483

Jožko Lango1

Primary school Majda Vrhovnik, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Barbara Sicherl Kafol2

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Ljubljana, Slovenia

PUPILS' VIEWS ON INTRODUCING ICT INTO MUSIC LESSONS

Abstract: Contemporary school changes bring new didactic forms and methods inclu-ding information technology (ICT). The pupil and the active learning process are put into the centre of attention. According to the constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning the fo-cus is on the collaborative learning and individual learning pace of progression, all of which affect pupil’s learning motivation.

Within the theoretical concepts, we present research findings, in which we studied the introducing of ICT into music lessons in Slovenian Primary school in Slovenia, with the pu-pils, aged of 10. The results of the experimental group, in which the teaching of music educa-tion carried out using the computer program Finale Note Pad, showed that pupils are general-ly inclined towards the use of ICT. At the end of the experiment, there were significant effects in the category »success aspiration« and »interest in computers« which both achieved higher ratings, while the effects on two other dimensions »fear and stress« and »achievement moti-vation« have not proved.

Keywords: elementary school, music education, modern technology, pupils’ views, research

E-learning12

In recent years we have especially come across Information technology, which in-cludes ICT in lessons. This allows us to pass a lot of information that are promptly pro-cessed, modified, organized etc. The main

1 jozko.lango@guest.arnes.si2 barbara.kafol@guest.arnes.si

characteristics of multimedia technology are that it is based on computer technology, is in-tegrative, interactive and communicative. An important feature is also its multifunctionali-ty (Blažič et al. 2003). It is important here that devices/technologies mutually complement each other and thus allow each pupil to learn successfully (Mason, 1994). In pursuing con-temporary learning approaches, which can

UDC 371.3:78371.68

484

help us achieve better learning results, ICT le-arning technology is of key importance also learning process is dynamic and interesting for pupils (McDowall, 2003, Borota, 2006).

Within the framework of Internation-al Society for Technology in Education (ISTE NETS) national standards have been formed for the use of technology in education and training. Notwithstanding the multiple di-mensions of technology, its deployment and integration depends largely on the teacher, the tasks and objectives (Blažič et al. 2003; Sutherland et al. 2004). An important place is given to the role of the teacher and his or her knowledge related to the modern technology (ISTE NETS, 2006). The lessons are conceptu-alised on problems and include an active role of pupils in their work. This way the lessons maintain the inner motivation for the work and develop critical thinking (Rudolph et al. 2005; McDowall 2003; Lango 2007b). On the other hand, the emphasis is on computer liter-acy, which allows the use of different software and computers in general (McDowall 2003; Gerlič 2006).

Theoretical foundations of introduc-ing ICT into the lessons are related to the ac-ademic achievement of pupils, development of higher forms of thinking, problem solving, and encouraging motivation in pupils and represent help for pupils in developing their work habits (Robleyer, 2006).

National standards of musical knowl-edge include ICT in the field of singing, play-ing instruments, improvising, composing and arranging, reading and writing melodies, lis-tening in relation to the analysis and experi-ence, evaluation and implementation of mu-sic, understanding the relationship between music, culture and history (Music Educators National Conference, 2006).

The curriculum for music education in Slovenia indicates the sensible use of modern information and communication technol-ogy. ICT is incorporated in the field of mu-sic education in line with objectives identi-fied in the curriculum (Curriculum for music lessons 2011). Music technology helps an in-dividual to form, emphasise and understand the dimension of sound more qualitatively. It means much more than just the use of rele-vant hardware and software, various notation programs, multimedia presentations of music history etc. Precisely development in the field of software and hardware has enabled better quality teaching and learning (Webster, 2007).

Technology is not only an effective tool for teaching, the tool is namely also in the role of transformation as it allows the devel-opment of individual music activities of com-posing, listening and performance. It is im-portant here that very small pupils are reflect-ed in these diverse roles (Beckstead, 2001). It is experienced by them as a tool for under-standing music knowledge while also it devel-

485

ops their listening skills (Buehrer, 2000). Such role also develops critical listening and group dynamics, communication skills and cooper-ation (Greher, 2004; Lango, 2006, 2007a). In-tegration of ICT has a positive impact on im-provisation and creativity of pupils (Addessi and Pachet, 2005). Contemporary forms of work also include assistance in the formation of certain musical items, tutorship (Reese, 2001; Bush, 2001). According to research-ers’ opinion, the introduction of ICT also af-fects the cognitive area, performance, satis-faction and motivation (Leggete, 2002; Gleen, Fitzgerald, 2002).

