Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmue20

Download by: [Syracuse University Library] Date: 28 September 2015, At: 06:31

Music Education Research

ISSN: 1461-3808 (Print) 1469-9893 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20

Music, technology and adolescents with autismspectrum disorders: The effectiveness of the touchscreen interface

Ashleigh Hillier, Gena Greher, Alexa Queenan, Savannah Marshall & JustinKopec

To cite this article: Ashleigh Hillier, Gena Greher, Alexa Queenan, Savannah Marshall &Justin Kopec (2015): Music, technology and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders:The effectiveness of the touch screen interface, Music Education Research, DOI:10.1080/14613808.2015.1077802

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2015.1077802

Published online: 25 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 31

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Music, technology and adolescents with autism spectrumdisorders: The effectiveness of the touch screen interface

Ashleigh Hilliera, Gena Greherb, Alexa Queenana, Savannah Marshallb and Justin Kopeca

aDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA; bDepartment of Music, Universityof Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

ABSTRACT

The use of technology in music education is gaining momentum, althoughvery little work has focused on students with disabilities. Our SoundScapeprogramme addressed this gap through implementing a technology-based music programme for adolescents and young adults with autismspectrum disorders (ASD). Programme participants met on a weeklybasis for 9 weeks and engaged in a range of music-related activitiesmostly utilising touch screen technology and iPads. We were particularlyinterested in how those with ASD responded to the iPad interface andits impact on social interactions among participants. We alsoinvestigated whether participating in the programme reduced stress andanxiety among participants. Questionnaire data completed byprogramme participants at the beginning and end of the programme, aswell as qualitative analysis of focus groups conducted with parents,provided evaluation of the efficacy of our programme model. Findingsfrom the questionnaires indicated that more than half of the participantsreported feeling less stressed and anxious at the end of the programmecompared to their responses at the beginning, said they benefitedsocially from the programme, and had made friends. This was supportedin the analysis of the focus group transcriptions which highlighted theadvantages of the iPads compared to a more traditional desktopplatform, the utility of the iPad technology for promoting social skills,the significance of the university setting, and the participants’ use ofmusic to regulate mood. Future research evaluating the use oftechnology in music education for students with disabilities seemswarranted.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 28 October 2014Revised 26 May 2015Accepted 24 July 2015

KEY WORDS

iPad; technology; autismspectrum disorder; music;touch screen; students withdisabilities

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised by significant impairments in social interactionand communication skills, repetitive behaviours, and highly restricted activities and interests (Amer-ican Psychiatric Association 2013). Current data suggest ASD affects one in every 68 children (CDC2014). Social skills are a core challenge for individuals with ASD who may have difficulty making eyecontact, understanding social cues, social reciprocity (Glennon 2001), reading others’ emotionalexpressions, and expressing their own emotional states (Baron-Cohen 2002). Anxiety and depressionare also common among those with ASD (Hofvander et al. 2009; Cederlund, Hagberg, and Gillberg2010; Joshi et al. 2010). For this population, stress may be related to difficulties in social impairment,communication and need for consistency, repetition and routine. Developing and implementingappropriate supports and interventions is critical for individuals with ASD, particularly as they tran-sition to adulthood (Friedman, Warfield, and Parish 2013).

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT Ashleigh Hillier ashleigh_hillier@uml.edu

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2015.1077802

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Autism spectrum disorders and music

In recent years there has been increasing interest in playing, listening to, interpreting, and experien-cing music among those with ASD. Previous work has shown those with ASD to be particularlyinterested in music both with regard to playing and listening. A review of behavioural and neuroi-maging studies investigating music and ASD reported that children with ASD were particularlyresponsive to music compared with speech and environmental noise, a pattern not shown amongtypically developing children (Molnar-Szakacs and Heaton 2012). Those with ASD have demon-strated enhanced musical abilities including pitch discrimination and memory for musical stimuli(Heaton, Hermelin and Pring 1998), superior absolute pitch (Mottron, Peretz, and Ménard 2000),and superior short- and long-term pitch memory (Stanutz, Wapnick, and Burack 2014).

The utility of music for alleviating some of the core symptoms seen in ASD is an exciting prospectwhich now has empirical support. Allen, Hill, andHeaton (2009) foundmusic offered various benefitsfor individuals with ASD, including positive mood change, decreased feelings of depression, feelingtherapeutically healed, and feeling connected to others in a social environment. Music programmesfor those with ASD have shown improved play (Kern and Aldridge 2006), higher self-esteem(Shore 2003), enhanced verbal communication (Shore 2003), decreased levels of anxiety and stress,positive mood regulation (Trevarthen 2002), and increased eye contact (Wimpory, Chadwick, andNash 1995). While work in this area has been increasing, most has focused on traditional musictherapy type interventions, with less emphasis on more innovative, technology-based approaches.

Music technology

The number ofmusic andmultimedia apps (iOS and Android) now available is rapidly increasing andallow for a diverse range of creative music educational experiences. Many apps are intuitive and user-friendly. The technology now available allows the music teacher to utilise multimodal approaches tolearning and interacting with materials for students at a variety of skill levels. For music teachers inparticular who work with special needs populations, the multiplicity of apps that appeal to a variety oflearning styles allows teachers to take a more multisensory approach and reach more students thanwith traditional instruments (Nelson 2013; Criswell 2014). As Nelson reports, there are a number ofapps that are designed specifically for special needs populations allowing teachers to tailor instructionto the diversity of physical and cognitive challenges in one’s class (Nelson 2013).

