(Download PDF) The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman Full Chapter PDF

The Music Professor Online Judith
Bowman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-music-professor-online-judith-bowman/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-music-professor-online-judith-
bowman/
The Astrology of Depression Judith Hill
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-astrology-of-depression-judith-
hill/
The Invention of Martial Arts: Popular Culture Between

Asia and America Bowman
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-invention-of-martial-arts-
popular-culture-between-asia-and-america-bowman/
The Last List of Miss Judith Kratt Andrea Bobotis
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-last-list-of-miss-judith-kratt-
andrea-bobotis/
Sky Realms Online Books 1-6: Sky Realms Online The
Complete Series Osgood
https://ebookmass.com/product/sky-realms-online-books-1-6-sky-
realms-online-the-complete-series-osgood/
Nutrition Through the Life Cycle 7th Edition Judith E.

Brown
https://ebookmass.com/product/nutrition-through-the-life-
cycle-7th-edition-judith-e-brown/
The Online Marketplace Advantage Adrien Nussenbaum
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-online-marketplace-advantage-
adrien-nussenbaum/
Writing and Reporting for the Media 12th Edition

Professor John Bender
https://ebookmass.com/product/writing-and-reporting-for-the-
media-12th-edition-professor-john-bender/
Myths of the Underworld in Contemporary Culture: The

Backward Gaze Judith Fletcher
https://ebookmass.com/product/myths-of-the-underworld-in-
contemporary-culture-the-backward-gaze-judith-fletcher/
The Music Professor Online
Judith Bowman
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197547366.001.0001
Published: 2022 Online ISBN: 9780197547403 Print ISBN: 9780197547366
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859669 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

FRONT MATTER
Copyright Page 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197547366.002.0003 Page iv
Published: April 2022
Subject: Music Psychology
p. iv
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021951868

ISBN 978–0–19–754737–3 (pbk.)
ISBN 978–0–19–754736–6 (hbk.)
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.001.0001
135798642
Paperback printed by Marquis, Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America

Preface

This book originated from recommendations for future research in my
previous book, Online Learning in Music: Foundations, Frameworks, and
Practices (2014). Of particular interest were studies of practice to determine
what pedagogical techniques would work best for what types of online music
courses, with focus on “the techniques and strategies used by successful online
instructors, how they changed their approaches to suit the online environ-
ment, and how they determined what constitutes high-quality music learning
experiences in various types of music courses” (Bowman, 2014, pp. 219–220).
Brendan McConville and Barbara Murphy expressed the same thoughts: “We
think the next step in the study of online courses should be a more comprehen-
sive inquiry addressing specific teaching strategies, pedagogical frameworks,
and curricular approaches that are generating successful online music courses
in various sub-disciplines and degrees” (McConville & Murphy, 2017, Part II,
para. 10). A serendipitous conversation with McConville and Murphy at the
meeting of the Association for Technology in Music Instruction in 2016 led to
a panel discussion on this topic at the next year’s ATMI meeting, and the idea
gained momentum from that point.
Key to the development of the book were the contributions of the following
professors, who represent various music disciplines. In applied music: Pamela
Pike, Keith Dye, Kathleen Melago. In music theory: Barbara Murphy, Brendan
McConville, Greg McCandless, Anna Gawboy. In music history/ musi-
cology: Allison Alcorn, Dan Keast, Art Brownlow, Louis Epstein. In music
appreciation: Kim Davenport, Bethanie Hansen. In music education: William
Bauer, Jane Kuehne, Jill Reese. I’m grateful to these professors for agreeing to
be interviewed and for sharing their experiences and their advice for prospec-
tive online instructors.
Special thanks to Norman Hirschy for his initial enthusiasm for this topic
and for his continued support and expert guidance through all stages of the
development of the book.
Introduction

Since the first fully online music courses were offered in the early 2000s, on-
line instruction in music in higher education has continued to grow, with in-
dividual course offerings in bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral programs as
well as fully online graduate music degree programs. That growth has been
documented in recent surveys (Johnson & Hawley, 2017; McConville &
Murphy, 2017), showing increases in the number of classes offered and the
size of those classes. McConville and Murphy concluded, “We think the next
step in the study of online courses should be a more comprehensive inquiry
addressing specific teaching strategies, pedagogical frameworks, and curric-
ular approaches that are generating successful online music courses in various
sub-disciplines and degrees” (2017, Part II, para. 10). And I had previously
suggested a similar strategy:
now is the time to reconsider the broader musical, educational, and technolog-
ical contexts in which online education in music is implemented; to conduct qual-
itative studies of how people learn in online environments; to investigate specific
strategies for online learning in music; and to direct more attention toward devel-
opment of appropriate instructional models and practical teaching approaches.
(Bowman, 2014, p. 50)
Book Overview
This book addresses those recommended next steps. It provides a snapshot

of online music instruction in higher education in the disciplines of applied
music, music theory, music history/musicology, music appreciation, and
music education. The book is structured in three parts, like sonata form: an ex-
position that presents the main themes, a development that reveals how those
themes play out in the lived curriculum, and a recapitulation that revisits and
synthesizes the themes as worked out in individual circumstances.
The Music Professor Online. Judith Bowman, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.003.0001
2 Introduction
Part I, “Exposition: The Changing Landscape,” presents the main themes.

Chapter 1, “In Person and Online: What’s the Difference?” summarizes cur-
rent reports on the status of online learning in general and in music; explores
differences between online and face-to-face instruction; reviews standards for
online teaching and learning; and describes the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

theoretical framework for online learning together with the Seven Principles
for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Chapter 2, “Teaching
Persona: Who Are You When You Teach?” explores ways to evolve one’s ex-
isting teaching persona into an online teaching persona by focusing on
teaching presence as found in the CoI framework. Chapter 3, “Pedagogy: How
Will You Teach Music Online?” aligns the teaching roles of the CoI with the
Seven Principles, describes signature pedagogies, and explores some peda-
gogical challenges.
Part II, “Development: Perspectives from the Field,” contains five chapters
that feature profiles of music professors who are teaching online and
examples of how the main themes appear and vary within their music dis-
ciplines: Chapter 4, “Applied Music”; Chapter 5, “Music Theory”; Chapter 6,
“Music History/Musicology”; Chapter 7, “Music Appreciation”; and Chapter 8,
“Music Education.” Each chapter presents the nature of the discipline and its
signature pedagogy, the state of practice in that discipline, narratives in which
featured professors describe their online teaching, and summary lessons for
online instruction in the discipline. Instructor profiles and narratives were
developed through case study inquiry based on personal communications
in which the professors addressed topics that included personal background,
how they became interested in teaching online, online teaching techniques
they found effective and those they found less effective, challenges and how
they dealt with them, how well their students learned, how online teaching
might have influenced their face-to-face teaching, their advice to instructors
who anticipate teaching online, and any other topics they considered signifi-
cant about their work.
Part III, “Recapitulation: Expanding Your Options,” returns to the main
themes and recommends a course of action for the future. Chapter 9,
“Moving Forward, Planning What’s Next,” synthesizes the practices of cur-
rent professors and presents an action plan with ways to move toward online
teaching in music. Chapter 10, “Coda: Teaching in the Time of Pandemics
and Other Disruptions,” addresses responses to the coronavirus pandemic
and recommends building on current online experience in order to be pre-
pared for other disruptions that may impose similar restrictions on in-person
instruction.
Introduction 3
This book is for instructors who want to teach online; for those who have
been asked to teach online although they had not planned to do so; for cur-
rent online instructors who may be teaching a course in a different music dis-
cipline, for music teacher educators who want to prepare their students for
online music instruction at the K–12 level, for graduate students anticipating

college level teaching, for instructors who are already teaching online and are
interested in different approaches and fresh ideas, and for others who may be
assisting prospective online music instructors.
The aim of the book is to help music professors integrate online teaching
into their current pedagogical repertoires—to frame the path to successful on-
line teaching as the evolution of a familiar role, to showcase models and ideas
from practitioners in various music disciplines, and to provide tools to guide
their course design process. Given the continued growth of online instruc-
tion together with the sudden pivot to remote instruction, online learning will
continue to be a critical area for music in higher education.
1
In Person and Online

What’s the Difference?
Online learning has reached a tipping point in higher education. It

has grown from a peripheral project of early tech adapters or a prac-
tice of the for-profit industry into an accepted way of delivering edu-
cation that is now deeply embedded in the majority of colleges and
universities.
—Kathryn Masterson, Online Education
Online learning has reached a tipping point—or so a recent report stated. Is

that the case in the music disciplines? National reports on online education
provide mass data on online learning generally, and they are useful in terms
of overall trends, enrollments, and various administrative, instructional, and
technological issues. However, because they focus on large-scale matters, they
lack detailed information about specific academic disciplines and pedagog-
ical practices. In most of these reports, faculty views are provided by academic
leaders who may be chief academic officers, chief online officers, provosts,
deans, program directors, or chairs, and coverage of music disciplines is
not specifically included. However, there is a recent record of online music
courses and programs in music: McConville and Murphy’s national survey of
online music courses and programs (2017) provides valuable information on
online teaching and learning in the music disciplines that is not available in
any other national report.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.003.0002
8 Exposition: The Changing Landscape
Status of Distance/Online Education
Online Education: Heading toward the Future
The survey report Online Education: Heading toward the Future, published by

the Chronicle of Higher Education (Masterson, 2017), announced that “Online
learning has reached a tipping point in higher education,” and that since its
beginnings with early adopters, it has become “an accepted way of delivering
education that is now deeply embedded in the majority of colleges and uni-
versities” (p. 4). The report, based on a 2017 survey of 1,287 higher education
administrators involved with online education, identifies factors related to the
maturing of online learning: growth in numbers of online courses offered and
in numbers of students enrolled; growing consideration of online learning as
critical to institutions’ strategic plans; increased focus on quality (e.g., Quality
Matters certification); increasingly positive faculty attitudes toward online
teaching and learning, particularly among those who try online teaching and
engage with instructional designers or participate in training workshops; a
sense that online teaching resulted in improved face-to-face teaching; and a
tendency to use instructional designers in light of the different skills needed
in online course design.
For the future, it points to the continued and growing significance of online
education. It concludes with a recommendation to develop communities of
practice “where members can exchange ideas and stories of what worked for
them teaching online and what didn’t” (p. 33). For music professors consid-
ering online teaching, this kind of information from faculty with experience
teaching online in the music disciplines would be most helpful as they plan
and design their own online courses.
Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the

United States
Another report, Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United

States (Seaman et al., 2018), compiled by the Babson Survey Research
Group in partnership with the Online Learning Consortium, Pearson, and
Tyton Partners, focused on enrollments. It used information from the U.S.
Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, with
the most recent data from fall 2016. Enrollment categories included students
In Person and Online: What’s the Difference? 9
enrolled exclusively in distance education courses, those enrolled in a mix of

distance and on-campus courses, and those enrolled in a minimum of one
distance course. The sample consisted of all active degree-granting higher
education institutions: public institutions, private for-profit institutions, and
private nonprofit institutions.

