Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 9102

Presented at the 137th Convention
2014 October 9–12 Los Angeles, USA

This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed by at least
two qualified anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention paper has been
reproduced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The AES
takes no responsibility for the contents. Additional papers may be obtained by sending request and remittance to Audio
Engineering Society, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165-2520, USA; also see www.aes.org. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted without direct permission from the Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society.

Partnering Approaches for Teaching Music

Technology
Jeffrey Rodgers

The University of Saint Francis, Fort Wayne, IN, 46808, United States of America
jrodgers@sf.edu

ABSTRACT
st
The use of collaborative learning techniques is rapidly becoming a popular method for teaching 21
century skills across the United States. The term “Partnering” has been used to refer to different types of
collaborative learning, most recently being defined by Marc Prensky in his book, Teaching Digital Natives,
Partnering for Real Learning. This paper addresses the need for more established methods for teaching
music technology skills, concepts, and theories that utilize a collaborative, partnering style of instruction.
Specifically, these partnering methods are intended for students in high school and higher education.

1. Background training music teachers, today’s music curriculums

Music technology has been around for hundreds of
years in many different forms. The latest
technology of the times has always been used to
improve the design and performance of musical
instruments and one only needs to look at ancient
instruments such as pipe organs, to see how
technology has been applied in the past [4].
However, it has only been in the past thirty years
that we have begun to see music technology
integrated into both primary and higher education
curriculums [9 & 21]. Whereas in the past, music
education tended to focus mainly on teaching
musical performance aspects to students or
often integrate technology to teach musical skills
and musicianship [21].
Since the 1970’s, a new field of music technology
education has emerged that focuses on teaching
students how to use and develop the technology
we use to capture, manipulate, and create music
[21]. The inclusion of music technology into
traditional music performance and education
courses and degrees is now commonplace in both
primary and higher education [3, 7, 19, & 21].
Many colleges and universities have developed
specific degrees in music technology that
Rodgers
specialize in areas such as audio recording, live
sound, digital signal processing, sound design, and
acoustics [9].
Now consider that modern music technology is a
subject with content that is mostly less than thirty
years old. This means that today’s high school and
college students have been experiencing and
using music technology since birth. These
students, known as millennials, have grown up
using and living with computers, the Internet, cell
phones, and multi-media [10 & 21]. Educational
author Marc Prensky [15, 16, & 17] uses the term
“digital native” to describe these students who
have grown up with technology as part of their
daily lives.
According to research by Prensky [17] and a field
study by Eddy [10], Millennial students, regardless
of their background, all seem to express some of
the same feelings about their education:
• They dislike being lectured to
• They want to work with peers and do group
work
• They want to share and have input about their
learning
• They want real-world educational experiences
All of these aspects expressed by millennial
students, and in many cases generation X’ers,
indicate that they want, and need, to be taught
differently than their predecessors [16 & 17]. All of
these concerns can also be addressed by using
Partnering techniques and methods [17]. The
challenge now lies with transitioning music
technology teachers who rely on direct instruction
methods such as lecture and drill-and-practice
methods, to a new method of instruction that is
better suited for how today’s students learn.
2. Problem
Research shows that today’s college student
processes information differently then their
predecessors [14, 15, 16, 17, & 20]. Today’s
students also crave learning that is meaningful and
diverse but is not based around lectures or slide
presentations [17 & 20). Today’s college students
also demand learning that provides real-world skills
that are significant and prepare them for future
eomployment [10]. This is especially true for music
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 2 of 6
PARTNERING IN MUSIC TECHNOLOGY
students who not only use technology to create
and listen to music, but seek to work in fields
where they utilize and even develop, the latest
music technology [4].
What exists then is a need for a formal instructional
strategy that focuses on teaching music technology
st
skills, concepts and theories, to 21 century
students. Skills such as understanding how to
apply audio and recording techniques and digital
audio theory. Communicating with artists and
clients while helping to achieve their musical
visions. Plus, being able to make critical decisions
and adjustments while working under pressure
during recording sessions and live performances
[11]. All of these are skills that can be taught using
the Partnering method of instruction.
3. Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a basic
outline for how Partnering techniques can be used
as instructional strategies for teaching music
technology topics. First, the basics of the
partnering instructional method will be discussed.
Followed by how these methods can be applied
and intigrated into a music technology curriculum.
Finally, future implications of partnering methods in
music technology will be discussed within the
conext of higher education.
4. Method
In his book titled “Teaching Digital Natives:
Partnering for real Learning “ [17], Mark Prensky
defines partnering as including or combining
several different instructional methods to include;
student-centered learning, problem-based
learning, project-based learning, case-based
learning, inquiry-based learning, active learning,
constructivism, and learning by doing. While
according to Driscoll [8], all of these methods fall
under a single category of constructivism, it should
be noted that the reason Prensky chooses to use
the term Partnering, is to emphasize that “the roles
of each group, teachers, and students are
different, but equal” [17 p. 15].
Constructivist methods have shown to be more
effective than teacher-directed and other traditional
methods, when used in music education [18]. In
addition, collaborative learning models have been
shown to be more effective than individual learning
Rodgers
for completing complex tasks while also requiring
less mental effort [14]. This is especially interesting
since the majority of work done in the field of music
technology involves complex tasks such as non-
linear digital editing, acoustical problem solving,
and manipulating both analog and digital audio
equipment. A point that is also supported by a
2008 study form the University of Hull in
Scarborough, UK that examined a collaborative
approach on how to place microphones on a drum
kit. They found that when combined with a learning
technology interface, students collaborated more
fully with than other students without the LTI and
they scored higher in tests and showed greater
abilities to solve problems in the studio [13].
Finally, a 2010 study that examined both music
teachers and students, found that both have a
positive attitude towards using computer and
information technology resources for learning, and