While the research on the effectiveness of mobile devices, such as iPads, in educational settings isjust beginning to build momentum, there is some evidence supporting their utility in the classroom.Flewitt, Messer, and Kucirkova (2014) lent iPads to three different classes over a period of twomonths, including a special education class, and observed a number of important outcomes. Firstly,practitioners themselves became more confident in their ability to use the iPad and more supportiveof its usefulness, in part because of the children’s enthusiasm to interact with the device. Childrendisplayed skills beyond the expectations of the teachers, were highly motivated by the technology,remained focused for longer periods of time than typical, and ‘relished the responsive nature ofthe iPad activities and the immediacy of the results they produced’ (11).

The iPad also seems to promote social interactions, collaboration and more learner centredapproaches to education (Pegrum, Howitt, and Striepe 2013; Flewitt, Kucirkova, and Messer2014). Students are able to share their work, take turns, and collaborate with one another more easily(Flewitt, Messer, and Kucirkova 2014). IPads are portable and lightweight, they can be laid flat on adesk or propped up, have multiple viewing angles and can handle multiple users simultaneously,making it particularly advantageous for supporting collaboration over a traditional desktop set up(Falloon and Khoo 2014). Fisher, Lucas, and Galstyan (2013) compared iPads with laptops for teach-ing business calculus and found that the accessibility of the iPads facilitated collaboration more effec-tively. Laptops tended to be used more privately, and the screen and keyboard actually served asphysical barriers to collaboration.

2 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

An emphasis on visual stimuli inherent with the iPad, such as pictures and icons, can enable thosewith communication challenges, such as shy students, students for whom English is a secondlanguage, and students with disabilities to communicate and collaborate more effectively with others,as well as build their confidence (Flewitt, Messer, and Kurcikova 2014). Although very little work hasfocused on students with disabilities, Miller, Krockover, and Doughty (2013) comparedlearning science material using their traditional notebooks with using the iPad interface amongstudents with moderate to severe intellectual disability. Students remained on task for longerusing the iPad, preferred the iPad over the traditional notebook, and were more engaged with thematerial.

In addition, the sensory nature of the iPad’s touch screen interface allows students to demonstratetheir understanding through gestural means, which is particularly effective for students with limitedlanguage ability (Flewitt, Kucirkova, and Messer 2014). The touch interface has been seen to be par-ticularly effective with students with cognitive and physical impairments (Flewitt, Kucirkova, andMesser 2014), and is more flexible, less expensive, and less stigmatising than many other assistivetechnology devices available for people with disabilities. Not needing a separate mouse and keyboardmakes the iPad more convenient to use and easier for students with motor skill difficulties (Kucir-kova 2014). Students with special needs may have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their skills anddevelop a sense of identity as a competent and successful student (Flewitt, Messer and Kurcikova2014). The ‘universal design’ nature of the iPad technology helps to ‘level the playing field’ forthese students.

Aims of the research

Very little previous work has investigated how the features of the iPad may affect student learn-ing when in pairs or small groups (Falloon and Khoo 2014), and even less has been done focusedon students with disabilities for whom this technology could be particularly advantageous. Giventhis gap in the literature, we aimed to investigate how those with autism spectrum disorders(ASDs) responded to the iPad interface and its impact on social interactions among participants.Given the difficulties those on the autism spectrum typically experience with social situations andforming friendships, this was an important target area of our SoundScape music programme. Wewere also interested in whether participating in our programme reduced stress and anxietyamong participants, as these are core symptoms for those with ASD and have significant impacton many other areas of functioning. Those on the autism spectrum might particularly benefitfrom such an intervention given their often intuitive understanding of hardware and software,and attraction to computers and technology (Goldsmith and LeBlanc 2004). Furthermore,those with ASD sometimes display skill and interest in music beyond that of their typically devel-oping peers. Therefore, connecting music and technology in a programme for those with ASDcould provide a unique opportunity to further consider the use of iPad technology with specialneeds populations.

Method

Participants – programme participants: adolescents and young adults on the Autism

spectrum

Twenty-three young adults with ASDs participated in the 9-week ‘SoundScape’music programme intwo separate groups. Group 1 had 13 participants and group 2 had 10 participants. Participants wereaged between 13 and 29 years with an average of 18. Nineteen participants were male and 4 werefemale which reflects the male: female ratio seen in the autism spectrum population. To be eligiblefor the music programme, participants were required to be between the ages of 13 and 30 years old,considered to be ‘high-functioning’ on the autism spectrum, and to provide proof of a prior

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

diagnostic and statistical manual of Mental Disorders-based diagnosis of an ASD by an appropriateprofessional (e.g. paediatrician, psychologist, speech-language pathologist, and psychiatrist). Highfunctioning was operationally defined, as: (1) participants did not have significant communicationimpairments; (2) participants did not exhibit behavioural challenges such as physical or verbalaggression; and (3) participants were able to follow instructions with three and four steps accurately.It was not necessary for participants to have any prior musical training or experience, and this variedamong the participants. However, the majority of participants did not play a musical instrument andhad not received any formal music training. Group members were recruited via brochures describingthe programme sent to targeted referral sources, such as organisations providing services to thosewith ASD and their families.

Participants – parents of programme participants

Thirteen parents participated in focus groups during week eight of the 9-week music programme. Ingroup 1, seven parents (two fathers and five mothers) and one uncle participated, and in group 2 fiveparents participated (three fathers and two mothers). Focus groups took around 45 minutes andwere audiotaped, transcribed, and later coded and analysed using NVivo software.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. All aspects of the study were per-formed in accordance with the Institutional Review Board of the university.