ICT may be integrated into various stag-es of the learning process. This technology can be used before other music activities, such as learning about new musical contents, or ac-companying activity, where the work is differ-entiated and individualised or per other mu-sic activities supporting the acquired knowl-edge of pupils (Fuertes 2003).

Computer software can be divided into two major groups. The first group are open programs, which allow changing and devel-oping own ideas: music editors, sequencer programs, sound editors and programs with multimedia presentation, music encyclopae-dias, (simple) analysis of music works, image processing, autodidactic and didactic pro-grams for solfeggio and music theory and the like. The second group includes closed pro-grams that cannot be changed: tutorial pro-

grams, entertainment programs and multime-dia programs (Fuertes, 2003). Webster (2002) divides music software into: programs for ex-ercising and repetition, flexible training pro-grams, programs such as instructions, games, programs for research and programs for cre-ating music.

Also in the field of music lessons ICT of-fers demonstrability, multimedia and interac-tivity. All the aforementioned represents high-quality teaching aid and a learning tool, which can be used in a variety of music activities – from listening, implementation to musical lit-eracy and creativity; within the framework of music study as well as in solfeggio and com-posing music (Pančur, 1997). Programs offer pupils the opportunity to develop on the com-plex field of music.

As regards software functioning Mu-sical Instruments Digital Interface (MIDI), these are musical instruments with a digital interface, play an important role. It is a con-nection between various systems (commu-nication protocols) that allow data exchange. MIDI does not generate or transmit a sound, but information on how to re-create or repro-duce specific part of the sound. It allows us to create different sounds or instruments that can be used in musical composition. Tradi-tional instruments may enter into musicians’ repertoire as processed MIDI sounds (Childs 1996).

486

If we wish to actively engage ourselves in the life and society we are required to sup-plement, update or improve our knowledge on a regular basis. An important role here is also played by e-learning that is a result of ICT and offers a wide range of options for improv-ing knowledge and its dimensions. This learn-ing is focused both on pupils only entering the world of learning as well as on all those who in the context of lifelong learning want to im-prove their knowledge and modify or main-tain a constant contact with innovations in their professional field (Andrade et al. 2005).

What is e-learning? American Society for Training & Development (Mason, Ren-nie, 2006) believes that this is a form of learn-ing including applicability and processes. Pro-cesses are focused on learning related to In-ternet, computer, virtual classroom and dig-ital collaboration. Such form of work allows the creation, cooperation, exchange of knowl-edge any time and any place (Mason, Rennie ibid). Also, the characteristics of e-learning are independence from the place, where it is held and flexibility of work. This way is possi-ble to increase activities within the framework of learning itself. E-learning also allows easier learning (Andrade et al. 2005).

Hannafin with co-authors (1999) high-lights the context, different resources (in-formation, written records, human), tutor-ship, feedback, necessary tools and accesso-ries. Horton (2000) sees e-learning as an ex-

perience, activities and forms of coopera-tion. What is relevant is recording the pupil’s progress, internal motivation as well as feed-back. A central place is taken by coopera-tion and communication. Jonassen (1999) be-lieves that a constructivist learning environ-ment highlights learning tools, cooperation and dialogue, mutual support and related-ness. Rosenberg (2000) defines e-learning as a link between certain instructions that specify learning processes and knowledge, which the pupils need in order to improve their work. Of central importance here are explicit ob-jectives, adequacy of work and applicability of knowledge (learning by doing). A decisive position also has feedback allowing the up-grade of work and affecting the efficiency of learning processes (Andrade et al. 2005).

An increase in e-learning is seen in dif-ferent parts of the world. The survey, which was conducted in 2004 by Allen and Sea-man in the U.S., shows the frequency of „on-line” activity, also learning. O’Neil, Singh and O’Donoghue (2004) highlight the growth of e-learning in higher education. Indica-tions reveal the importance of lifelong learn-ing, which highlights the need for upgrading knowledge and skills, the need for learning new skills, the need to preserve certain values associated with information development on the Internet (Mason, Rennie 2006). An impor-tant reason for increasing use of such learning is also the effectiveness of learning processes,

487

and thus are also developed multimedia ed-ucational programs. All this of course affects the improvement of methods and techniques of teaching (Bagnasco et al. 2000).