The report revealed that despite an overall downward trend in higher edu-
cation enrollment, distance student enrollments (i.e., students taking at least
one distance education course) had increased for the fourteenth straight year,
from 25.9% of all higher education enrollments in 2012 to 31.6% in 2016. The
2016 enrollments consisted of a total of 6,359,121 students, divided almost
evenly between students taking exclusively online courses and those taking a
mix of distance and on-campus courses. Of the total number of students, more
than 1 million studied at the graduate level and more than 5 million studied at
the undergraduate level. The report also noted that students enrolled in a mix
of courses could be taking their distance courses on campus and that most
students taking exclusively distance courses tended to be in the same state as
their institution (56.1%).
It included lists of the top fifty institutions by total number of students,
total number of students taking at least one distance course, total number of
students taking exclusively distance courses, and total number of students
enrolled in distance-only institutions, but it did not include information about
specific degree programs or disciplines. An author of the report noted the “re-
lentless” growth of distance enrollments during periods of ups and downs in
the economy and in higher education enrollments, and a Pearson executive
anticipated increased institutional commitment to distance learning.
CHLOE 4: Navigating the Mainstream
The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) Project, a partner-

ship between Eduventures Research and Quality Matters, was created in 2016
to examine the structure and organization of college-level online education
in the United States, and the first report was released in 2017. The sample
consisted of chief online officers (COOs), assumed to be uniquely suited to as-
sess online learning at their two-year public institutions and four-year public
and private institutions. The number of participants has grown each year, with
367 participants contributing to the 2020 survey.
CHLOE 4, Navigating the Mainstream (Garrett et al., 2020), “presents
mounting evidence that online education is increasingly mainstream in
the fabric of U.S. colleges and universities” (p. 6). The report is extensive.
It covers multiple aspects of online learning, including enrollment trends,
course design, finances, support services, and organizational structure. As
indicated by the title of the report, online education is becoming increas-
ingly mainstream. Institutions are using a variety of approaches in adapting

their practices to support online education, and online education is likewise
adapting to institutional models. Although there was continued enrollment
growth in 2019, many schools reported stable rather than increased enroll-
ment. Fully online courses and programs continued to be more common
than blended models except at community colleges. Master’s programs were
the most commonly offered online programs, accounting for up to 35% of
online degree programs, with about 40% of master’s students studying on-
line. Faculty were the primary course developers, and instructional designers
were somewhat involved.
The report addresses learning activities in what might be considered a
typical online course. However, it notes that because direct observation
was not possible within the large sample, COOs provided that informa-
tion, and their insights on this topic were likely to vary. Nevertheless,
the findings showed that interaction with course materials (e.g., study of
materials, work on assignments) accounted for 50% of online student time;
interaction with instructors and other students (e.g., participation in dis-
cussion forums, team projects) accounted for 20% of their time; and time
spent with other staff (e.g., advisers) accounted for the remaining time. The
most common online student engagement techniques were assignments
and discussion board posts. Although online cheating continued to be a
commonly cited concern, 70% of the COOs found no difference between
their online and on-campus students; cheating was equally common or
uncommon.
Significantly, the report includes a qualification of the findings regarding
learning activities based on COOs’ opinions, which suggests that information
directly from online instructors would provide more clarity:
In summary, CHLOE 4’s examination of patterns of online student interaction

is useful but limited. The survey relies on the opinions of COOs in the absence of
more direct evidence, and despite clearer definitions it is likely that individual
respondents interpret similar arrangements differently, muddying the data. The
typical online course appears to be more materials-centric than the typical on-
campus one, but both modalities, on average and at the institutional level, warrant
additional characterization if important nuances and possibilities are to be under-
stood. (p. 53)
Moving Forward
The conclusion of Online education: Heading toward the future contains a rec-
ommendation for developing communities of practice for discussion of on-
line teaching practices and concerns, and the CHLOE 4 report points out the

limitations of its findings about student interaction due to lack of direct ob-
servation. It would be helpful for both current and prospective online music
professors to hear directly from practicing online music faculty about what
works and what does not work in their own disciplines, what pedagogical
practices they find most effective, and what recommendations they might
have for others in their disciplines who are engaged in or considering on-
line teaching. First steps in that direction are presented in this book in the
discipline-specific chapters of Part II.
Status of Online Music Instruction
What Is Online? A National Survey of Course Offerings

in Music and a Case Study in Music Theory
In line with the continued growth of online education in general, online

education in music also continues to grow, as reported in national surveys
conducted in 2013 and 2016 to identify specific music courses being taught
online. The 2013 sample consisted of members of the Association for
Technology in Music Instruction (ATMI) and the National Association of
Schools of Music (NASM). For the 2016 survey, the sample was expanded
to College Music Society (CMS) members listed as interested in online ed-
ucation and to 35 schools listed by NASM as offering distance-learning
degrees. The report of both surveys, “What Is Online? A National Survey of
Course Offerings in Music and a Case Study in Music Theory” (McConville
& Murphy, 2017), presents data on numbers of courses and programs as well
as some details regarding course size, faculty, content, delivery mode, course
materials, and instructional approach.
A comparison of the data obtained from the two surveys revealed an in-
crease in master’s and doctoral degrees, from 10 master’s and 6 doctoral
programs in 2013 to 14 master’s and 11 doctoral programs in 2016. Although
the number of respondents decreased, from 58 in 2013 to 43 in 2016, the
number of courses reported increased from 67 in 2013 to 76 in 2016. Most
of the online courses were 15-week, three-credit courses, in line with com-
parable face-to-face courses. Online courses were offered in fall, spring, and
summer, with the greatest number of courses offered during the summer.
Nearly 90% of the online courses were at the undergraduate level, and most
were lower-division courses.
There was little change from 2013 to 2016 in the courses offered. The
highest number of online courses remained in the subdisciplines of musi-

cology/music appreciation, music theory, music education, and music tech-
nology, with a greater variety of topics as indicated by course titles in 2016.
In contrast to the growth of online courses in these subdisciplines, courses in
music composition declined, and aural skills courses were no longer offered
in 2016, a decline that appears to support the idea that online learning is better
suited to knowledge-based courses than to skills-based courses.
In addition, there was a significant increase in typical class size: from fewer
than 50 students in 2013 to 75 or more in 2016. Because both classes and class
sizes increased, a question about the cause arose and was proposed as a po-
tential survey topic: whether class size increased because the class was offered
online or whether the number of classes increased due to increased class size.
Another change involved the instructors teaching the online classes, with
fewer classes taught by tenure-track and adjunct faculty and more classes
taught by non-tenure-track faculty. The authors speculated that this change
could be indicative of a general change in higher education. Some content
changes from 2013 to 2016 included small increases in online content (6.8%),
recorded lectures, and online assessments. However, there was a substantial
decrease in lecture/online meetings (15.6%) and online office hours (6%)—
another potential survey topic.
The kinds of materials used in online courses remained constant
(e.g., videos, audio examples, website links, slide presentations, and text
documents), but there was an increase in the use of social media and mobile
apps that suggests movement toward more active learning techniques. Course
development showed a significant change in 2016, with more faculty devel-
oping courses than publishers and professional authors, as in the findings of
the CHLOE 4 report. Further, online course development time increased in
tandem with the increase in faculty developers: 84.9% at a year or less, 6.6% at
one to two years, and 4.1% at two to three years, perhaps indicative of the lim-
ited time faculty may have available for development activities.
As a next step in studying online courses, the authors recommended “a
more comprehensive inquiry addressing specific teaching strategies, peda-
gogical frameworks, and curricular approaches that are generating successful
online music courses in various sub-disciplines and degrees,” and they con-
cluded, “Such a study, as well as a continued self-examination of our own on-
line offerings and blended learning course components, will ensure we are
taking the best steps towards more effective education in music” (McConville
& Murphy, 2017).
A Closer Look

Based on a random sample (40%) of NASM-accredited schools, Johnson and
Hawley (2017) found that 102 of the schools offered online classes, and they
further examined 60 programs from that sample. The findings showed ex-
ponential growth of online courses from 2007 to 2015, with music history,
music appreciation, and musicology as the most frequently offered online
courses. Graduate online music programs were briefly discussed, with music
education predominant, and audio engineering was representative of STEAM
courses due to its dual emphasis on artistic and technical aspects. (The ac-
ronym STEAM refers to science, technology, engineering, arts, and math.)
The authors acknowledged the pedagogical challenges involved, but they also
noted the opportunities for valuable learning experiences in various online
contexts: informal, formal, and STEAM. Their findings are similar to those
reported by McConville and Murphy (2017).
Littles (2014) surveyed 230 faculty from 160 randomly selected NASM-
accredited institutions and documented music faculty perceptions regarding
the suitability of specific music courses for online delivery, online music
faculty’s instructional practices, and features of online music courses. The
findings, based on a Likert scale, revealed that faculty generally considered
music appreciation, music business, music history, music research, music
theory, introduction to music education, and instrumental or choral litera-
ture somewhat suitable for online delivery, and they considered composition,
music education methods, aural skills courses, and applied lessons not suit-
able. These perceptions align with earlier views about the relative suitability
for online delivery of knowledge-based versus skills-based courses.
As an example, Phillips (2008) pointed out the successes with knowledge-
based content in online doctoral and master’s music education programs and
the challenges involved in developing musical and teaching skills. Hebert
(2007) also acknowledged the suitability of theoretical study for graduate-
level music education, but he also suggested that musical and instructional
skills could be addressed online when supported by technological advances.
Notably, most of Littles’s faculty respondents did not have prior experi-
ence teaching online, but those with online teaching experience rated the
knowledge-based courses, as well as aural skills and instrumental/choral
arranging courses, significantly more suitable for online delivery.
Commonalities and Distinctions
Research on the effectiveness of online learning has involved comparisons of

delivery media, which generally have resulted in findings of “no significant
difference” and the conclusion that learning advantages are due to instruc-

tional techniques rather than delivery media. With those findings in mind,
I move away from media comparisons and focus instead on characteristics
of face-to-face and online teaching and learning. I identify practical teaching
techniques and strategies that are effective in online courses and that lead to
high-quality learning.
“No Significant Difference” Phenomenon
Research has provided evidence that outcomes of online learning are at least as
good as those of traditional educational models. That is, the research showed
no significant differences in learning outcomes between online and face-to-
face instruction. The “no significant difference” phenomenon refers to a body
of media comparison studies that compare learning outcomes of students in
face-to-face courses with those of students in distance courses. Russell (1999)
collected and compiled a total of 355 of these kinds of studies dating back to
1928. Distance delivery modes included print materials associated with cor-
respondence courses, radio, television, and online. Examination of the studies
revealed that when course materials and methodology were held constant,
there were no significant differences in student learning outcomes between
the distance course and the face-to-face course. Because learning outcomes
in distance courses were neither better nor worse than those in face-to-face
courses, Russell named this result the “no significant difference” phenom-
enon. However, “no significant difference” does not mean unimportant; it
means that the media treatments being compared are not different and that
they have an equal impact on learning. However, the methodologies used in
these earlier studies have been criticized, as many lacked controls of course
and student variables that would influence outcomes, such as control groups
and random assignment; course materials and instructional methods; and
student preparation, motivation, and interest.
In contrast to the perceived design weaknesses of those studies, a frequently
cited and well-respected U.S. Department of Education meta-analysis of on-
line learning research (Means et al., 2010) used a rigorous screening process.
To qualify for selection, studies needed to report on learning that took place
primarily over the internet, compare online learning with face-to-face or
blended learning, report on completed research, measure learning outcomes

in the same way for all conditions, and use a controlled design. Findings re-
vealed that learning outcomes in online courses were “modestly” superior
to those in face-to-face courses (p. xiv), with a small advantage for blended
instruction. The authors noted that the learning advantages were due to