Procedure

Programme model

The SoundScape music programme consisted of nine weekly sessions of 90 minutes each. During thenine sessions participants engaged in a range of hands-on music making activities. The main activi-ties in the curriculum involved participants using iPads to create musical compositions. Most activi-ties, including those involving composing, were designed for small group work in order to promotesocial interactions and opportunities. Table 1 presents a brief curriculum outline. Appendix 1 pro-vides a list of apps which were utilised during the programme and Appendix 2 outlines an App Sca-venger Hunt we implemented during week 4.

As an interdisciplinary programme, sessions were designed and run by graduate music educationstudents and graduate and under-graduate students majoring in psychology at our university. Musiceducation students took chief responsibility for designing the overall curriculum and lesson plan foreach session under the guidance of the music professor (initials of second author). Psychology stu-dents worked alongside the music education students to facilitate social interactions between groupmembers, to ensure successful collaboration within the groups, and to handle any minor behaviouralissues. The psychology professor (initials of first author) was present for each session to providefurther guidance and intervention as needed. Each session was followed by a debriefing meetingbetween the professors and the students where solutions to any problems were generated, andideas for the next sessions were adapted and finalised. The staff:participant ratio was close to 1:1;group 1 had 13 participants and 9 programme staff and group 2 had 10 participants and 9 pro-gramme staff.

Measures

Programme participants were asked to complete a questionnaire at the beginning and end of theSoundScape programme. Questionnaires were completed in a quiet room at the university. Thequestionnaire was designed as a Likert scale and asked about their feelings of stress and anxiety.The post version also asked to what extent they had enjoyed the programme, found it interesting,benefited socially, and whether they had made friends. As participants chose whether or not to com-plete the questionnaire, some opted not to complete it at the beginning of the programme, but did at

4 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

the end, and vice versa. This resulted in 16 participants who had completed the measure at both thepre- and post-time points.

We also utilised parent focus groups to assess the efficacy of the music programme. Gaining theparents’ perspectives was considered important due to concerns in the field regarding the accuracy ofself-report measures among those with ASD, and difficulties they may experience reflecting on theirown social skills, feelings and/or reactions to situations (Berthoz and Hill 2005). Parents were askedeight questions relating to the impact of the iPad technology, effects of participation on stress andanxiety, impact on social factors, the role of music in their child’s life more generally, and generalpositive and negative aspects of the programme (see Appendix 3 for focus group questions). Ques-tions relating to stress, anxiety, and social factors were included as these are core features associatedwith ASDs, and are well established in the literature as fundamentally impacting the lives of thosewith ASD. Thus any effect of the programme in these areas would be of significant benefit to thispopulation. In addition, previous work has shown the social benefits of working with iPads with typi-cally developing populations. Questions related to the technology and role of music in their chil-dren’s lives were based upon the literature suggesting attraction to both music and technologyamong those with ASD, and previous work indicating the benefits of interacting with musicamong those with ASD. Verbatim transcriptions of the focus groups were initially reviewed intheir entirety by two coders to identify categories (‘nodes’) within the data. Subsequently, codersindependently coded the entire transcription for each focus group using NVivo software. Inter-rater reliability for coding to nodes was achieved with Cohen’s κ of 0.70 which is considered ‘sub-stantial’ agreement (Landis and Koch 1977). Following satisfaction with coding reliability the twocoders identified four main themes that developed out of the nodes and were particularly prominentin the focus group transcriptions.

Table 1. Curriculum outline.

Week 1: Music listening and sharing Participants shared a favourite piece of music with the group members. Compared thepieces, what instruments were used and how they were used differently in differentpieces, mood created in the music, what made each song unique, etc.

Week 2: Music improvisation activity Groups of 3 or 4 participants selected a range of household items to create music.Discussed the versatility of music and the subjectiveness of how we define music

Week 3: iPad exploration Groups of 3 or 4 each had a different set of 4–5 apps to explore. At the end of the sessioneach group reported on which apps they enjoyed exploring and why

Week 4: App Scavenger Hunt Groups of 3 or 4 hunted for apps which had a specific purpose (e.g. create a beat thatwould sound good being rapped over), or portrayed a certain theme (e.g. being at a rockconcert; in a different country)

Week 5: Barbershop quartet An all female quartet group sang for participants and parents. The quartet offeredindividuals the opportunity to hear/and view various forms of music that result fromsinging

Week 6: Creating a background for amovie clip

Groups of 3 or 4 collaborated to compose a soundtrack for several movie clips usingmusic iPad apps. Each group was given a silent part of a movie clip and had to createsoundtrack for the clip. At the end of session, the group shared and discussed thecreation of their soundtracks

Week 7: Creating a background for art Using iPad apps, groups of 3 or 4 produced music for the class to famous art pieces (e.g.The Scream painting by Edvard Munch). Music creations were associated with how the artmade group members feel (e.g. happy, sad, confused, and calm). Participants shared whythey chose the specific music/iPad apps at the end of class

Week 8: iPad app use with musicstudents

10 music graduate students paired with groups of 3 and 4 to compose music using aplethora of iPad apps and graduate students’musical knowledge. Groups then performedtheir creations for the rest of the class

Week 9: Sharing recordings withfriends and family.

Family members, friends, group members, and programme staff came together to listento the music compositions participants had created during the programme. Recognisedand celebrated accomplishments made throughout the programme

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Results

Participant questionnaires

Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire at the beginning and end of the programme toassess feelings of stress and anxiety before and after the programme, as well as to what extent theyhad enjoyed the programme, found it interesting, benefited socially, and whether they had madefriends. Ten out of 16 (63%) participants reported lower levels of stress and 9 (56%) reportedlower levels of anxiety at the end of the programme compared to the beginning. Ratings for enjoy-ment, interest, and social benefits of the programme were also positive. Table 2 summarises thesefindings.