Integration of e-learning is associated with psychological and teaching knowledge, particularly with theoretical basics of behav-iourists and those building their own knowl-edge. In behaviourism, specific behaviour is associated with stimuli from the environ-ment, while constructivists strive for the cre-ation of knowledge taking into account pro-cesses and different styles of learning (An-drade et al. 2005).

Ideas of constructivists are very close to e-learning. In such learning pupils ac-quire knowledge independently and use dif-ferent forms and methods of work as well as own strategies. All these forms contribute to the creation of own knowledge (Mason, Ren-nie, 2006). Forms of e-learning, which in-clude different computer video conferences, open learning, flexible learning, virtual class-rooms, distance learning, are associated with objectives and fundamental principles. What all these forms have in common is computer supported learning.

Contemporary forms of e-learning in-fluence on motivation, work efficiency as well as metacognitive learning processes. Modi-fied method of teaching leads into changed communication between individual educa-

tions links (Naidu, 2003). Pupils build their knowledge on experience, along cooperative learning and co-create evaluations of their work. Evaluation is associated with different contemporary forms of work, projects, dis-cussions, portfolios (Rovai, 2004). This way the learning process individualizes; and eval-uation that highlights individual’s integration, is also individualized (Shelton, 2004).

Pupils participate among themselves, they are complementary and very active in their work. This work motivates and encour-ages them. They develop their own path to knowledge, independence and trust in own abilities. However, we should also be aware of deficiencies since pupils require increased motivation for such learning and are limited in socializing and social relationships. There-fore, the teacher plays an important role, act-ing as a tutor or mediator (Mason, Rennie, 2006).

ICT in music teaching

Qualitative research allows us to learn about the advantages of including ICT into various fields of music lessons. It is included as an aid into music activities (Hodges, 2003). In the process of introducing new technol-ogy into music lessons the active role of pu-pils has an important place. Pupils learn about the complexity of musical processes and use

488

a variety of audio and visual aids (McDowall, 2003). Contemporary forms of learning em-phasise pupils’ work in groups and their mu-tual cooperation. Participation in group also promotes pupils’ responsibility for the final product. Collaborative learning is conducted along multimedia support provided for tech-nology (Gall, Brezze, 2005; Savage, 2003; Lan-go, 2006, 2007a, 2007b).

ICT plays an important also in the de-velopment of pupils’ musical creativity, inte-gration of music notation and sound, experi-menting with timbre in virtual music bands, audio control of changes that have occurred due to transposing, changing of tempo, mod-ulation (Rudoplh et al. 2004). Pupils achieve higher objectives in the cognitive and affec-tive area, develop their own working strate-gy, are those who build their own knowledge (Higgins, 1992; Keast, 2004; Buehrer 2000; Brodnik, Borota 2006). What is of central im-portance here is the interaction between crea-tivity and technology as well as formation of flexible learning environment. Learning suc-cess is also achieved by pupils who have less knowledge of music. Having regard to the ac-tivation theory an individual tries to maintain a level of activation to which he or she is used to and which is typical of him or her. These way pupils develop their learning style. Pupils’ reactions depend on the environment and are shaped by experience and education, and a certain role is also played by genetic and he-

reditary aspects. All this affects the renewed teaching of music lessons (Burnard, 2007).

There are many approaches in present-ing music theory through Internet by using computer software The Virtual Conservatory (An Online Community for Music Learning). This virtual library offers multimedia text-books for teaching music theory and solfeg-gio. Large place is also taken by the software Sibelius, which focuses on the following areas:

Musical instruments, Basics of compo-sition, Music in elementary school, Basics of music theory, Solfeggio, Advanced music the-ory, Music engraving and printing, Music the-ory for children, Music theory for young peo-ple.

In the teaching of music education are of central importance sound editing software programs Audacity and WavePad. Both pro-grams are free of charge. They allow detailed consideration of parameters of sound and dif-ferent sound combinations as well as editing and sound recording.

On the market we are also able to find a wide selection of software for editing musi-cal notations, music engraving and printing. Among the best programs are certainly Fina-le, Sibelius as well as QuickScore, Capella and Encore. There are quite some free programs among this software, including Finale Note Pad, which will be presented in more detail on the following pages.