that when implemented properly, computer and IT
related teaching can positively increase student
learning [12]. All of these studies indicate that
collaborative methods can be effective for teaching
the types of subjects contained in music
technology, provided that they are properly
devised and implemented by the instructor. A task
that can be guided by using and applying Marc
Prensky’s partnering methods of instruction.
5. Application
According to Marc Prensky [17], Partnering
methods can be applied to any field but are only
effective if properly implemented. At its most basic
level, a partnering method is similar to inquiry-
based learning in that it involves a guiding question
that the students work to answer. The website
www.pbl-online.org offers resrources on how to
craft a driving question that are project-based
learning [5]. While this may be helpful for some,
another simple approach is offered by Prensky
who states that “the best guiding questions are
generally about a why followed up with a how” [17
p. 85].
Does partnering allow for regular lectures? No,
according to Prensky [17, p. 14]. Although short
discussions or explanations can be helpful as a
form of scaffolding that assists learners, or as a
form of discussion that can be used to clarify
assignments and guiding questions as is the
custom with the New Tech Network’s approach to
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 3 of 6
PARTNERING IN MUSIC TECHNOLOGY
PBL. Generally, lectures are not welcomed by
todays students [8, 15, 16, & 17] Instead, students
should be researching and exploring to find
answers to questions and learning based from
actively engaging in the aquiring and synthesizing
of knowledge. This includes using the internet,
computers, and technology to support this
learning. In addition, Prensky states that
“partnering works with technology because it
allows technology to be used” and therefore
supports the learning process [17 p. 17].
An example of how this could be applied to music
technology would be an assignment with a guiding
question that asks:
“Why is it necessary for audio engineers to
know about MIDI and how has it impacted the
st
world through the 21 century?”
When presented to students, this question could
require the students to research the history of MIDI
(Musical Instrument Digitial Interface), learn about
the hardware and physical components used to
connect MIDI devices, as well as investigate how
MIDI has been used and why it is important for
them to know about MIDI for their career. This
st
partnering asignment would also require 21
century skils such as; (a) researching using the
internet and books, (b) synthesizing facts and
concepts, (c) using audio and MIDI equipment, (d)
and collaboration with classmates. The instructor
could choose various methods of implementing the
assignment such as a class Wiki, individual
research with an in-class presentation, or small
groups that research separate aspects and then
discuss as a class later. Should they be needed,
the instructor could also provide help in the form of
scaffolding aids such as suggested equipment
connection diagrams, outlines, or a worksheet.
Successful implementation of partnering methods
are limitied only by the creative imagination of the
instructor and students, both of which will benefit
from variations in their approach [17]. Social
aspects such as students working as a team to
record music or collaborate together on a project
can be beneficial. This follows a constructivist
approach that knowledge can be embedded in an
activity and can be made more meaningful when
applied to scenarios relevant to the student [6].
Rodgers
Other possible partnering activities for teaching
music technology subjects include:
• Simulated recording sessions with specific
tasks, goals, or problems
• Clarifying myths about digital and analog audio
recordings
• Constraints such as not using a specific
software, no computers, or only using a
specific list of equipment
• Competitions between teams or individuals on
mixing the same song
See Table 1. for a list of specific music technology
objectives and their partnering approaches along
with their specific instructional methods and
learning conditions that are met by each approach.
6. Discussion
Collaborative learning methods, such as those
referred to by Marc Prensky in his partnering
methods, have shown themselves to be effective
for teaching problem solving, reasoning skills,
critical thinking, as well as “active and reflective
use of knowledge” [8, p. 393]. All of which fall
under constructivist conditions for learning that
involve learning from and through experiences [8 &
22]. This means that students will learn best in
realistic and complex learning environments that
involve negotiating social interaction and sharing
information. In addition, they will also need
different perspectives and modes of learning that
when combined, can foster self-awareness and
motivation by the students to take ownership in the
learning process [6, 8, & 22].
Where does this leave more traditional methods of
instruction such as direct instruction and lectures?
While Prensky does not indicate that direct
instruction is not effective, rather he states that it is
just not effective with millennial students when
compared to other generations [17]. While this
feeling is supported by some [10], it is possible to
combine the two with success that makes direct
instruction partnered with constructivist methods
more effective than direct instruction alone [2] This
should be good news for teachers who are
interested in incorporating partnering methods as
ways to more effectively teach millennial students
and beyond. By adopting some lessons and slowly
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 4 of 6
PARTNERING IN MUSIC TECHNOLOGY
incorporating partnering methods the teachers and
students can both learn and improve their
individual roles in the partnering process.
How does this impact the future of music
technology in higher education? In a joint study
between Yale University and the Universite´ Paris
Descartes, it was found that a need for creativity in
music teaching exists, especially one that involves
the use of technology and is geared towards how
students learn today [9]. In addition, Alan
Anderson stated in a 2012 address that because of
technology “what has happened in the past is no
longer a reliable guide to the future” [1]. Anderson
went on to say that because of recent
developments in social media, Learning
Management Systems, and mobile learning,
educators would have an easier time developing
and implementing new learning methods for
teaching music. Naturally, this could be held true
for any subject and not just music or music
technology alone.
In the future, more research needs to be done that
focuses on how successful partnering techniques
have been used to teach music technology
courses. This would provide statistical evidence on
how successful partnering methods are after being
implemented. In addition, further research that
explores how different music technology programs
pedagogically approach their curriculums would be
beneficial in showing if a need to for developing
more partnering strategies exists? Studies could
possibly indicate that other instructional methods
are more widely used and even more effective than
direct instruction is.
As students enter music technology programs, it is
clear that educators need to use methods of
instruction that are familiar to these students, More
importantly, instructors must use methods that can
reliably help students meet music technology
learning objectives. While there are many
instructional methods music technology teachers
can choose from, the partnering methods
discussed by Marc Prensky offer a solid approach
that is both effective and easily implemented for
teaching music technology courses.
Rodgers PARTNERING IN MUSIC TECHNOLOGY