Parent focus group analysis

Two coders reviewed the transcriptions from the two parent focus groups and identified eight codingcategories (‘nodes’):(1) Mood regulation: Mentions coming to the programme and/or engaging with music changes

their mood in a positive way. May mention listening to music specifically to regulate their mood.(2) Something to look forward to: Mentions wanting to come, gave them something to look forward

to.(3) Social: Programme improves social interaction inside and/or outside of SoundScape. Developing

friendships. More interested in others. Collaboration with others.(4) Anxiety: Mentions coming to the programme reduces anxiety.(5) Self-esteem and confidence: Mentions their child is more confident, higher self-esteem.(6) Technology: Mentions use of technology from SoundScape programme as being a positive

aspect, increasing collaboration by using iPad, technology increased social interactions, or pro-gramme has led to more use or interest in technology.

(7) Music: Mentions increased interest and/or enjoyment in music.(8) Programme model: Students helping, university setting, structure provided in the sessions,

creativity.From these coding categories, four main themes were identified as particularly prominent in the

focus group transcriptions: (1) comparison between the iPad technology and a more traditionaldesktop platform, (2) the utility of the iPad technology for promoting social skills, (3) the signifi-cance of the university setting, and (4) using music to regulate mood. Initially, a ‘word frequencyquery’ in NVivo identified the terms ‘technology’, ‘iPad’, ‘computer’, ‘apps’ (related to theme 1),‘social’, ‘getting along’, ‘friends’ (related to theme 2), ‘mood’, ‘relaxed’, ‘anxiety’, ‘happier’ (relatedto theme 3), ‘name of university’, ‘students’, ‘college’ (related to theme 4) as particularly prominentin the transcriptions. To further consider the context, the coders also identified which nodes had thegreatest percentage of coverage during the focus groups and the largest number of references codedto them. These were the ‘social’, ‘technology’, ‘programme model’, and ‘mood regulation’ and

Table 2. Summary of responses from participant questionnaire.

QuestionPost-programme outcome

(n = 16)

How stressed do you feel on an average day? 10 reported lower ratings ofstress

How anxious do you feel on an average day? 9 reported lower ratings ofanxiety

How enjoyable did you find the programme? (1 = not at all enjoyable; 10 = very enjoyable) Average rating: 7.4How interesting did you find the programme? 1 = not at all interesting; 10 = very interesting Average rating: 7.2How much have you benefited socially from the music programme? 1 = no benefit; 10 = greatbenefit

Average rating 6.2

Have you made friends in the music programme? 10 yes; 6 no

6 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

‘anxiety’ combined. The main themes were then solidified through careful re-review of the com-ments coded to these nodes and the specific points parents were raising. For example, in the ‘tech-nology’ node parents most frequently and for a longer duration discussed the comparison betweenthe iPad and desktop technology (theme 1). In the ‘social’ node parents spent the most time discuss-ing how the iPads encouraged social interaction and collaboration (theme 2). In the ‘programmemodel’ node parents mentioned aspects related to the university setting most frequently (theme3). Finally, in the ‘mood regulation’ and ‘anxiety’ nodes the main points parents raised were relatedto how their son/daughter used music to regulate their mood (theme 4).

Theme 1: Comparison between the iPad technology and a more traditional desktop platformThis theme is tied to one of the focus group questions asking parents how their child responded to

the technology in the programme. In response parents spontaneously talked about the social benefitsof the iPads such as the need to collaborate, share, and the interactive nature of the iPads. Someparents mentioned how the iPads were more beneficial for social skills than the desktops used inprevious years of the programme. For example:

So, I love the fact that they have to collaborate and I love that it’s not a desktop, where one person is in control,but because the iPad is interactive, that it actually forces collaboration. It not only allows it, but forces it. [Myson] is so rigid. Everything he does, he does as a single person. I love the idea that there is some collaboration… .The component I’ve noticed is with the iPads, you can have a group simultaneously do stuff. I know like lastyear, you had the group, but it was like maybe one guy had the inspiration and the other guy piloted the mouseor whatever. In this one, they’re both in there doing that and there may be issues or they disagree but that’s anopportunity to learn to work things out. So I find that, you know your change of platform, for a lack of a betterword, I see that as a big advantage this year.

The ability to have multiple users simultaneously interact with the device through its touch inter-face, was seen as important. How easy it is to share the tablet and pass it around between groupmembers was also mentioned, something which cannot be done with a desktop PC:

The neat thing about the iPad is the entire screen you can touch. Not only that, it handles multiple touches, sotwo of them can be using it at the same time. That’s pretty cool. Some of the apps, you can either have key-boards, or there’s one where you can tap on it, there was colored bubbles, change the sounds and stuff. Twoof them could work on that. Even if one was using it at a time, it’s easier to switch and give it to someone,than change seats and go back. Either way it’s easier to share.

Theme 2: The utility of the iPad technology for promoting social skillsWe asked parents about their son/daughter’s social experiences in the programme and whether or

not they had made friends. While many parents were unclear whether their child had made newfriends, they did discuss the social benefits of our programme model. In particular, parents againtied the social benefits of the programme to the use of the iPad technology.

Like everybody has said, there’s the social, there’s also the collaboration part, thanks to the iPad. It’s just a differ-ent way for him, you know, to enjoy and participate in making music…So, on the one hand that’s working on collaboration stuff too, but I think the more immediacy of just the simplefact that both of you can input at the same time on a collaborative piece, I think is new. I think it’s important.[My son] talked about that a lot on the ride home last week, how they were both working together on a com-position, he and Sam.