differences in curriculum materials, pedagogical aspects, and learning time,
rather than the delivery medium. These findings agree with the thinking of
Richard E. Clark, often cited about learning with media: “whenever learning
occurs, some medium or mix of media must be present to deliver instruc-
tion,” and “if learning occurs as a result of exposure to any media, the learning
is caused by the instructional method embedded in the media presentation”
(1994, p. 26). The report concluded, “The meta-analysis findings do not sup-
port simply putting an existing course online, but they do support redesigning
instruction to incorporate additional learning opportunities online” (p. 51).
Critiques of the Department of Education meta-analysis have indicated
some perceived shortcomings. Jaggars and Bailey (2010) disputed the finding
of superior outcomes in online and blended courses, stating that it did not
hold in the case of fully online courses in the typical college and university
settings, as only seven of the studies were conducted with undergraduate or
graduate students in full-semester courses. In addition, they raised questions
about implications regarding access and success for students in underserved
populations. In a report of research on online learning in postsecondary ed-
ucation not included in the Department of Education meta-analysis, Lack
(2013) found insufficient evidence to support claims that online or blended
learning is significantly either more or less effective than face-to-face learning
and noted the challenges involved in conducting rigorous research involving
educational outcomes and human subjects. On the other hand, Nguyen (2015)
considered the evidence of the effectiveness of online learning compared with
face-to-face learning strong but inconclusive and advocated moving beyond
the “no significant difference” phenomenon, citing Twigg’s work on the topic
and stating, “Online learning is a story that is still being written” (p. 316).
In her report for a Pew Symposium in Learning and Technology, Twigg
(2001) described discussions of how to go beyond the “no significant differ-
ence” phenomenon. She pointed out that although online courses provided
24/7 access and offered increased flexibility to students, most courses followed
traditional academic practices. She commented, “as long as we continue to
replicate traditional approaches online—and treat all students as if they were
the same—we will once again find the ‘no significant difference’ phenomenon
vis-à-vis quality” (p. 5). In response, symposium participants, who had several
years of direct experience with online learning, explored various innovative
models that might provide better approaches to improving the quality of stu-
dent learning. Among key points related to improving the quality of online
student learning were a focus on what instructors can do with technology
that they cannot do without it, the need to engage online students in active
learning, and awareness that students learn from one another and that they

take on the teaching role more frequently in distance courses than they do in
traditional classrooms. Participants expressed interest in learning from other
participants and using relevant elements from others’ approaches in their own
institutions. They concluded that individualization was the key to moving
beyond the “no significant difference” phenomenon, specifically by individ-
ualizing student learning and standardizing faculty practice, building consist-
ency based on knowledge about quality, access, and cost.
In a further exploration of the “no significant difference” phenomenon,
Conger (2005) cited two major criticisms of media comparison studies: lack
of control of variables (acknowledged as a fairly common issue in educational
research) and lack of grounding in educational theory. On the educational
theory issue, Conger advocated asking the right questions, such as, “If the
theory is that students learn better face to face, what is it about face to face
learning that we believe leads to better outcomes? Potential answers include
levels and type of interaction, teacher attention, and social learning” (pp. 2–3).
Although Conger cited these factors as elements of face-to-face instruction,
they are also integral features of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical
framework with reference to online and blended learning, discussed later in
this chapter. Conger also cited Twigg’s (2001) recommendations for improving
the quality of online learning and concluded that the best way to move beyond
the “no significant difference” phenomenon would be to focus on develop-
ment of pedagogies that make optimum use of current technologies.
Later, Twigg remarked that she was “somewhat mystified about the con-
tinuing concern about quality assurance in online learning. . . . The charac-
teristics of a good face-to-face course are the same as those of a high-quality
online-learning course” (in Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010). She men-
tioned student and faculty support, dependable infrastructure, and effective
assessment as determinants of any high-quality learning experience, regard-
less of delivery mode.
Gains, Losses, or Differences
When we first think about online teaching and learning, we may compare it
with features of face-to-face teaching and immediately notice what’s missing,
such as the ability to observe and respond to facial expressions, gestures,

and body language; dynamic presentations of musical concepts; animated
discussions; the opportunity for students to ask questions during or after class
and receive an immediate explanation; spontaneity, including those teaching
moments that arise unexpectedly; and intangibles—the “magic” that can

happen particularly in performance-based instruction. In other words, we
may think in terms of losses or drawbacks, what we can’t do because we’re not
with our students in the same place and at the same time. However, there are
also advantages, and both advantages and disadvantages of online teaching
and learning have been documented over several years. Music researchers
have studied both individual music courses and online music education de-
gree programs and have identified advantages and disadvantages. Some
findings apply primarily to courses in specific music disciplines, while others
apply to both individual courses and fully online programs.
Advantages and Disadvantages

Among frequently mentioned advantages of online graduate programs in
music education are the flexibility and convenience offered by the online
setting. Students can remain in their teaching positions while they pursue
graduate studies, a plus for those in more remote locations. They can apply
what they are learning in their own classrooms, and they can choose their
own best times to complete assignments. They are spared a commute to and
from classes following a full day of teaching, providing more time for work
on graduate assignments, their own class preparation, and other responsi-
bilities. Students may interact with other students at a distance, both in the
United States and internationally, and they may complete their studies in a
shorter time than would be possible in a summer program or a combined ac-
ademic year/summer studies program (Bauer, 2014; Groulx & Hernly, 2010;
Koutsoupidou, 2014; Sherbon & Kish, 2005).
The effectiveness of online graduate programs as a form of professional de-
velopment is also cited fairly frequently. Based on surveys and interviews with
graduates of a distance-learning music education master’s program, Walls
(2008) reported positive changes in their teaching philosophies, teaching
practices, and personal growth. These changes were related to interaction
with faculty and peers, real-world applications of learning, and academic
quality. Similarly, based on interviews with recent graduates of another online
graduate music education program, Kos and Goodrich (2012) reported ben-
eficial relationships between online program characteristics and professional
development. Course content was associated with changes in teaching philos-
ophy, and discussion boards were associated with informal peer interaction
and sharing of pedagogical ideas that sometimes resulted in rethinking in-

structional practices. Although the coursework in this program generally met
their professional development needs, some graduates felt that they would
have benefited from courses that were not offered online (e.g., conducting,
Orff approach). The researchers concluded that some students might be less

well suited to online learning and that some courses might be better suited to
face-to-face settings.
The relative suitability of particular students for online learning and spe-
cific courses for online delivery highlights the advantages and disadvantages
of online learning, and it often influences students’ choice of courses and of
graduate programs. Because online classes may not suit everyone’s learning
preference and because there are fewer elective course options in online
programs, sometimes related to the challenges of offering skills-based courses
online, students may enroll in an online or face-to-face graduate program
based on those preferences as well as on practical considerations such as the
ability to remain in their current teaching positions (Albert, 2015; Bauer,
2014; Groulx & Hernly, 2010).
Among frequently mentioned disadvantages of online learning are
lack of in-person interaction with classmates and reduced contact with
professors, both of which sometimes result in feelings of isolation (Bigatel
et al., 2012; Groulx & Hernly, 2010; Hansen, 2020; Koutsoupidou, 2014;
Walls, 2008). One researcher noted that graduate assistantships are not
available to students in online programs, with subsequent loss of poten-
tial mentoring opportunities with supervising faculty (Groulx & Hernly,
2010). Although the lack of in-person interaction with the professor
and classmates is most noticeable in asynchronous courses, the effect
is lessened when synchronous meetings are incorporated. On the other
hand, some students value flexibility and convenience over in-person
interaction.
A limited choice of electives is also cited as a disadvantage in online grad-
uate music education programs (Bauer, 2014; Groulx & Hernly, 2010).
Performance- based courses and other electives (e.g., Orff and Kodály
approaches, conducting, applied lessons) are typically not offered due to
movement requirements as well as audio quality, time delay, video issues, and
faculty availability to teach some of these courses online.
Finally, in their study of online graduate music education programs, Groulx
and Hernly stated:
the underlying belief is that an online degree in music education is not necessarily
better or worse than a school’s traditional campus-based counterpart. Rather, it is
simply a different method of achieving a university’s goal of raising the educational

level of the community it was created to serve. (2010, pp. 60–61)
Similarities and Differences

Although it’s understandable that we initially focus on what seems to be
missing or lost when we teach online, framing online instruction in terms
of what we can’t do may prevent us from seeing what might be possible. It
would be more productive to consider similarities and differences between
face-to-face and online teaching rather than to focus on losses. Course object-
ives, learning outcomes, and content are likely to remain the same, whether
the course is offered face-to-face or online. An obvious difference between
face-to-face and online classes involves time and location, one difference with
multiple implications for content presentation and interaction. Following
are some examples of similarities and differences within knowledge-based
courses.
The course design process is the same for both face-to-face and online
courses: setting goals and objectives; creating assessments to provide evidence
that students have achieved the objectives; planning learning experiences,
teaching techniques, and course materials that align with the objectives.
Face-to-face classes meet at a specific time in a specific location and follow
a set schedule. Online classes are not bound to a specific time and location,
but they may include synchronous meetings at specific times. Like face-to-
face classes, they typically follow a set schedule, but students have the flexi-
bility to choose the most convenient time to access course content.
Content presentation in the face-to-face music classroom may include a lec-
ture, playing of musical excerpts, and spontaneous musical demonstrations,
with opportunities for student input and questions—an effective approach
when instructor and students are together at the same time and in the same
place. Online, short video presentations are more effective given student
viewing behaviors, and some presentation applications (e.g., VoiceThread)
support interactivity.
Discussions in face-to-face classes occur within the time allotted for the
class, which places certain limitations on student participation: some students
are talkative, some are more reticent, and sometimes class ends before eve-
ryone has had an opportunity to contribute. Online classes support sev-
eral discussion options. As in the face-to-face format, discussions in online
classes may be held synchronously using videoconferencing applications.
Asynchronous discussions, typically open for at least several days, provide the
opportunity for students to think about what they want to say and craft their
responses before posting to a discussion board. Time does not run out, eve-
ryone in the class must contribute, and there is a written record of the conver-
sation. Video discussion platforms (e.g., VoiceThread, Flipgrid) offer a similar
time advantage.
Both face-to-face and online classes can support active learning approaches

such as group work and project-based learning. In face-to-face classes, part of
the class meeting time can be allotted to small-group discussion culminating
in summaries by a spokesperson for each group. A similar format is easily ar-
ranged in online classes by assigning small groups to breakout rooms during
synchronous meetings. And both face-to-face and online classes can accom-
modate student projects that involve reflection, application, and writing about
course concepts, with in-person presentations in face-to-face classes and syn-
chronous or asynchronous presentations online.
When the same course is taught both face-to-face and online or a face-to-
face course has been redesigned specifically for online delivery, the course
objectives and learning outcomes will remain the same, while content pre-
sentation and interaction will differ due to the separation of instructor and
students in time and location.
Standards
Accreditation and other standards provide direction for development and

implementation of online courses. Featured in this section are the National
Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and Quality Matters (QM). NASM
publishes accreditation standards for distance learning in music. The QM pro-
gram provides standards for developing quality online and blended courses,
as well as a peer review process and certification of quality online courses.
National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)

on Distance Learning
The NASM Handbook (National Association of Schools of Music,

2021) contains accreditation standards that provide benchmarks for quality
distance programs. It lists general standards for distance education “appli-
cable to programs that are partially or entirely delivered by distance learning”
(p. 80). Programs with more than 40% of requirements fulfilled via distance
learning are designated as distance-learning programs. Notably, in line with
concerns regarding the effectiveness of online learning, two of the standards
require equivalency between on-campus courses and distance courses. Other

standards address appropriate delivery media and issues related to student
verification.
Standard III.H contains all the requirements for distance education.
Standards most closely related to instruction are as follows:

3. Standards Applications
a. Distance learning programs must meet all NASM operational and
curricular standards for programs of their type and content. This
means that the functions and competencies required by applicable
standards are met even when distance learning mechanisms pre-
dominate in the total delivery system.
...
4. Standards
...
b. Delivery Systems, Verification, and Evaluation
(1) Delivery systems must be logically matched to the purposes of
each program. Delivery systems are defined as the operational
interrelationships of such elements as program or course con-
tent, interactive technologies, teaching techniques, schedules,
patterns of interaction between teacher and student, and evalua-
tion expectations and mechanisms.
(2) The institution must have processes that establish that the stu-
dent who registers in a distance education course or program is
the same student who participates in and completes the program
and receives academic credit. Verification methods are deter-
mined by the institution and may include, but are not limited to,
secure login and password protocols, proctored examinations,
and new or other technologies and practices.
...
d. Program Consistency and Equivalency
...
(2) When an identical program, or a program with an identical title,
is offered through distance learning as well as on campus, the in-
stitution must be able to demonstrate functional equivalency in
all aspects of each program. Mechanisms must be established to
assure equal quality among delivery systems.
e. Communication with Students. Instructions to students, expectations

for achievement, and evaluation criteria must be clearly stated and
readily available to all involved in a particular distance learning pro-
gram. Students must be fully informed of means for asking questions
and otherwise communicating with instructors and students as re-

quired. (pp. 80–81)
Standard X.C.2 specifies residence requirements in distance-education

graduate programs and implies various ways to fulfill those requirements:
Residence policies are determined by the institution. Normally, a period of con-

tinuous concentrated study within the graduate community is required. Programs
based on distance learning, or with a significant distance learning component,
must fulfill the function of community by providing experiences that produce inter-
action among graduate students and faculty. (p. 129)
Quality Matters (QM)
QM is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to improve the quality of

online education through development of quality standards, professional de-
velopment in the use of rubrics and other practices targeted toward improve-
ment of online education, and a peer review and course certification process.
Some music professors report having completed QM or QM-based training,
and others have become QM reviewers. The QM Higher Education Rubric,
Sixth Edition, a research-based course design rubric, offers detailed criteria
for the design and evaluation of online courses. It consists of eight General
Standards and forty-two Specific Review Standards to be used in the design
and evaluation of online and blended courses. Although the complete rubric
is available only with membership in QM, a non-annotated version is avail-
able in PDF format on the QM website. The General Standards are:
Course Overview and Introduction

Learning Objectives (Competencies)
Assessment and Measurement
Instructional Materials
Learning Activities and Learner Interaction
Course Technology
Learner Support
Accessibility and Usability
The following selected Specific Review Standards emphasize the alignment of

all course components:
...
Learning Objectives (Competencies)
2.1 The course learning objectives, or course/program competencies,
describe outcomes that are measurable.
...
2.4 The relationship between learning objectives or competencies and
learning activities is clearly stated.
...
Assessment and Measurement
3.1 The assessments measure the achievement of the stated learning
objectives or competencies.
...
Instructional Materials
4.1 The instructional materials contribute to the achievement of the
stated learning objectives or competencies.
4.2 The relationship between the use of instructional materials and com-
pleting learning activities is clearly explained.
...
Learning Activities and Learner Interaction
5.1 The learning activities promote the achievement of the stated learning
objectives or competencies.
5.2 Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support
active learning. . . . (Quality Matters, 2020)
Other Specific Review Standards refer to technologies and course tools that
support active learning. Even in the abbreviated format, these standards are
useful for anyone who is designing an online course or redesigning a face-to-
face course for online delivery.
The Seven Principles for Good Practice

in Undergraduate Education
Teaching and learning principles provide quality standards and guidelines for
practices that support and improve effective teaching and learning. The Seven

Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering &
Gamson, 1987) were developed as a framework for evaluating good teaching.
The authors state, “These principles are not ten commandments shrunk to a
twentieth century attention span. They are intended as guidelines for faculty
members, students, and administrators—with support from state agencies
and trustees—to improve teaching and learning” (p. 4).
Although the Seven Principles were originally researched and devel-
oped as guidelines for improving undergraduate teaching and learning
in traditional courses and programs, they apply as well to graduate edu-
cation, and they hold across academic disciplines, including music. The
authors emphasize that while the individual practices are important, their
use in combination increases their overall effectiveness; that the princi-
ples work well within both professional programs and the liberal arts; and
that they work well for different types of students. Most of these princi-
ples are based on constructivist teaching practices, most notably the use
of active learning strategies, collaborative learning, and multiple learning
formats. According to the Seven Principles, good practice in undergrad-
uate education:
1. Encourages contacts between students and faculty.

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.
3. Uses active learning techniques.
4. Gives prompt feedback.
5. Emphasizes time on task.
6. Communicates high expectations.
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning. (Chickering & Gamson,
1987, p. 3)
As instructional technologies continued to advance and inform teaching

and learning in higher education, Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) pointed
out that to maximize the power of new technologies, they should be used in
a manner consistent with the Seven Principles. They explained, “Any given
instructional strategy can be supported by a number of contrasting technol-
ogies (old and new), just as any given technology might support different
instructional strategies. But for any given instructional strategy, some tech-
nologies are better than others” (p. 3). To illustrate their point, they described
what they considered to be among the most economical and appropriate ways
to use technologies current at that time “to advance the Seven Principles”
(p. 3). Ways to update implementation of the various principles included

asynchronous communication (e.g., email, computer conferencing) to sup-
port contact between students and faculty (Principle 1) and use of video feed-
back to assist with critique of preservice teachers (Principle 4). In concluding,
they encouraged faculty members to seek out technologies that were “inter-
active, problem oriented, relevant to real-world issues, and that evoke student
motivation” (p. 6). That advice still holds.
Since that time, other researchers have applied the Seven Principles to
online learning, with suggestions for implementation and use in instructor
evaluation. Graham et al. (2001) used the Seven Principles to evaluate four
online courses. Based on their findings, they developed a parallel set of
lessons for online instruction that might serve as a basis for further thought
and research. Palloff and Pratt (2003) expanded Graham et al.’s lessons with
additional suggestions for best practice that can be extended to online music
learning. Their collective research indicates that while content and learning
outcomes remain the same, content presentation and interaction differ; and
effective teaching, whether online or face-to-face, incorporates the Seven
Principles. Taken together, the Seven Principles, the lessons for online in-
struction, and the practical suggestions provide some useful guidelines
for online learning in music, as I have noted previously (Bowman, 2014,
pp. 182–185).
Principle 1: Good practice encourages student/faculty contact. Frequent
student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in
student motivation and involvement.
• Lesson for online instruction: Instructors should provide clear guidelines

for interaction with students.
• Suggestions for best practice: Instructors should inform students of their
response times for email (e.g., 24 hours) and for returning assignments,
and then be sure to observe those times.
Principle 2: Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among

students. Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort. Good
learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and
isolated.
• Lesson for online instruction: Well-designed discussion assignments facil-

itate meaningful cooperation among students.
• Suggestions for best practice: Instructors should provide focused discus-
sion questions that engage students with content, open-ended questions,
or tasks in which students demonstrate understanding and application

of knowledge. Additional discussion forums can support small-group
work on specific problem-solving tasks and collaborative projects that
involve social interaction. Instructors should post their expectations for
discussions; participation should be required and graded based on the
quality, not the length, of posts.
Principle 3: Good practice uses active learning techniques. Learning is not a

spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in classes listening
to teachers, memorizing prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers.
They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past
experiences, and apply it to their lives.
• Lesson for online instruction: Students should present course projects.

• Suggestions for best practice: Individual students can present projects syn-
chronously or asynchronously, and others in the course can comment on
the topic, ask questions, or raise issues related to the topic. Engagement
with authentic, real-life issues, case studies, or simulations that promote
interactive learning and convey high expectations (Principle 6) would
precede the presentations. Because not all learning in an online course
takes place online, students might also conduct research on an issue of
interest and report the findings to the group.
Principle 4: Good practice gives prompt feedback. Knowing what you know
and what you don’t know focuses learning. Students need appropriate feed-
back on performance to benefit from courses.
• Lesson for online instruction: Instructors need to provide two types of

feedback: information feedback and acknowledgment feedback.
• Suggestions for best practice: Instructors need to respond to stu-
dent questions and provide feedback on assignments in a timely
fashion. Information feedback could consist of answers to questions
or comments on assignments. Acknowledgment feedback could be an
email confirming receipt of a student assignment with an indication of
when to expect a more detailed response. Instructors can contribute
to discussion forums to point out connections among related issues or

concepts, offer clarifications, and summarize major points. They need to
maintain a balance, making their presence known but not dominating
the discussion.

Principle 5: Good practice emphasizes time on task. Time plus energy equals
learning. There is no substitute for time on task. Learning to use one’s time
well is critical for students and professionals alike.
• Lesson for online instruction: Online courses need deadlines.

• Suggestions for best practice: Online students need an optimum amount
of structure, as online courses demand more self-discipline, organi-
zation, and time management than face-to-face courses. Due dates for
discussions and assignments provide structure, as well as opportunities
to evaluate progress and make recommendations that will help students
complete the course successfully. Regularly scheduled synchronous
meetings can provide consistent contact with the instructor and other
students comparable to the structure built into on-campus face-to-face
courses.
Principle 6: Good practice communicates high expectations. Expect more,

and you will get more. High expectations are important for everyone—for the
poorly prepared, for those unwilling to exert themselves, and for the bright
and well motivated.
• Lesson for online instruction: Challenging tasks, sample cases, and praise
for quality work communicate high expectations.
• Suggestions for best practice: Instructors can communicate high
standards by designing rigorous and challenging online courses, cre-
ating challenging assignments that require analysis and synthesis of
reading materials, modeling the quality of discussion posts they expect of
students, and requiring and fostering active participation. Positive feed-
back within a discussion forum on particularly thoughtful or insightful
posts communicates high expectations, as do individual communica-
tions with students who fall behind or fail to participate.
Principle 7: Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

There are many roads to learning. People bring different talents and styles of
learning to college.
• Lesson for online instruction: Allowing students to choose project topics

incorporates diverse views into online courses.
• Suggestions for best practice: Choice in the selection of projects
highlights individual student interests and enriches the course with
multiple points of view. It is motivating because it allows students to

pursue personally meaningful topics and tasks in ways that build upon
their individual strengths. Instructors can also incorporate assignments
and learning activities that tap into the various learning modalities
(visual, auditory, kinesthetic) and learning styles (e.g., collaborative,
reflective). By using multiple media and both collaborative and indi-
vidual strategies, instructors can provide significant experiences for
all students while simultaneously challenging them to use less familiar
modalities or styles.
Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework
Founded on a collaborative constructivist view of teaching and learning, the

Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework is “a generic and coherent
structure of a transactional educational experience whose core function is to
manage and monitor the dynamic for thinking and learning collaboratively”
(Garrison, 2017, p. 24). It is a frequently used guide for the study and prac-
tice of e-learning, defined as “the utilization of electronically mediated asyn-
chronous and synchronous communication for the purpose of thinking and
learning collaboratively” (p. 2) and consisting primarily of online and blended
learning. E-learning is not to be considered a replacement for face-to-face
learning but rather a means for integrating the strengths of both online and
face-to-face learning experiences. And some instructors teaching traditional
face-to-face classes have been incorporating time-and place-independent
elements of online learning to increase options and opportunities for their
students.
The CoI framework “represents a process of designing and delivering deep
and meaningful learning experiences through the development of three inter-
dependent elements—social presence, cognitive presence and teaching pres-
ence” (Garrison, 2017, p. 24). Each of the elements is critical to a successful
online learning experience: social presence represents engagement with
participants; cognitive presence represents engagement with content; and
teaching presence represents engagement with goals and direction. Figure 1.1
displays the relationships among these presences, and description of each of
the presences follows.
Co
Social Cognitive m
m
Presence Presence
un
ns
ica
tio
tio
lica
nM
App

ediu
Engagement Supporting
Discourse Engagement
with
m
with
Partcipants Content
EDUCATIONAL
EXPERIENCE
Setting Regulating
Climate Learning
Dis
t
te x
Engagement
cip
on
Re Goals/Direction
lin
C
eS
al
on
ta
da i
at
n
rd
s Teaching Presence duc
E
Figure 1.1 Community of Inquiry framework.