Partnering-Based Approach Instructional Learning

Course Objective
(Examples) Methods Conditions
• Realistic
Simulated recording sessions • Problem-based
Gain practical environment
where students are tasked with learning
recording studio • Social learning
performing specific studio • Collaborative
experience • Desire to know
roles/functions learning
• Self-awareness
Students populate a page within • Multiple
• Hypermedia
Learn audio a LMS with information that perspectives
• Open-ended
fundamentals explains and defines a given • Desire to know
learning
topic • Self-awareness
Assign students prerecorded • Realistic
Develop audio songs to edit and mix with environment
• Project-based
mixing and editing specific goals and tasks for each • Desire to know
learning
skills song agreed upon by the • Multiple
students perspectives
Provide a guiding question that
Learn the history of
requires individual or group • Inquiry-based • Desire to know
a music technology
research followed by a report or learning • Social learning
aspect; i.e. MIDI
visual representation
Asses student retention through
different means. For example;
• Multiple
demonstrating techniques on • Hypermedia
Retention of audio perspectives
equipment. Written tests, projects • Collaborative
and music facts • Self-awareness
and presentations tasked with learning
creating, classifying, and • Desire to know
analyzing.
Table 1: Music technology objectives with example partnering approaches and their related instructional
methods and learning conditions. Developed by the author.