Theme 3: Significance of the university setting.While more individuals with ASD are attending university (VanBergeijk, Klin, and Volkmar

2008), many do not see higher education as an option for them, despite having the academic abilityto succeed. Providing this programme within a university setting came out as an important themeduring the focus groups. The on-campus location was important to the parents because it gavetheir child a concrete, experiential understanding of what university might be like. Participantsexperienced positive interactions with university students and professors, helping them to feelmore comfortable in a university setting:

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

… she also likes the idea of being at [name of university]. Although she did get an Associate’s degree online, shereally wants to be in a college setting to get a Bachelor’s degree. Whether she can handle that or not, we have tokind of assess as a family, you know. But she likes the fact that she comes to [name of university] and is taking amusic class at [name of university], very similar to that environment.

It was also seen as an advantage that university students facilitated the sessions. Students are moresimilar in age to the group participants and while still seen as an authority figure, the participantsseemed to view them as a collaborative partner as well. The students were seen as more approachableand more informal than the professors:

I think it’s great support, so many students and they are so professional. I cannot imagine this can be organizedanywhere else…

Theme 4: Using music to regulate mood.We asked parents whether participating in SoundScape had impacted their child’s stress or

anxiety, and also what role music plays in their son/daughter’s lives. A pattern emerged in theresponses to these questions indicating the use of music to help regulate mood. It is well establishedthat music is used to improve mood (Trevarthen 2002; Hillier et al. 2011), and can reduce anxiety(Miluk-Kolasa et al. 1994; Khalfa et al. 2003). Some parents specifically mentioned that their childused music to regulate their mood, to calm down, and to ‘destress’:

He uses that as a destressor at home. When he gets upset or conflict is going on with the siblings, he just goes in,we’re very fortunate that we have a baby grand in our house. He just goes in and he plays it. I think he usesmusic. He’s very attracted to music. He uses it as a destressor.

Many parents mentioned how their son/daughter seemed happier and more relaxed after enga-ging with music:

He made a comment, it was weeks ago, I think he was like, something about how music, it helps type of thing.I thought well, that’s a nice connection because he has a hard time falling asleep, so sometimes we say, “Relax,”but he doesn’t quite get that. He said something about how he could feel the difference.

Discussion

With the use of computers in the music classroom increasing more empirical research evaluating theefficacy of this approach is needed. In particular, more focus is warranted on students with specialneeds, for whom computers and touch screen technology, may be especially beneficial (Greher et al.2010; Hillier et al. 2011; Nelson 2013). Individuals with ASDs often show an inherent interest in bothmusic and technology, suggesting this may be a particularly advantageous combination in theclassroom. In addition, social skills and social understanding are a core challenge for those withASD and touch screen technology has been shown to foster social interactions between users (e.g.Pegrum, Howitt, and Striepe 2013; Falloon and Khoo 2014). The findings from our music technologyprogramme, ‘SoundScape’ addressed this gap and provided support for the use of iPad technologywith this population.

On questionnaires completed pre and post the programme intervention, participants respondedpositively to our model indicating an acceptance of a technology-based approach in a music edu-cation classroom for students with ASD. Maintaining motivation and student effort is critical forclassroom success, and can be particularly challenging for students with special needs who frequentlyexperience failure in academic settings. Previous research has also shown students’ acceptance ofiPads in the classroom and this has led to greater enthusiasm, motivation, and on-task behaviours(Miller, Knockover, and Doughty 2013; Flewitt, Messer and Kucirkova 2014). In addition, themajority of participants reported reduced stress (63%) and anxiety (56%) at the end of our pro-gramme compared to the beginning, suggesting the programme positively impacted a particularlydebilitating aspect of ASD.

8 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Focus groups conducted with participants’ parents identified a number of core themes whichbuild on our existing knowledge regarding the potency of the iPad interface. Given that technologyis increasingly prominent in education (Pegrum, Howitt, and Striepe 2013; Pegrum, Oakley, andFaulkner 2013; Flewitt, Kucirkova, and Messer 2014), including music classrooms (Criswell 2014;Williams 2011; Greher in press), parents’ comments provided support for implementing this tech-nology with students on the autism spectrum specifically. Those with ASD are often particularlyattracted to technology and computers, perhaps due to their predictability and rule-based function-ing (Hillier et al. 2011). Cognitive strengths seen among those with ASD include a piecemeal proces-sing style and great attention to detail (Baron-Cohen 2009; Baron-Cohen et al. 2009). Those withASD frequently excel in science, math, and engineering programmes (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001).Given how their minds may work differently to generate novel and unique ideas, technologyseems to be particularly accessible as a way to learn new concepts and to generate new ideas. Com-pared to more traditional desktop computers, parents praised the potential of the iPad for increasingsharing and collaboration between group members. Previous work has also demonstrated the edu-cational benefits of the iPad’s versatility during group work as compared to laptops (Fisher, Lucas,and Galstvan 2013). The wide range of intuitive music apps allow participants who may not betrained in an instrument to have access to music and the opportunity to be creative with music ina new way.

Parents spent considerable time during the focus groups discussing how the iPads appeared to pro-mote social skills. Members of each group couldmanipulate the apps and touch screen simultaneouslymaking it much easier to immediately demonstrate and share ideas with one another. The relativelygentle learning curve of many of the apps we used likely reduced the levels of frustration that oftenaccompany group learning situations. This supports previous work validating the benefits of theiPad for promoting social interaction and collaboration (Falloon and Khoo 2014; Pegrum, Howitt,and Striepe 2013; Flewitt, Kucirkova, and Messer 2014). Also, working together on a project providesstudents with a common interest and topic of conversation. Given the amount of time spent sharingthe interface during tasks, other topics related to music would also come up such as bands, schoolshows, concerts, and other music-related events. This allowed back and forth conversations to con-tinue during and in between the various activities presented during the programme sessions.