Republished with permission of Taylor and Francis Group LLC–Books, from D. R. Garrison, E-Learning
in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice, 3rd ed., 2017.
Permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center Inc.
Social Presence: Engagement with Participants
Social presence is defined as “the ability of participants to identify with a

group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environ-
ment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way
of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2017, p. 42). In other
words, the primary identification is with an academic group in which per-
sonal relationships can develop in a natural way. Early concerns related to
social presence focused on the absence of visual and audio cues in asynchro-
nous communication (e.g., body language and vocal intonation) and how that
might affect the way communications are interpreted. However, results of re-
search on the CoI framework have shown that students can make connections
in text-based communications by using greetings, encouragement, and per-
sonal narratives. Results have also revealed that although text-based commu-
nication has social limitations, it also offers advantages not available in the
face-to-face classroom, such as reflection and a permanent written record of
a discussion. In an academic context, social presence does not consist merely
of social engagement; it creates an environment in which participants can feel
at ease engaging in the open communication needed for collaborative inquiry.

It “underpins collaborative inquiry and mediates cognitive and teaching pres-
ence” (p. 39). Social presence is subdivided into three components: interper-
sonal/affective communication, open communication, and sustained group
cohesion.

Affective communication, the emotional component, creates a sup-
portive climate of respect and trust, establishing the necessary foundation
for open communication and group cohesion. Getting to know other course
participants promotes open communication, active engagement, and collab-
oration. Within an asynchronous text-based environment, indicators of affec-
tive communication can include the use of emoticons; the specific language
used to express thoughts and ideas; self-disclosure, such as short autobio-
graphical statements that include information about favorite music, sports,
hobbies, and so on; and the use of humor. However, because humor can be
easily misunderstood in this kind of environment, it should be used with care,
probably after participants have become fairly well acquainted. An initial syn-
chronous or face-to-face meeting can expedite this process.
Open communication develops based on the respect and trust that are es-
tablished through the affective forms of communication. It is characterized
by acknowledgment of others’ contributions to the group. Indicators of open
communication include recognizing and replying to others’ posts, agreeing
with ideas as well as questioning them, and elaborating on others’ thoughts.
This kind of open communication promotes engagement in the processes of
reflection and dialogue, and it contributes to building a community of inquiry.
Together with affective communication, open communication promotes the
development of cohesive communication.
Group cohesion begins with addressing participants by name and expands
into referring to the group as “we” or “us,” establishing a group identity. These
kinds of expressions place the focus on the CoI. They contribute to the co-
hesiveness of the group and afford a strong basis for collaboration. Group
cohesion is the primary aim of affective communication, with personal
relationships emerging naturally through affective and open communication.
Bearing in mind that the goal of a CoI is to create meaningful learning
experiences, maintaining an optimum balance of social presence is critical.
Too much social presence may discourage questioning and constructive crit-
icism, while too little may inhibit open communication. The instructor plays
a key role in this process by modeling appropriate communications and
behaviors—actions that also project the instructor’s teaching persona—and
by steering social interactions toward elements of cognitive and teaching
presence: critical thinking, reflection, and dialogue.
Cognitive Presence: Engagement with Content
Cognitive presence refers to “facilitating the analysis, construction, and con-

firmation of meaning and understanding within a community of learners
through sustained reflection and discourse. In an online learning context

this includes being supported primarily through text-based communica-
tion” (Garrison, 2017, p. 50). Cognitive presence is closely connected with re-
flective or critical thinking, which includes both personal reflection and the
questioning and rethinking that occur in open communication. In the CoI
framework, cognitive presence is operationalized by the practical inquiry (PI)
model, which consists of four phases of inquiry: a triggering event, explora-
tion, integration, and resolution.
A triggering event involves conceptualizing a problem or issue. It could in-
volve presenting information designed to stimulate questions, elicit thoughts
and opinions, and promote discussion. The exploration phase involves
seeking additional information and ideas relevant to the problem or issue.
The search for information might include brainstorming, relating personal
experiences or anecdotes, agreeing or offering contradictory experiences,
and commenting on the relative value of contributed ideas or information.
Integration, the third phase, involves moving the discussion forward toward
a solution. Participants connect the ideas and information explored in the
second phase, elaborate on those ideas, and move toward consensus and a po-
tential solution to the problem or issue. Resolution, the fourth and final phase,
involves application and evaluation of the proposed solution. This could be
achieved in a direct way through implementing an individual or group project
or indirectly through presenting and critiquing hypothetical applications.
Development of cognitive presence requires a strong teaching presence,
characterized by designing a task with a clear objective, and expert facilita-
tion, shaping the discussion so that it proceeds in timely fashion from the ini-
tial and exploratory phases toward the integration and resolution phases.
Teaching Presence: Engagement with Goals

and Direction
Teaching presence is central to the CoI framework. This presence is inten-

tionally called teaching presence rather than teacher presence to empha-
size a collaborative approach to the teaching process in which students may
sometimes assume a teaching role, perhaps as co-facilitators or discussion
moderators. Teaching presence has been defined as “the design, facilitation,
and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing
personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes”
(Garrison, 2017, p. 71). Each of these factors represents a role the instructor
plays in the online learning environment: designer, facilitator, and director or
scholar. These roles describe the actions an instructor takes, bringing together

social and cognitive presences to create a community of inquiry, and in that
sense, the roles are integrative.
Design and organization are concerned with the overall structure and pro-
cess of a course of study. Challenges include accommodating extended col-
laboration in an online or blended environment and completing the course
structure and content prior to the beginning of the course. Design refers to
decisions about course structure that are determined prior to its beginning.
Organization, although it involves similar decisions, refers to changes made
once the course is in progress. In this collaborative constructivist framework,
design and organization need to be flexible to accommodate student input
regarding content and how it is approached. Design and organization involve
determining course content overall, identifying weekly topics as the course
progresses, explaining the goals of each week’s discussion, designing instruc-
tional strategies, providing guidelines for participation, and setting time
limits on participation or cutoff dates for submissions.
Facilitation of reflection and dialogue is central to the online learning expe-
rience; it requires attention to both social and cognitive matters. The primary
tasks in this role are managing and monitoring discussions with the objec-
tive of establishing and maintaining communication focused on educational
goals. Facilitation includes setting the tone for the discussion, encouraging
participation through skillful prompts or questioning, acknowledging in-
sightful posts, weaving threads of the discussion to point out areas of agree-
ment, identifying areas of disagreement, pointing out tangents that move
off topic, and moving the discussion toward consensus in a timely fashion.
The instructor models discussion posts appropriate to critical discourse and
contributes enough to keep the discussion on track while taking care not to
dominate the discussion and consequently dampen student participation.
When students are given the opportunity to exercise teaching presence as
co-facilitators or discussion moderators, they may take greater ownership of
the online discussion and contribute more effectively to the achievement of
learning outcomes.
Direct instruction brings the instructor’s content expertise and schol-
arly leadership into play, transcending the more limited idea of facilitator as
“guide on the side.” It is a proactive approach that positions the instructor as
the director of learning, who provides both initial and continuing direction
regarding content issues, learning activities, and the progress of the discus-
sion. Direct instruction includes presenting content and posing questions to
be explored; focusing on specific issues; summarizing the discussion, shaping
it, and moving it forward; enhancing understanding through feedback; clar-
ifying misconceptions; and contributing additional knowledge or directing

students toward further resources about topics of discussion.
In addition to emphasizing the integrative nature of the dimensions of
teaching presence, Garrison reiterates its central role, stating, “Teaching pres-
ence is not possible without the expertise of a pedagogically experienced
and knowledgeable teacher who can identify worthwhile content, organize
learning activities, guide the discourse, offer additional sources of informa-
tion, diagnose misconceptions, and provide conceptual order when required”
(2017, p. 76).
Community of Inquiry in Online Music Instruction
Based on the definition of e-learning as “the utilization of electronically medi-

ated asynchronous and synchronous communication for the purpose of
thinking and learning collaboratively” (Garrison, 2017, p. 2), the role of the
CoI framework as a guide to the practice of e-learning, and its adaptability for
any collaborative instruction, we can anticipate its usefulness in online music
instruction, particularly in knowledge-based music courses.
Online courses may be designed as asynchronous, synchronous, or a com-
bination of the two, sometimes referred to as a blended online learning de-
sign, or BOLD (Power & Vaughan, 2010). Other authors refer to the blending
of synchronous and asynchronous online learning experiences as bichronous
online learning (Martin & Ritzhaupt, 2020). A blended online learning de-
sign avoids some limitations of purely asynchronous designs, as it includes
synchronous elements that provide immediacy and spontaneity that can
strengthen social presence and the sense of community. Garrison observed
that blended learning is becoming more associated with engaging instruc-
tional approaches than with technologies, and he predicted, “As the adoption
of blended learning designs continues to evolve and more and more courses
meet the minimal requirement to be considered blended, the term may well
become superfluous” (2017, p. 107).
In any online course, music courses included, social presence and a sense
of community are initiated when students introduce themselves informally
and offer some information about themselves, such as hobbies, pets, or topics
that intrigue them. Introductions can be accommodated in various ways: in
an asynchronous discussion forum, in an interactive video application, or in a

videoconferencing application. Likewise, there are various options for group
discussions. In asynchronous discussions, students can think before they
speak and develop a considered response to an issue. Synchronous discussions
support brainstorming, and breakout sessions within these discussions offer

opportunities for small-group analysis and problem-solving that can be
shared with the full group.
Knowledge-based music courses work well in either context. In a synchro-
nous discussion in a music history/musicology course, small groups of three
or four students can be assigned to breakout rooms to explore ideas collab-
oratively, such as development of a genre, compositional technique, or per-
formance practice in a specific musical era. Following their discussion, they
can assume the teaching role, presenting their thoughts to the full group and
supporting their arguments by mentioning the sources used, just as they
would in a face-to-face class. Similarly, students in music education courses
that focus on philosophy, learning theories, or curriculum design can benefit
from the same procedures as they explore advantages of selected methodolo-
gies, while students in music theory courses such as form and analysis might
discuss and present various solutions to an analytical problem.
Skills-
based courses present more challenges. In these courses, some
instructors use a blended approach, incorporating elements of online learning
to increase or enhance options and opportunities in their face-to-face classes.
For example, in a music education methods course, small groups of students
may be assigned to asynchronous discussions to examine available method
books and teaching techniques, discuss their relative merits, and plan how to
share their ideas with the class. In face-to-face meetings, the groups may take
on the teaching role by presenting brief teaching demonstrations. Overall,
students construct meaning by assuming the roles of both learner and
teacher, engaging in discussion, and sharing their ideas within their learning
community.
Finally, research on subject-matter effects on online learning, specifically
student perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presences (Arbaugh
et al., 2010), revealed that because of its emphasis on a constructivist ap-
proach, the CoI framework may be more applicable to applied disciplines
than to pure disciplines that employ instructor-oriented approaches. In ad-
dition, because the CoI emphasizes inquiry, the researchers felt it might be
most appropriate for disciplines like education, health care, and business.
They suggested that their findings, together with other research that cited ac-
ademic discipline as a possible predictor of course outcomes in online and
blended learning, warranted study of the CoI framework in multidisciplinary
graduate courses. Their research report, like other reports on the status and
effectiveness of online education, does not specifically address music, but we
might extend the findings on education to music education, particularly at the
graduate level. However, because of the multifaceted nature of music study,
there are many other issues unique to online music learning, and different

music subdisciplines require different pedagogical approaches.
The focus on subject- matter effects on online learning aligns with
some current thinking about online learning in the music subdisciplines.
McConville & Murphy (2017) stated, “We think the next step in the study of
online courses should be a more comprehensive inquiry addressing specific
teaching strategies, pedagogical frameworks, and curricular approaches that
are generating successful online music courses in various sub-disciplines and
degrees” (Part II, para. 10). And Bowman (2014) suggested:
It would seem that now is the time to reconsider the broader musical, educational,
and technological contexts in which online education in music is implemented; to
conduct qualitative studies of how people learn in online environments; to inves-
tigate specific strategies for online learning in music; and to direct more attention
toward development of appropriate instructional models and practical teaching
approaches. (p. 50)
Correspondences: Seven Principles and Community