Learning: What Has Instruction Got to Do With It?”

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the University of Saint
Francis department of music technology and the
Purdue University learning design and technology
program.
Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 64, pp. 445-
469. (2013).
[3] Ariza, C. “Music and Technology: Recording
Techniques and Audio 21M.380.” Retrieved from
MIT Open Course Ware. (2013).
http://ocm.mit.edu.

8. REFERENCES [4] Bijsterveld, K. and Pinch, T.J. "Should one

[1] Anderson, A., Brown, M. (Ed.), “Over a decade
of promising pedagogical models and technology
for music teaching: Can the past still reliably guide
the future?” Future Challenges, Sustainable
Futures (pp. 36-39). Wellington: In proceedings
ascilite. (2012).
[2] Anderson, J., and Lee, H. S. “Student
applaud?: Breaches and boundries in the reception
of new technology in music.” Technology and
Culture, vol. 44 (3), pp. 536-559, (2003)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148160
[5] The Buck Institute for Education and Boise
State University. “Craft the driving question,”
(2013). Retrieved from http://pblonline.org/driving
_question/drivingquestion.html.

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 5 of 6
Rodgers
[6] Callision, D., “Constructivism,” School Library
Monthly, vol. 8 (4), pp. 35-51. (2001).
[7] Craner, P., “New Tool for an Ancient Art: The
Computer and Music,” Computers and the
Humanities, vol. 25, pp. 303-313, (1991).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30204425.
[8] Driscoll, M., “Psychology of Learning for
Instruction” (3 ed.), Boston: Pearson Education,
(2005).
[9] d'Escrivan, J. “Music Technology,”
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2011).
[10] Eddy, S., “New Generation, Great
Expectations: A Field Study of the Millennial
Generation,” Journal of Business Psychology, pp.
281-292. (2010).
[11] Hubner, D. and Ruenstein, R., “Modern
Recording Techniques,” Boston, MA: Focal Press,
(2010).
[12] Ji, Y. and Chen, T. “Improve Music Teaching
Quality throughout Using Information Technology,”
Second International Symposium on Data, Privacy,
and E-Commerce pp. 90-94, IEEE Computer
Society, (2010).
[13] King, A., “Collaborative Learning in the Music
Studio. Music Education Research, vol. 10 (3), pp.
423-438, (2008).
[14] Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P.A.
“Superiority of Collaborative Learning With
Complex Tasks: A Research Note on an
Alternative Affective Explanation,” Computers in
Human Behavior, vol. 27, pp. 53-57, (2011).
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 6 of 6
PARTNERING IN MUSIC TECHNOLOGY
[15] Prensky, M., “Teaching Digital Natives, Digital
Immigrants Part 1., On the Horizon Vol. 9 (5), pp.
1-6, (2001).
[16] Prensky, M., “Digital Natives, Digital
Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think
Differently?” On the Horizon, vol. 9 (6), pp. 1-6,
(2001).
[17] Prensky, M., “Teaching Digital Natives;
Partnering For Real Learning,” Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin, (2010).
[18] Scott, S., “Contemplating a Constructivist
Stance For Active Learning Within Music
Education.” Arts Education Policy Review, vol. 112,
pp. 191-198. (2011).
[19] Shuler, S., “Music and Education in the
Twenty-First Century: A Retrospective,” Arts
Education Policy Review, vol. 102 (3), pp. 25-36,
(2001).
[20] Talent Management Team. “Overcoming
Generational Gap in the Workplace,” United
Nations Joint Pension Fund, Executive Office. New
York: New York Secretariat Headquaters, (2010).
[21] Webster, P., “Historical Perspectives on
Technology and Music.” Music Educators Journal,
vol. 89 (1), pp. 38-43+54, (2002).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399883.
[22] Zhang, L., Ayers, P., and Chan, K., “Examing
Different Types of Collaborative Learning in a
Complex Computer-Based Learning Environment:
A Cognitive Load Approach.” Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 27 (1), pp.94-98. (2011).