A third major theme which emerged from the parent focus group transcriptions was the signifi-cance of the university setting. The music education graduate students worked to keep the sessionsinformal, acting more like team members than official teachers. Students were able to explore appsand musical styles that were personally meaningful to them. The more exploratory nature of ourinstructional approach, vs. a more skills-based direct instruction approach participants may haveexperienced in their previous attempts at music lessons, may have been one of the contributing fac-tors in their enjoyment level with this programme. Becoming more familiar with a university campuswas also seen as significant and potentially influential to participants’ post-high school choices.

Lastly, parents frequently commented on their child’s use of music to regulate mood. This hasbeen supported by previous research (e.g. Miluk-Kolasa et al. 1994; Trevarthen 2002; Khalfa et al.2003; Hillier et al. 2011). For individuals with ASD this may be particularly pertinent. Those withASD experience significant stress and anxiety (Hofvander et al. 2009; Cederlund, Hagberg, and Gill-berg 2010; Joshi et al. 2010) and engaging with music can be an outlet for these negative emotions.Anecdotally from the informal observations of programme staff, it was possible to identify what kindof mood participants were in based upon the apps they chose to work with that day. If they needed torelax more they chose one of the more calming apps, if they needed more stimulation they chose amore complex app with multiple interaction possibilities. It also appeared that the apps participantswere attracted to, reflected how they preferred to learn. For example, some apps had very strongvisual components, some allowed for more flexibility in how students interacted with it, while otherswere very prescribed.

Our outcomes point to a number of suggestions for policy-makers which might improve the cur-rent approach to music education for all learners, and students with special needs in particular. Our

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

programme presents a strong case for utilising technology as part of a school-based music curricu-lum as a way to reach the non-traditional learner. Teachers are often overwhelmed particularly whensupporting children with special needs who may have different learning styles. Arming our futuremusic educators with this type of hands-on experience better prepares them for the challengesthey will face in the classroom, and provides them with a ‘tool belt’ of strategies to harness their stu-dents’ learning of music and technology.

In addition, allowing teachers the opportunity to work more closely alongside professionals fromother disciplines, such as speech and occupational therapy, could also be of great benefit. The inter-disciplinary nature of the SoundScape programme, crossing the fields of music and psychology, sig-nificantly enhanced the experience and understanding of all the university student facilitators.

More funding for hand-held, mobile technology seems worthwhile based on our findings.Recently there has been a move to provide schools with more iPads but unfortunately access formusic teachers is often at the bottom of the list. This technology allows us to move beyond just focus-ing on the academic piece and educate the whole child enhancing their social development too, ascorroborated in both the parent focus group transcriptions and the participant questionnaireswhere 10 out 16 participants reported having made friends in the programme, a key outcome forsomeone on the autism spectrum. Our findings support the suggestion that those with ASD engagewell with music and art. These fields often improve their focus, increase their learning, and reducetheir anxiety. This learning can subsequently enhance skill development in other areas such asimproving social understanding and ‘theory of mind’, or understanding other people’s thoughts,emotions, and desires – a critical social-cognitive skill.

There are a number of weaknesses in our study which could be addressed in future work.Firstly, more data collection focused on the participants themselves would provide deeper insightregarding the impact of the mobile technology. While our questions focused on anxiety, stress,social skills, and programme enjoyment these could have been broadened to ask more specificallyabout the impact of the iPads rather than only relying on parent input. Also, an observationalmethod where students are videotaped during the programme sessions would avoid the question-able accuracy of self-report data with this population and provide rich information regardingtheir response to the iPads, and social interactions between students. Observational data couldbe cross checked with both programme facilitators and parents. In addition, collecting more for-mal data with the programme facilitators, such as structured fieldnotes or post-programme inter-views, would add to our understanding of the detailed intricacies of successful implementation oftouch screen technology in the classroom. Although a debriefing discussion took place followingeach programme session, formal notes were not kept and some useful practical information mayhave been lost through this omission.

Future research

Greater exploration of the students’ choice of apps seems a particularly fruitful avenue for futureresearch. This may provide more information on learning styles and preferences, which apps in par-ticular foster the most successful collaboration, which might be particularly advantageous for under-standing the complexities of music, and which might be most beneficial for social and emotionaldevelopment among students with special needs. Given classroom and time constraints this infor-mation would allow music teachers to tailor their choice of apps to different student populationsand even individual students, making their implementation in the classroom as individualisedand productive as possible. In sum, further evaluation of the efficacy of mobile devices in themusic education classroom for students with disabilities seems warranted.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

10 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Notes on contributors

Ashleigh Hillier, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of MassachusettsLowell. She completed her post-doctoral training in the Department of Neurology at The Ohio State University (OSU),and her graduate work at the University of Lincoln in England. Her main research interests include neuropsychology,psychophysiology, and ASDs. The focus of her research is the processing and understanding of affective materialamong those on the autism spectrum. Her applied research focuses on programmes for adolescents and young adultson the autism spectrum which in part aim to reduce stress and anxiety among those with ASD including a physicalexercise programme, and the SoundScape music programme. Dr Hillier is also interested in improving success andretention in higher education among those on the autism spectrum and runs a college preparation programme,and collaborates on a mentoring programme for University of Massachusetts Lowell students.