of Inquiry
The Seven Principles were developed as a framework for evaluating good

teaching and were intended to serve as guidelines to improve teaching and
learning. The CoI framework is a guide to the study and practice of online ed-
ucation. Specific indicators representing meaningful learning activities in the
categories of social, cognitive, and teaching presence were used as the basis for
the CoI survey instrument (Garrison, 2017, pp. 173–175), which improved
data analysis in CoI research and helped to expand the scope of studies across
disciplines, technologies, and other factors. Garrison suggested that the
survey instrument could be useful in studying disciplinary differences, and
Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2014) recommended adapting it for study of online
programs.
We can observe several correspondences between the Seven Principles and
the CoI’s teaching presence, both of which embody a constructivist approach.
Table 1.1 aligns the Seven Principles with some corresponding elements
found in the CoI survey instrument.
Table 1.1 Correspondence between Seven Principles and Community of Inquiry.
Seven Principles CoI Survey Instrument
1. Encourages contacts between students Teaching Presence: Design and Organization

and faculty. 3. Instructor provided clear instructions
on how to participate in course learning

activities.
Teaching Presence: Facilitation
6. Instructor actions reinforced the
development of a sense of community
among course participants.
2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation Teaching Presence: Facilitation
among students. 3. Instructor helped to keep course
participants engaged and participating in
productive dialogue.
3. Uses active learning techniques. Teaching Presence: Facilitation
3. Instructor helped to keep course
participants engaged and participating in
productive dialog.
4. Gives prompt feedback. Teaching Presence: Direct Instruction
2. Instructor provided feedback that
helped me understand my strengths and
weaknesses relative to the course’s goals and
objectives.
3. Instructor provided feedback in a timely
fashion.
5. Emphasizes time on task. Teaching Presence: Facilitation
4. Instructor helped keep course participants
on task in a way that helped me to learn.
6. Communicates high expectations. Teaching Presence: Design and Organization
1. Instructor clearly communicated important
course topics.
2. Instructor clearly communicated important
course goals.
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of Teaching Presence: Direct Instruction
learning. 2. Instructor provided feedback that
helped me understand my strengths and
weaknesses relative to the course’s goals and
objectives.
References
Albert, D. J. (2015). Online versus traditional Master of Music in Music Education degree
programs: Students’ reasons for choosing. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(1), 52–64.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714548588
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher
Education, 13(1–2), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.006
Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and
responding to music. Oxford University Press.
Bigatel, P. M., Ragan, L. C., Kennan, S., May, J., & Redmond, B. F. (2012). The identification
of competencies for online teaching success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

16(1), 59–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i1.215
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2012). Interactive online learning
at public universities: Evidence from randomized trials. https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/08/sr-ithaka-interactive-learning-online-at-public-universities.pdf
Bowman, J. (2014). Online learning in music: Foundations, frameworks, and practices. Oxford
University Press.
Chickering, A. W., & Erhmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as
lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010). Forum: Has the quality of online learning kept up
with its growth? https://www.chronicle.com/article/forum-has-the-quality-of-online-
learning-kept-up-with-its-growth/
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Research and Development,
42(2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
Conger, S. B. (2005). If there is no significant difference, why should we care? Journal of
Educators Online, 2(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2005.2.1
Garrett, R., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E. E. (2020). The changing landscape of online educa-
tion (CHLOE): Navigating the mainstream. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/
resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-4-report-2020
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A Community of Inquiry framework for
research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective
teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. Technology Source (March/April).
https://w ww.researchgate.net/publication/251383888_S even_principles_of_effective_
teaching_A_practical_lens_for_evaluating_online_courses
Groulx, T. J., & Hernly, P. (2010). Online master’s degrees in music education: The growing
pains of a tool to reach a larger community. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 28(2), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123310361765
Hansen, B. L. (2020). Teaching music appreciation online. Oxford University Press.
Hebert, D. G. (2007). Five challenges and solutions in online music teacher education. Research
and Issues in Music Education, 5(1). https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/rime/vol5/iss1/2
Jaggars, S. S., & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response
to a Department of Education meta-analysis. Community College Research Center, Teachers
College, Columbia University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512274.pdf
Johnson, C., & Hawley, S. H. (2017). Online music learning: Informal, formal, and STEAM
contexts. International Journal on Innovations in Online Education, 1(2). https://
onlineinnovationsjournal.com/streams/visual-and-performing-arts/31605522642c2e6f.
html
Kos, R. P., Jr., & Goodrich, A. (2012). Music teachers’ professional growth: Experiences of
graduates from an online graduate degree program. Visions of Research in Music Education,
22. http://www-usr.rider.edu/%7Evrme/v22n1/visions/Kos_Goodrich_Online_Graduate_
Degree_Program.pdf
Koutsoupidou, T. (2014). Online distance learning and music training: Benefits, drawbacks and
challenges. Open Learning, 29(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1011112
Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2014). Adapting the Community of Inquiry survey for an online
graduate program: Implications for online programs. E–Learning and Digital Media, 11(1),
59–71. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.59
Lack, K. A. (2013). Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary
education. https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ithaka-sr-online-learning-

postsecondary-education-may2012.pdf
Littles, D. M. (2014). Characteristics of online music courses: A survey of music faculty
(Publication No. 3581869) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Martin, F., Polly, D., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2020, September 8). Bichronous online
learning: Blending asynchronous and synchronous online learning. EDUCAUSE
Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/9/bichronous-online-learning-blending-
asynchronous-and-synchronous-online-learning
Masterson, K. (2017). Online education: Heading toward the future. Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://news.vitalsource.com/chronicle-online-education-heading-toward-the-
future-survey
McConville, B., & Murphy, B. (2017). What is online? A national survey of course offerings
in music and a case study in music theory. College Music Symposium, 57. https://doi.org/
10.18177/sym.2017.57.itm.11345
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Center for
Technology in Learning, U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/
tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
National Association of Schools of Music. (2021). Handbook 2020–21. https://nasm.arts-ac-
credit.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/M-2020-21-Handbook-Final-01-08-2021.
pdf
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319. http://jolt.merlot.org/
Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online
learners. Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, K. H. (2008). Graduate music education. Research and Issues in Music Education, 6(1).
https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/rime/vol6/iss1/2
Power, M., & Vaughan, N. (2010). Redesigning online learning for international graduate sem-
inar delivery. Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 19–38. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ892385.pdf
Quality Matters. (2020). Specific Review Standards from the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth
Edition. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHig
herEducationRubric.pdf
Russell, T. L. (Ed.). (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research
annotated bibliography on technology for distance education, as reported in 355 research
reports, summaries, and papers. North Carolina State University.
Seaman, J. E., Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the
United States. Babson Survey Research Group. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/
gradeincrease.pdf
Sherbon, J. W., & Kish, D. L. (2005). Distance learning and the music teacher. Music Educators
Journal, 92(2), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3400195
Twigg, C. A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/Mono4.pdf
Walls, K. C. (2008). Distance learning in graduate music teacher education: Promoting profes-
sional development and satisfaction of music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education,
18(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083708323137

2
Teaching Persona

Who Are You When You Teach?
We teach who we are

—Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach
The teaching persona is the conduit that connects the disciplinary

content, learning environment, and learning experiences.
—Linda Shadiow and Maryellen Weimer, “How Do I Make Choices
about Who I Am as a Teacher?”
The idea of teaching online can initially feel disorienting. Rather than a phys-
ical classroom where you and your students meet in person, your classroom
is online, the computer is your podium, and your students attend class at their
own computers in a location separate from yours. You may be concerned that
you’ll lose the human element and your own teaching style—that you won’t
be able to project the same energy level, provide the same inspiration, pro-
duce the same level of student interaction and engagement, and achieve the
same quality of instruction as you do in your face-to-face courses. Potential
changes abound: How will you present lectures and illustrate them with mu-
sical examples and other media? How will you demonstrate musical analyses?
How will you engage your students in active learning experiences and gauge
their participation? The question is how to be an online professor—without
the familiar context of a physical classroom and faced instead with a digital
environment. To resolve these issues, you’ll need to rethink how you present
yourself to your students and how you interact with them—your teaching
persona and the various roles you perform as a teacher.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197547366.003.0003
Teaching Persona: Who Are You When You Teach? 41
Teacher Identity
Simply stated, identity is self-concept, the way people see themselves in re-
lation to others, and it may be considered a process in which people reinter-
pret themselves over time. Professional identity is likewise an ongoing process

that balances that self-concept with different roles we play. Our professional
identity as professors of music is multifaceted. It includes complementary
subidentities or self-concepts that relate to our personal characteristics, the
contexts in which we teach, and the relationships we develop with students
and colleagues. Given our earlier experiences with music, we may first have
identified as a performer. In graduate studies, we likely expanded that iden-
tity to include music scholar, and as professors of music, we integrated a third
subidentity, that of teacher. We can think of these subidentities as more or
less harmonizing (Beijaard et al., 2004, p. 122), and we merge them when we
teach: “Metaphorically, we speak—or sing—our selves as a chorus of voices,
not just as the tenor or soprano soloist” (Mishler, 1999, p. 8). Further, our
teacher identity evolves with time and experience, and that evolution may in-
clude integrating online teaching into our pedagogical repertoire.
Although a strong professional teacher identity is critical to effective
teaching practice, development of teacher identity and study of college-
level pedagogy have not typically been a central focus in doctoral music de-
gree programs, although many doctoral students perform teaching duties.
For the most part, professors have earned advanced degrees as disciplinary
experts and scholars, but, with some exceptions, they have not received par-
allel pedagogical preparation. A master’s or doctoral degree has been the pri-
mary credential for college teaching, and many professors might agree that
in their doctoral programs, the primary focus was on disciplinary content
and research, with little to no formal preparation for teaching. Therefore, in
early stages of their academic careers, they may have modeled their teaching
after mentors or former professors whose teaching they admired. That situ-
ation began to change with the focus on the scholarship of teaching (Boyer,
1990) and subsequent recommendations to help doctoral students learn from
experience, by framing seminar presentations, conference papers, and poster
presentations as teaching activities. This mindset was expected to raise aware-
ness of the relationship between scholarship and teaching and to serve as a
step toward developing a teacher identity.
Developing a College Teacher Identity
There is growing interest among the music disciplines in preparing grad-

uate students to be both content and teaching specialists, as evidenced by
the growing body of literature on the topic, including textbooks, journals,

journal articles, conferences, and working groups devoted to teaching in the
university setting. Many higher education institutions support teaching and
learning centers that offer workshops, seminars, and individual consultations
on improving teaching, as well as pedagogical programs for teaching
assistants. On the basis that most graduate music students will ultimately
teach at some point in their professional careers, the National Association
of Schools of Music (NASM) strongly encourages the inclusion of music
teaching experiences and specifies that those in doctoral programs should be
introduced to pedagogy of basic undergraduate music curricula.
Orientation sessions for graduate teaching assistants are common, but
other more intensive and targeted efforts are also offered, for example, grad-
uate students teaching undergraduate courses together with their adviser and
semester-length pedagogy courses specific to a discipline. After participating
in these kinds of programs—learning how people learn, becoming familiar
with best practices for undergraduate education, learning how to design and
develop a course that incorporates these practices, and grasping the impor-
tance of good teaching—prospective college teachers may begin to construct
their own college teacher identity together with their own teaching prac-
tice. Some colleges and universities have integrated pedagogy components
into their doctoral programs as minors or cognates. In addition to courses
on college-level music teaching, some higher education institutions offer
courses in preparation for teaching online. There are also graduate-level de-
gree and certificate programs in pedagogy, with many in piano pedagogy and
a growing number in music theory and music history, as well as voice and
other instruments. There are also a few publications designed to prepare grad-
uate music students to teach undergraduate music courses, although without
specific attention to online teaching.
Developing an Online Teacher Identity
There is a great deal of research on development of teacher identity within

