
9. Cain, T. Theory, technology and the music curriculum.
British Journal of Music Education 21, 2 (2004),
215–221.
10. Carlisle, K. Exploring co-implicity within secondary
students’ experience of their school music environment.
Gender, Education, Music and Society, 4 (2008).
11. Catterall, J. S., Chapleau, R., and Iwanaga, J.
Involvement in the arts and human development:
Extending an analysis of general associations and
9
introducing the special cases of intensive involvement in
music and theatre arts. The Imagination Project,
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies,
University of Califorina, Los Angeles, 1999.
12. Crow, B. Musical creativity and the new technology.
Music Education Research 8, 1 (2006), 121–130.
13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of
Happiness. Random House, London, 1992.
14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity: Flow and the
psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Collins,
New York, NY, 1996.
15. Cutietta, R. A. Content for music teacher education in
this century. Arts Education Policy Review 108, 6
(2007), 11–18.
16. Dammers, R. Considering the reach of the music
education profession., February 2011.
17. Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., and Sheinman, L. Characteristics
of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40
(1981), 1–10.
18. Elliott, D. Music matters: a new philosophy of music
education. Oxford University Press, London, 1995.
19. Fiske, E. B. E. Champions of change: The impact of the
arts on learning. Arts Education Parnership,
Washington, D.C., 1999.
20. Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Norton, A., and Schlaug, G.
Practicing a musical instrument in childhood is
associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal
reasoning. PLoS ONE, 2008.
21. Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence.
McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1967.
22. Habib, M., and Besson, M. What do music training and
musical experience teach us about brain plasticity?
Music Perception, 26 (2009), 279–285.
23. Hanna, W. The new bloom’s taxonomy: Implications for
music education. Arts Education Policy Review 108, 4
(2007), 7–16.
24. Hannon, E. E., and Trainor, L. J. Music acquisitionl
effets of enculturation and formal training on
development. Trends Cognitive Science, 11 (2007),
466–472.
25. Harland, J., Kinder, K., Lord, P., Stott, A., Shagen, I.,
and Haynes, J. Arts education in secondary schools:
Effects and effectiveness. National Foundation for
Educational Research, Washington, D.C., 2000.
26. Johnson-Laird, P. N. Representing Musical Structure.
Academic, 1999, ch. Jazz Improvisation: A Theory at
the Computational Level.
27. Jourdain, R. Music, the brain, and ecstasy: How music
captures our imagination. Avon Press, New York, NY,
1997.
 28. Kay, A. Computers, networks and education, scientific
american, september, September 1991.
29. Krathwohl, D. R. A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An
overview. Theory into Practice 41 (2002), 212–218.
30. Kraus, N., and Chandrasekaran, B. Music training for
the development of auditory skills. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience 11, 8 (2010), 599–605.
31. Kuhn, W. Reaching the other 80 percent by adding
music technology to your curriculum. Triad April/May
(2012), 96–98.
32. MacDonald, R., Byrne, C., and Carlton, L. Creativity
and flow in musical composition: An empirical
investigation. Psychology of Music 34 (2006), 292–306.
33. McPherson, G. E., and Hendricks, K. Students’
motivation to study music: The united states of america.
Research Studies in Music Education 32, 2 (2010),
201–213.
34. Miller, M. Brain styles: Change your life without
changing who you are. Simon and Schuster, New York,
NY, 1997.
35. Mitchell, R. Testing for learning: How new appraoches
to evaluation can improve American Schools. The Free
Press, New York, NY, 1992.
36. Munson, L. Letter from the executive director. in why
we’re behind: What top nations teach their students (pp.
iii-v), washington dc: Common core.
37. Musacchia, G., Smas, M., Skoe, E., and Kraus, N.
Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and
audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA, 104 (2007), 15894–15898.
38. Nakamura, J., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. Handbook of
positive psychology. Oxford University Press, 2002,
ch. The concept of flow, 89–105.
39. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., and Simon, H. The Processes of
Creative Thinking. Report P-1320. The RAND Corp.,
Santa Monica, CA, 1958.
40. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., and Lanborn, S. D.
Student engagement and achievement in American
secondary schools. Teachers College Press, 1992,
ch. The significance and sources of student engagement,
11–39.
41. Orman, E. Comparison of the national standards for
music eduation and elementary music specialists’ use of
class time. Journal of Research in Music Education 50,
2 (2002), 155–164.
42. Overbaugh, R. C., and Schultz, L. Bloom’s taxonomy
pyramid - new version, 2008.
43. Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and
Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York, NY, 1980.
44. Patel, A. D. Language, music, syntax, and the brain.
Nature Neuroscience, 6 (2003), 674–681.
45. Paynter, J. ’editorial’. British Journal of Music
Education 14, 2 (1997), 107–108.
46. Perkins, D. N. The mind’s best work. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1981. 10
View publication stats
47. Pink, D. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will
Rule the Future. Penguin Group, New York, NY, 2005.
48. Pink, D. Tom Friedman on education in the ’flat world’.
The School Administrator 65, 2 (2008), 12–18.
49. Savage, J. Working towards a theory for music
technologies in the classroom: How pupils engage with
and organize sounds with new technologies. British
Journal of Music Education 22, 2 (2005), 167–180.
50. Schlaug, G., Jancke, L., Haung, Y., Staiger, J., and
Steinmetz, H. Increased corpus callosum size in
musicians. Neuropsychologia 33, 8 (1995), 1047–1055.
51. Seddon, F. A., and O’Neill, S. A. Creative thinking
processes in adolescent computer-based composition:
An analysis of strategies adopted and the influence of
instrumental music training. Music Education Research
5, 2 (2003), 125–137.
52. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., and
Shernoff, E. S. Student engagement in high school
classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarerly 18, 2 (2003), 158–172.
53. Shernoff, D. J., and Hoogstra, L. Continuing motivation
beyond the high school classroom. New Directions in
Child and Adolescent Development, 93 (2001), 73–87.
54. Sloboda, J. Emotion, functionality, and the everyday
experience of music: where does music education fit? In
Research in Music Education (2001).
55. Sternberg, R. J. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary
Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge University
Press, 1988a, ch. A Three-Facet Model of Creativity,
125–147.
56. Tallal, P., and Gaab, N. Dynamic auditory processing,
musical experience and language development. Trends
Congitive Science, 29 (2006), 382–390.
57. Torrance, E. P. Can we teach children to think
creatively? Journal of Creative Behaviour 8, 2 (1972),
114–142.
58. Vaughan, M. M. Cultivating creative behavior: Energy
levels and the process of creativity. Music Educators
Journal (1973), 35–37.
59. Wallas, G. The Art of Thought. Harcourt, Brace and
World, New York, NY, 1926.
60. Watson, S. Using technology to unlock musical
creativity. Oxford Univeristy Press, London, 2011.
61. Webster, P. R. Creative thinking and music education.
Design for Arts in Education 89, 5 (1988), 33–37.
62. Weisberg, R. W. Creativity: Genius and Other Myths.
W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, 1986.
63. Williams, B. D. Non-traditional music (ntm) survey
results from teachers of technology-based music classes.
Illinois State University, 2011.
64. Zatorre, R., and McGill, J. Music, the food of
neuroscience? Nature, 434 (2005), 312–315.