Gena R. Greher is Professor and Coordinator of Music Education at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and the2014/15 Nancy Donahue Endowed Professor of the Arts. She teaches a range of undergraduate- and graduate-levelmusic classes including an interdisciplinary course in Computing +Music and Technology Applications in Music Edu-cation. Her research interests focus on creativity and listening skill development in children and examining the influ-ence of integrating multimedia technology in urban music classrooms, as well as in the music teacher educationcurriculum. Recent projects include: Performamatics, an NSF CPATH grant linking computer science to the arts;an NSF TUES type 2 grant, Computational Thinking through Computing and Music; a music technology mentor/part-nership with UMass Lowell music education students in local K-12 schools. She has co-authored a book titled Com-putational Thinking in Sound: Teaching the Art and Science of Music & Technology and has published in many journalsin the field.

Alexa Queenan is currently a research assistant and Master of Arts candidate for Community Social Psychology at theUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell. She is contributing to various projects related to individuals with ASDs specificallyphysical and psychological programme interventions with this population. Alexa is also examining parental attitudestowards and expectations of their children on the autism spectrum attending college.

Savannah Marshall is currently a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Lowell in Music Teaching andCommunity Music with bachelor’s degrees in Music Education and Psychology. Savannah has worked closely theUMass Lowell faculty on several research projects including incorporating iPads into the classroom, working onthe SoundScape programme, as well as researching student engagement levels with the Lawrence Music Clubhouse.

Justin Kopec is currently a Psychophysiology Research Technician in the Interdisciplinary Affective Science Lab at theNortheastern University where he works on projects to better understand how biological processes impact the con-struction of emotions. Justin graduated from University of Massachusetts Lowell with a Bachelor’s degree in Psychol-ogy. While at the University, he spent much of his time working with young adults on the autism spectrum throughseveral programmes designed to foster social connections and alleviate stress and anxiety. Justin has designed andassisted with projects investigating physiological and emotional responses to music of those with ASDs and howthey may differ from their typically developing peers. Justin is broadly interested in socioemotional development ofchildren with developmental disabilities and exploring educational interventions that generate optimal outcomes.

References

Allen, R., E. Hill, and P. Heaton. 2009. “‘Hath Charms to Soothe… ’ An Exploratory Study of how High-functioningAdults with ASD Experience Music.” Autism 13: 21–41.

American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA:American Psychiatric Publishing.

Baron-Cohen, S., S. Wheelwright, R. Skinner, J. Martin, and E. Clubley. 2001. “The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ):Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-functioning Autism, Males and Females, Scientists and Mathematicians.”Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31: 5–17.

Baron-Cohen, S. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 248–254.Baron-Cohen, S. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences 1156: 68–80.Baron-Cohen, S., E. Ashwin, C. Ashwin, T. Tavassoli, and B. Chakrabarti. 2009. “Talent in Autism: Hyper-systemizing,

Hyper-attention to Detail and Sensory Hypersensitivity.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences 364: 1377–1383.

Berthoz, S., and E. L. Hill. 2005. “The Validity of Using Self-reports to Assess Emotion Regulation Abilities in Adultswith Autism Spectrum Disorder.” European Psychiatry 20: 291–298.

Cederlund, M., B. Hagberg, and C. Gillberg. 2010. “Asperger Syndrome in Adolescent and Young Adult Males.Interview, Self- and Parent Assessment of Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Problems.” Research inDevelopmental Disabilities 31: 287–298.

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Centers for Disease and Control Prevention. 2014. “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010.” MMWRSurveillance Summaries 63: 1–21.

Criswell, C. 2014. “Assistive Technology for Special Needs Students in the Music Classroom.” Teaching Music 2: 22–23.Falloon, G., and E. Khoo. 2014. “Exploring Young Students’ Talk in iPad-supported Collaborative Learning

Environments.” Computers and Education 77: 13–28.Fisher, B., T. Lucas, and A. Galstyan. 2013. “The Role of iPads in Constructing Collaborative Learning Spaces.”

Technology, Knowledge and Learning 18: 165–178.Flewitt, R., N. Kucirkova, and D. Messer. 2014. “Touching the Virtual, Touching the Real: iPads and Enabling Literacy

for Students Experiencing Disability.” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 30: 107–116.Flewitt, R., D. Messer, and N. Kucirkova. 2014. “New Directions for Early Literacy in the Digital Age: The iPad.”

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0 (0): 1–22.Friedman, N. D. B., M. E. Warfield, and S. L. Parish. 2013. “Transition to Adulthood for Individuals with Autism

Spectrum Disorder: Current Issues and Future Perspectives.” Neuropsychiatry 3 (2): 181–192.Glennon, T. J. 2001. “The Stress of the University Experience for Students with Asperger Syndrome.”Work: A Journal

of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 17: 183–190.Goldsmith, T. R., and L. A. LeBlanc. 2004. “Use of Technology in Interventions for Children with Autism.” Journal of

Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention 1: 166–178.Greher, G. R. In Press. “Technology in Music Teacher Education and the Enigma of Invisibility.” In The Oxford

Handbook of Technology and Music Education, edited by S. A. Ruthmann and R. Mantie. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Greher, G. R., A. Hillier, M. Dougherty, and N. Poto. 2010. “SoundScape: An Interdisciplinary Music Intervention forAdolescents and Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum.” International Journal of Education & the Arts 11: 1–27.

Heaton, P., B. Hermelin, and L. Pring. 1998. “Autism and Pitch Processing: A Precursor for Savant Musical Ability?”Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15: 291–305.

Hillier, A. J., G. Greher, N. Poto, and M. Dougherty. 2011. “Positive Outcomes Following Participation in a MusicIntervention for Adolescents and Young adults on the Autism Spectrum.” Psychology of Music 40: 201–215.

Hofvander, B., R. Delorme, P. Chaste, A. Nyden, E. Wentz, O. Stahlberg, E. Herbrecht, et al. 2009. “Psychiatric andPsychosocial Problems in Adults with Normal-intelligence Autism Spectrum Disorders.” BMC Psychiatry 9: 35–9.