preservice music teacher education programs but little focused on higher
education, and research focused on how college teachers develop an on-
line teacher identity is relatively sparse. However, several interview-based
qualitative studies of instructors’ development of professional teacher iden-

tity and online teacher identity describe personal experiences and online
interactions that can be informative for others in the process of becoming on-
line instructors (Baxter, 2012; Conrad, 2004; Johnson et al., 2014; Meloncon,
2007; Richardson & Alsup, 2015). Findings are related to what is most impor-

tant to teachers in face-to-face settings and how to achieve the same or equiv-
alent results online. Often teachers feel they are better suited to face-to-face
teaching than to online teaching, and they are concerned that they can’t be
effective online. They are accustomed to being with students and interacting
with them in person; they value the immediacy of face-to-face communi-
cation and are concerned about maintaining student engagement when re-
sponse time is delayed. Some doubt they can project their teaching style in
an online structure; they feel it may inhibit their informal style and use of
humor. Major themes that occur in these studies include becoming familiar
with online tools, developing teaching strategies for the online environment,
and negotiating social issues.
Familiarity with online tools and technologies is key to opening the on-
line classroom to the skills you use in the face-to-face classroom. In asynchro-
nous online courses, interaction with online students necessarily involves
some written communication, typically carried out in discussion forums,
where there is a time delay between postings and replies. You can convey a
formal or informal teaching style through your discussion posts, depending
on the nature of your contribution, for example, acknowledging a student’s
insights, adding information, or clarifying misconceptions. However, if you
choose to use a blended online learning design, incorporating both asynchro-
nous discussions and real-time meetings via videoconferencing software, you
can provide the immediacy you want and project your teaching style, along
with humor as appropriate. You can use the same synchronous application to
hold virtual office hours if you wish. Asynchronous online discussions pro-
vide an advantage that face-to-face discussions do not: online classes do not
end before all students have had the opportunity to contribute. And asyn-
chronous discussions afford an additional benefit: you have a written record
of everyone’s thoughts that provides an ongoing means of gauging students’
understanding and progress in your course.
It has been suggested that when teachers change the place where they teach,
they also need to redefine themselves (Meloncon, 2007). However, we don’t
abandon one identity to take on another; we form a new identity by linking
our current values with new ones. So as you move into online teaching, you
will not be changing your identity; you’ll be expanding it, integrating new
skills into your current repertoire. The question is what additional skills you
need as an online teacher. Small, gradual changes to your current practice can
help you teach effectively online, and you may find, as others have, that the
adjustments you make for online teaching also help you improve your face-
to-face teaching.

Teaching Persona
We express our teacher identity (who we are) through the teaching persona or
personas we construct (how we present ourselves), and our teaching persona
includes several roles (what we do as teachers). The word “persona” refers to
a theater mask worn by actors in ancient times or to the character played by
an actor. Carl Jung defined persona as the public personality that people dis-
play in social interactions, a social mask that we wear. The reference to a mask
and an actor playing a role resonates with the characterization of teaching as
a type of performance, where the way you present yourself to students differs
in some ways from your everyday self but is responsive to the needs of the
teaching situation (Curzan & Damour, 2006). From a social constructivist
perspective, you construct your teaching persona through the actions and
pedagogical choices you make, based on the kind of learning environment
you want to create. And although you adopt a teaching persona, you need
not think of that persona as inauthentic; it is a version of yourself that you
constructed (Parini, 2005).
Authentic Teaching Persona
You want your teaching persona to be authentic—to represent who you are,
to be consistent with your beliefs about your discipline, and to reflect schol-
arship in your discipline. You want it to be a version of your teacher identity
tailored to meet the requirements of your teaching context and your students,
how you make yourself known in that specific setting. And you don’t create
a single, static teaching persona; your teaching persona evolves over time as
your instructional contexts change, and it evolves as you meet different in-
structional needs and challenges. You may create multiple personas to suit
specific instructional situations or roles you fulfill. You can adopt different
personas, different versions of yourself that you present to students, to meet
specific learning requirements in the various courses you teach, for ex-
ample, small music research seminars, large classes for non-music majors,
skills-based courses, music education methods courses, or graduate-level
musicology courses. You may act as a coach or mentor in smaller classes, as

a content expert in larger classes, and you may adopt a more formal or less
formal style in any type of class.