Joshi, G., C. Petty, J. Wozniak, A. Henin, R. Fried, M. Galdo, M. Kotarski, S. Walls, and J. Biederman. 2010. “The HeavyBurden of Psychiatric Comorbidity in Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Large Comparative Study of aPsychiatrically Referred Population.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 40: 1361–1370.

Khalfa, S., B. S. Dalla, M. Roy, I. Peretz, and S. J. Lupien. 2003. “Effects of Relaxing Music on Salivary Cortisol Levelafter Psychological Stress.” Annuals of the New York Academy of Science 999: 374–376.

Kern, P., and D. Aldridge. 2006. “Using Embedded Music Therapy Interventions to Support Outdoor Play of YoungChildren with Autism in an Inclusive Community-based Child Care Program.” Journal of Music Therapy 43: 270–294.

Kucirkova, N. 2014. “iPads in Early Education: Separating Assumptions and Evidence.” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1–3.Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33:

159–174.Miller, B. T., G. H. Krockover, and T. Doughty. 2013. “Using iPads to Teach Inquiry Science to Students with a

Moderate to Severe Intellectual Disability: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50 (8): 887–911.Miluk-Kolasa, B., Z. Obminski, R. Stupnicki, and L. Golec. 1994. “Effects of Music Treatment on Salivary Cortisol in

Patients Exposed to Pre-surgical Stress.” Experiments in Clinical Endocrinology 102: 118–120.Molnar-Szakacs, I., and P. Heaton. 2012. “Music: A Unique Window into the World of Autism.” Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences 1252: 318–324.Mottron, L., I. Peretz, and E. Ménard. 2000. “Local and Global Processing of Music in High-functioning Persons with

Autism: Beyond Central Coherence?.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41: 1057–1065.Nelson, D. 2013. “Professional Notes: Reaching all Students via Technology.” Music Educators Journal 100: 26–29.Pegrum, M., C. Howitt, and M. Striepe. 2013. “Learning to Take the Tablet: How Pre-service Teachers Use iPads to

Facilitate their Learning.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 29: 464–478.Pegrum, M., G. Oakley, and R. Faulkner. 2013. “Schools Going Mobile: A Study of the Adoption of Mobile Handheld

Technologies in Western Australian Independent Schools.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 29: 66–81.

Shore, S. 2003. “The Language of Music: Working with Children on the Autism Spectrum.” Journal of Education 183:97–108.

Stanutz, S., J. Wapnick, and J. A. Burack. 2014. “Pitch Discrimination and Melodic Memory in Children with AutismSpectrum Disorders.” Autism 18 (2): 137–147.

Trevarthen, C. 2002. “Autism, Sympathy of Motives, and Music Therapy.” Enfance 54: 86–99.VanBergeijk, E., A. Klin, and F. Volkmar. 2008. “Supporting More Able Students on the Autism Spectrum: College and

Beyond.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38: 1359–1370.

12 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Williams, D. B. 2011. “The Non-traditional Music Student in Secondary Schools of the United States: Engaging Non-participant Students in Creative Music Activities through Technology.” Journal of Music, Technology, andEducation 4: 131–147.

Wimpory, D., P. Chadwick, and S. Nash. 1995. “Brief Report: Musical Interaction Therapy for Children with Autism:An Evaluative Case Study with Two-year Follow-up.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 25: 541–552.

Appendix 1. Some musical apps that were explored

Badlion’s Garage SynthBeatPadBeatwaveBeBotBloomHDDrum KitDr Seuss BandFinger StompGarage BandGo Go XyloGroove MakerHaKeyPadinfinite KalimbaiDaftLoopesqueGrooveMakerMadPadMugicianMandala Hang DrumPiano FreeRockBandRockMateRhythm PadSeline HD & Seline UltimateSinging FingersSlitDrumSongifySound dropSoundyThingieThumb JamThumb PianoTouch GuitarTrope

Appendix 2. iPad Scavenger Hunt

As a team, please complete the following tasks in order, to the best of your ability. If you have anyquestions or get stuck, raise your hand and a teacher will come over to help you. This is a teamactivity, and everyone should contribute equally – so share! :)(1) Create a team name. Write it in any drawing app, making sure each member adds to it. Take a

screen shot (Home + Sleep buttons together at once) and set the picture as the iPad wallpaper.

MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15

(2) Define ‘Loop’ as a musical term –

(3) Explore the apps and find one which best creates a loop. Save your loop and write the app youused here:

(4) Find an app that allows all members of the group to make music at the same time.What app did you pick?:

(5) Find an app where you can create a beat that would sound good being rapped over. Create thebeat, save it, and type the app name here:

(6) Find an app that makes you feel like you’re at a rock concert.Type the app name here:

(7) Find an app that makes you feel like you’re in another country.Which country are you in?What app did you use?

(8) Find an app that makes you feel like you’re dreaming.What is your dream about?What app did you use?

Appendix 3

(1) How has your son/daughter found the SoundScape programme?(2) How has your son/daughter responded to the emphasis on technology in the programme?(3) Has being in SoundScape seemed to have had any effect on their levels of stress and/or anxiety?(4) Do they seem to be making friends with others in the programme? Do they talk about the

others? Have they communicated with each other outside of SoundScape?(5) What role does music play in your sons/daughters life?(6) Has this informal parent group been useful?(7) What do you see as some of the strengths of the SoundScape programme?(8) What do you see as areas where SoundScape could be improved, or more effective?

14 A. HILLIER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Syra

cuse

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:31

28

Sept

embe

r 20

15