Online Teaching Persona
Likewise, when you teach online, you want to project an authentic teaching
persona that reflects who you are, an online version of yourself that reflects
your face-to-face teaching persona. You want to integrate your face-to-face
and online teaching selves. However, when you slip into your online teaching
persona, you need to accommodate some differences by changing some
things you do. In the face-to-face classroom, you are directly visible to your
students, but in the online setting, you need to think about effective ways to
present yourself to students, to be virtually visible. In the online classroom,
you need to be more intentional about visibility and presence, especially when
the course is asynchronous, with no in-person or synchronous meetings.
Often you’re advised to be yourself or to humanize your course, but the
question remains: how do you do that in an asynchronous environment? In
that case, you need to convey your persona through your writing, with more
detailed and engaging messages, for example, using a conversational tone
in assignment instructions and including an invitation to contact you for
help if needed, rather than simply writing terse descriptions. Posting a pic-
ture of yourself along with a short biography or a short video introduction
allows your students to see you—and in the case of video, hear you and ob-
serve your mannerisms—and get to know a little about you and your interests.
With VoiceThread, a web-based application that provides a multimedia, par-
ticipatory environment, you can record a video introduction, and students
can add their own video introductions in response to yours, creating a per-
sonal connection and interaction like what you experience in the face-to-face
classroom.
Posting new articles to your course site and sending alerts or announcements
about new materials and other course matters remind students that you are
there, directing and contributing to their learning experience. Participating
in discussion forums, acknowledging thoughtful student posts, and clari-
fying misconceptions or complex concepts also highlight your visibility and
presence in the course. Persona has been described as a presence in a course
(Shadiow & Weimer, 2015, October 5). Online teacher persona might there-
fore be equated with online teacher presence: being there, being visible to
your online students in multiple ways, being present.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
earth was scorched and baked, the heat was more oppressive than in the
mountains, and for about thirty miles we moved along enveloped in a cloud
of dust, which soaked into one’s clothes and hair and skin as if it had been a
liquid substance. On our arrival in Stockton we were of a uniform color all
over—all identity of person was lost as much as in a party of chimney-
sweeps; but fortunately the steamer did not start for an hour, so I had time
to take a bath, and make myself look somewhat like a white man before
going on board.
The Stockton steamboats, though not so large as those which run to
Sacramento, were not inferior in speed. We steamed down the San Joaquin
at about twenty miles an hour, and reached San Francisco at ten o’clock at
night.
San Francisco retained now but little resemblance to what it had been in
its earlier days. The same extraordinary contrasts and incongruities were not
to be seen either in the people or in the appearance of the streets. Men had
settled down into their proper places; the various branches of business and
trade had worked for themselves their own distinct channels; and the
general style of the place was very much the same as that of any flourishing
commercial city.
It had increased immensely in extent, and its growth had been in all
directions. The barren sandhills which surrounded the city had been graded
down to an even slope, and were covered with streets of well-built houses,
and skirted by populous suburbs. Four or five wide streets, more than a mile
in length, built up with solid and uniform brick warehouses, stretched all
along in front of the city, upon ground which had been reclaimed from the
bay; and between these and the upper part of the city was the region of
fashionable shops and hotels, banks and other public offices.
The large fleet of ships which for a long time, while seamen’s wages
were exorbitantly high, lay idly in the harbor, was now dispersed, and all
the shipping actually engaged in discharging cargo found accommodation
alongside of the numerous piers which had been built out for nearly a mile
into the bay. All manner of trades and manufactures were flourishing as in a
place a hundred years old. Omnibuses plied upon the principal
thoroughfares, and numbers of small steamboats ran to the watering-places
which had sprung up on the opposite shore.
The style of life had improved with the growth of the city, and with the
increased facilities of procuring servants and house-room. The ordinary
conventionalities of life were observed, and public opinion exercised its
wonted control over men’s conduct; for the female part of creation was so
numerously represented that births and marriages occupied a space in the
daily papers larger than they require in many more populous places.
Female influence was particularly observable in the great attention men
paid to their outward appearance. There was but little of the independent
taste and individuality in dress of other days; all had succumbed to the sway
of the goddess of fashion, and the usual style of gentleman’s dress was even
more elaborate than in New York. All classes had changed, to a certain
extent, in this respect. The miner, as he is seen in the mines, was not to be
met with in San Francisco; he attired himself in suitable raiment in
Sacramento or Stockton before venturing to show himself in the metropolis.
Gambling was decidedly on the wane. Two or three saloons were still
extant, but the company to be found in them was not what it used to be. The
scum of the population was there; but respectable men, with a character to
lose, were chary of risking it by being seen in a public gambling-room; and,
moreover, the greater domestic comfort which men enjoyed, and the usual
attractions of social life, removed all excuse for frequenting such places.
Public amusements were of a high order. Biscaccianti and Catherine
Hayes were giving concerts, Madame Anne Bishop was singing in English
opera, and the performances at the various theaters were sustained by the
most favorite actors from the Atlantic States.
Extravagant expenditure is a marked feature in San Francisco life. The
same style of ostentation, however, which is practiced in older countries, is
unattainable in California, and in such a country would entirely fail in its
effect. Extravagance, accordingly, was indulged more for the purpose of
procuring tangible enjoyment than for the sake of show. Men spent their
money in surrounding themselves with the best of everything, not so much
for display as from due appreciation of its excellence; for there is no city of
the same size or age where there is so little provincialism; the inhabitants,
generally, are eminently cosmopolitan in their character, and judge of merit
by the highest standard.
As yet, the influence of California upon this country [England] is not so
much felt by direct communication as through the medium of the States. A
very large proportion of the English goods consumed in the country find
their way there through the New York market, and in many cases in such a
shape, as in articles manufactured in the States from English materials, that
the actual value of the trade cannot be accurately estimated. The tide of
emigration from this country to California follows very much the same
course. The English are there, very numerous, but those direct from
England bear but an exceedingly small proportion to those from the United
States, from New South Wales, and other countries; and the latter, no doubt,
possessed a great advantage, for, without undervaluing the merit of English
mechanics and workmen in their own particular trade, it must be allowed
that the same class of Americans are less confined to one speciality, and
have more general knowledge of other trades, which makes them better
men to be turned adrift in a new country, where they may have to employ
themselves in a hundred different ways before they find an opportunity of
following the trade to which they have been brought up. An English
mechanic, after a few years’ experience of a younger country, without
losing any of the superiority he may possess in his own trade, becomes
more fitted to compete with the rest of the world when placed in a position
where that speciality is unavailable.
California has afforded the Americans their first opportunity of showing
their capacity as colonists. The other States which have of late years been
added to the Union, are not a fair criterion, for they have been created
merely by the expansion of the outer circumference of civilization, by the
restlessness of the backwoodsman unaided by any other class; but the
attractions offered by California were such as to draw to it a complete
ready-made population of active and capable men, of every trade and
profession.
The majority of men went there with the idea of digging gold, or without
any definite idea of how they would employ themselves; but as the wants of
a large community began to be felt, the men were already at hand capable
of supplying them; and the result was, that in many professions, and in all
the various branches of mechanical industry, the same degree of excellence
was exhibited as is known in any part of the world.
Certainly no new country ever so rapidly advanced to the same high
position as California; but it is equally true that no country ever commenced
its career with such an effective population, or with the same elements of
wealth to work upon. There are circumstances, however, connected with the
early history of the country which may not appear to be so favorable to
immediate prosperity and progress. Other new countries have been peopled
by gradual accessions to an already formed center, from which the rest of
the mass received character and consistency; but in the case of California
the process was much more abrupt. Thousands of men, hitherto unknown to
each other, and without mutual relationship, were thrown suddenly together,
unrestrained by conventional or domestic obligations, and all more intently
bent than men usually are upon the one immediate object of acquiring
wealth. It is to be wondered that chaos and anarchy were not at first the
result of such a state of things; but such was never the case in any part of
the country; and it is, no doubt, greatly owing to the large proportion of
superior men among the early settlers, and to the capacity for self-
government possessed by all classes of Americans, that a system of
government was at once organized and maintained, and that the country was
so soon entitled to rank as one of the most important States of the Union.
The consequences to the rest of the world of the gold of California it is
not easy to determine, and it is not for me to enter upon the great question
as to the effect on prices of an addition to the quantity of precious metals in
the world of £250,000,000, which in round numbers is the estimated
amount of gold and silver produced within the last eight years.[6] It seems,
however, more than probable that the present high range of prices may, to a
certain extent, be caused by this immense addition to our stock of gold and
silver. But the question becomes more complicated when we consider the
extraordinary impetus given to commerce and manufactures by this sudden
production of gold acting simultaneously with the equally expanding
influence of Free Trade. The time cannot be far off when this important
investigation must be entered upon with all that talent which can be brought
to bear upon it. But this is the domain of philosophers, and of those whose
part in life it is to do the deep-thinking for the rest of the world. I have no
desire to trespass on such ground, and abstain also from fruitlessly
wandering in the endless mazes of the Currency question.
There are other thoughts, however, which cannot but arise on
considering the modern discoveries of gold. When we see a new country
and a new home provided for our surplus population, at a time when it was
most required—when a fresh supply of gold, now a necessary to
civilization, is discovered, as we were evidently and notoriously becoming
so urgently in want of it, we cannot but recognize the ruling hand of
Providence. And when we see the uttermost parts of the earth suddenly
attracting such an immense population of enterprising, intelligent, earnest
Anglo-Saxon men, forming, with a rapidity which seems miraculous, new
communities and new powers such as California and Australia, we must
indeed look upon this whole Golden Legend as one of the most wondrous
episodes in the history of mankind.
THE END.
OUTING PUBLISHING COMPANY—NEW YORK
OUTING ADVENTURE
LIBRARY
Edited by Horace Kephart
Here are brought together for the first time the great
stories of adventure of all ages and countries. These are
the personal records of the men who climbed the
mountains, penetrated the jungles, explored the seas and
crossed the desert; who knew the chances and took them,
and lived to write their own tales of hardship, endurance
and achievement. The series will consist of an
indeterminate number of volumes—for the stories are
myriad. The whole will be edited by Horace Kephart.
Each volume answers the test of these questions: Is it
true? Is it interesting? The entire series is uniform in style and binding.
Among the titles now ready or in preparation are those described on the
following pages. Price $1.00 each, net. Postage 10 cents extra.
IN THE OLD WEST, by George Frederick Ruxton. The men who blazed
the trail across the Rockies to the Pacific were independent trappers and
hunters in the days before the Mexican war. They left no records of their
adventures and most of them linger now only as shadowy names. But a
young Englishman lived among them for a time, saw life from their point of
view, trapped with them and fought with them against the Indians. That was
George Frederick Ruxton. His story is our only complete picture of the Old
West in the days of the real pioneers, of Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Bill
Williams, the Sublettes, and all the rest of that glorious company of the
forgotten who opened the West.
CASTAWAYS AND CRUSOES. Since the beginning of navigation men
have faced the dangers of shipwreck and starvation. Scattered through the
annals of the sea are the stories of those to whom disaster came and the
personal records of the way they met it. Some of them are given in this
volume, narratives of men who lived by their hands among savages on
forlorn coasts, or drifted helpless in open boats. They range from the South
Seas to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Patagonia to Cuba. They are echoes
from the days when the best that could be hoped by the man who went to
sea was hardship and man’s-sized work.
CAPTIVES AMONG THE INDIANS. First of all is the story of Captain
James Smith, who was captured by the Delawares at the time of Braddock’s
defeat, was adopted into the tribe, and for four years lived as an Indian,
hunting with them, studying their habits, and learning their point of view.
Then there is the story of Father Bressani who felt the tortures of the
Iroquois, of Mary Rowlandson who was among the human spoils of King
Philip’s war, and of Mercy Harbison who suffered in the red flood that
followed St. Clair’s defeat. All are personal records made by the actors
themselves in those days when the Indian was constantly at our forefather’s
doors.
FIRST THROUGH THE GRAND CANYON, by Major John Wesley
Powell. Major Powell was an officer in the Union Army who lost an arm at
Shiloh. In spite of this, four years after the war he organized an expedition
which explored the Grand Canyon of the Colorado in boats—the first to
make this journey. His story has been lost for years in the oblivion of a
scientific report. It is here rescued and presented as a record of one of the
great personal exploring feats, fitted to rank with the exploits of Pike, Lewis
and Clark, and Mackenzie.
ADRIFT IN THE ARCTIC ICE-PACK, by Dr. Elisha Kent Kane. Dr.
Kane was connected with one of the numerous relief expeditions which
went north in the middle of the last century, sailing from New York early in
the spring of 1849. They found themselves caught in the ice of Lancaster
Sound early in the fall and spent the entire winter driving to and fro across
the Sound frozen fast in the ice-pack. Dr. Kane’s narrative gives the most
vivid and accurate account that has ever appeared of ship life during an
arctic winter. He contributes many important observations as to ice and
weather conditions. His picture of the equipment and provisions makes
rather strange reading in the light of our modern development for
exploration purposes.
THE LION HUNTER, by Ronalyn Gordon-Cumming. The author was
an Englishman who was among the first of the now numerous tribe of
sportsmen writers. Going out to South Africa in the early half of the last
century he found a hunting field as yet untouched; antelope roamed the
plains like cattle on a western range and lions were almost as numerous as
coyotes in the old cattle days. In the course of his wanderings with the
handful of natives, he penetrated the far interior of Africa and finally
encountered Livingston. His account of his experiences with dangerous
game armed only with the old-fashioned muzzle-loaded rifles makes the
exploits of modern sportsmen seem almost puny in their safety.
HOBART PASHA, by Augustus Charles Hobart-Hampden.
Recollections of one of the most remarkable men of the 19th century. He
served in the English Navy from 1835-1863, after which he engaged in
blockade running in the interest of the Confederacy, in the prosecution of
which he had many close shaves but was never caught. He then entered the
Turkish navy, built it up and fought against the Russians. The whole book is
filled with thrilling adventures and narrow escapes.
ADVENTURES IN MEXICO, by George Frederick Ruxton. This
volume describes Ruxton’s second visit to America, but this time he landed
at Vera Cruz, from where he went to Mexico City and thence north to the
American border. Mexico was then at war with the United States, bandits
roamed over the country right up to the gates of the capital, and Indians
infested the northern part. Still he made the journey of 2,000 miles, often
alone, experiencing many exciting adventures.
WILD LIFE IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, by George Frederick
Ruxton. A continuation of Ruxton’s ADVENTURES IN MEXICO, from
Chihuahua north. In the course of his journey he had to pass through
treeless deserts, where he suffered much from lack of water; spent the
winter in the Rocky Mountains and finally crossed the United States
boundary.
*THE GOLD HUNTER, by J. D. Borthwick. He was an English artist
who joined the rush of treasure seekers to California in 1851. It is a lively
description of the voyage via Panama, of San Francisco from its days of the
bowie-knife and top-boots to its development into an orderly community, of
life (and death) in “the diggings” and of the motley gathering of all
nationalities in town and camp, their toil, sports, virtues, crimes and shifting
fortunes. The book covers the period from 1851-1856.
GREAT DIVIDE, THE, by Earl Dunraven. Sport and travel in the Upper
Yellowstone in the summer of 1874 with George Kingsley and Texas Jack.
Stalking the wapiti and bighorn, encounters with grizzlies, camp life at its
best and worst, Indians and frontiersmen, the joys of wild life and the
pathos of it, the crest of the continent and the vales of “Wonderland,” all are
depicted by the Earl of Dunraven.
LIFE AMONG THE APACHES, by John C. Cremony. He was
interpreter of the United States Boundary Commission and served against
the Indians as Major of a California regiment during the Civil War. His
personal encounters with the Apaches were of the most desperate nature.
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:

absinthe, curaçoa=> absinthe, curaçao {pg 72}
they got the length=> they go to the length {pg 78}
Kadiak Island, Alaska=> Kodiak Island, Alaska {pg 178
fn 3}
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Usually the tannin was extracted by placing the acorn flour in some sort of
filter and letting water percolate through it.—Ed.
[2] Albino freaks.—Ed.
[3] The grizzlies of early California were larger than those of the Rocky
Mountains, but estimates of their weight were commonly exaggerated. The largest
bear of any species of which there is record was one killed by J. C. Tolman, in
October, 1889, at the head of English Bay, on Kodiak Island, Alaska. The skin, when
moderately stretched on the ground, was 13 ft. 6 in. long by 11 ft. 6 in. wide; length
of head, 20 in.; breadth, 12 in.; length of hind foot, 20 in.; breadth, 12 in.; weight of
carcass with entrails and blood removed, 1,656 lbs.; estimated live weight, a little
over a ton.—Ed.
[4] Arrastres.—Ed.
[5] Under two hundred miles in an air line.—Ed.
[6] An over-estimate: probably about $500,000,000.—Ed.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GOLD
HUNTERS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

(Download PDF) The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Download PDF) The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Music Professor Online Judith

The Music Professor Online Judith Bowman

The Astrology of Depression Judith Hill

The Invention of Martial Arts: Popular Culture Between

The Last List of Miss Judith Kratt Andrea Bobotis

Nutrition Through the Life Cycle 7th Edition Judith E.

The Online Marketplace Advantage Adrien Nussenbaum

Writing and Reporting for the Media 12th Edition

Myths of the Underworld in Contemporary Culture: The

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859669 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Subject: Music Psychology

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers

the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education

by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University

Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the

prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted

by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction

rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021951868

ISBN 978–0–19–754736–6 (hbk.)

Paperback printed by Marquis, Canada

Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859669 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859805 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859844 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

This book addresses those recommended next steps. It provides a snapshot

Part I, “Exposition: The Changing Landscape,” presents the main themes.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859844 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859844 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Online learning has reached a tipping point in higher education. It

Online learning has reached a tipping point—​or so a recent report stated. Is

Status of Distance/​Online Education

Online Education: Heading toward the Future

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the

Another report, Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United

enrolled exclusively in distance education courses, those enrolled in a mix of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

CHLOE 4: Navigating the Mainstream

The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) Project, a partner-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

In summary, CHLOE 4’s examination of patterns of online student interaction

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Status of Online Music Instruction

What Is Online? A National Survey of Course Offerings

In line with the continued growth of online education in general, online

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/41472/chapter/352859961 by University of Southampton user on 21 July 2022

Commonalities and Distinctions

Research on the effectiveness of online learning has involved comparisons of

Online learning has reached a tipping point—or so a recent report stated. Is

Status of Distance/Online Education

require equivalency between on-campus courses and distance courses. Other

Standard X.C.2 specifies residence requirements in distance-education

• Lesson for online instruction: Well-designed discussion assignments facil-

Based on the definition of e-learning as “the utilization of electronically medi-