489

Music engraving and printing programs are very convenient for the transmission of musical images. Sound and image actually take place before our eyes. Certain programs can combine the following options:

• writing and editing written music material,

• converting digitized sound in notes,

• audio reproduction of music notation and clear demonstration of the implemented in real time,

• analysis of various features of musical notation,

• access to a large number of also educationally useful scores.

A good notation program helps, but does not offer methodical solutions. These regulate the set objective and teacher’s beliefs. It is a tool which abilities allow realisation of certain music teaching objectives, such as:

• teaching music theory (musical science, solfeggio, musical phrase),

• listening, identifying and explaining musical structures (also solfeggio, learning instrument, singing),

• approaching the world of past and present music achievements.

In computer supported teaching of music is necessary to consider the extent to which it makes sense to search for comput-

er assistance for teaching music as well as the purpose which we want to achieve with that. A useful guideline is reflected in an on-going examination of knowledge and access to in-formation about music. A negative side is re-flected in an increased possibility of relativiza-tion of data meaning. Thus computer support cannot change into a „technocratic” compa-ny where reading of notes may be linked with playing of „musical tetris”, without any special awareness of the purpose of these notes.

When introducing the technology we should be aware of certain limitations posed by the contemporary-based teaching. The teacher is the one who teaches, he or she is thus the one deciding on the use of specific aids, including technology. »The path we walk on needs to be separated from the purpose for which we are on such path. Computer-supported teaching of music fails to help us here any more or less as a kind of technologi-cal inventions that have gradually established themselves and upgraded the „old fashioned” lessons. Of course, teachers’ responsibility is much larger here.« (Stefanija, 2006, p. 47)

In the summary of Computer-assisted music learning Stefanija wrote down the fol-lowing: »Despite some extent of the problems posed by the computer market music teach-er quickly sees the advantage of working with computer. Every effort outweighs the living relationship between them, which is, last but

490

not least, one of the central ideal also in mu-sic…« (Stefanija 2006, p. 47).

Pupils’ views on introducing ICT into music lessons

Views are lasting mental, emotional and value orientation to a variety of objects, people, events and phenomena (Marentič Požarnik, 2000, p. 108). A fundamental fea-ture of views is also their multidimensionality and complexity (Uhan, 2008). Views increase the possibility to act accordingly but fail to provide that. There is no direct connection between the views and our behaviour, as our action is also influenced by habits, examples and environmental pressures as well as possi-bilities that we have.

The views vary in direction, strength and duration. Direction means that we agree with something (we are for that) or reject it (are against it), or it may make no difference to us (we are neutral). Strength represents our decisiveness. As regards some views, we firmly stand behind them, strive for them, while oth-er views are indifferent. In terms of duration some views accompany us throughout our en-tire life while others reappear or circumstanc-es lead us to change our former views and to accept new ones. Each view has a recogniza-ble (cognitive), emotional (conative) and be-

havioural (action) component, and the will-ingness to act accordingly.

Certain negative views are prejudic-es that are deeply rooted among the people, emotionally coloured. Views are resistant to changes. They are usually generated in long-term contacts with certain information, ex-amples, and especially with emotionally col-oured experience (Marentič Požarnik, 2000)

Modern technology brings along chang-es that are not always well accepted. The first one confronted with changes by the teachers. Numerous studies (McDowall, 2003; Webster, 2007; Breeze, 2009) have shown that it is pre-cisely the interest and motivation of a teach-er for introducing ICT into lessons a prereq-uisite for a positive acceptance of the change also by pupils.

Problem

Modern technology is integrated in public schools. Depending on the software and hardware we have many options for qual-ity planning and lessons implementation. However, the basic question is how innova-tions are accepted by teachers and in particu-lar by pupils. Given that no research from this area has been found in our area, we decided to research pupil’s attitudes to introduction of ICT into music lessons.

491

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to deter-mine the pupil’s views to introduction of ICT into music lessons. To achieve this objective we have set the following hypothesis:

H1: Pupils of experimental group are in-clined towards introduction of ICT in music lessons.

Research method

Our study used descriptive and causal method of educational research.

In that study, we included pupils from the 5th grade Primary School in Slovenia. Solving of questionnaires was held in Septem-ber 2008 and in May 2009. It was solved by pupils in experimental group, who in com-parison with pupils in control group attended music lessons with applied ICT.

Data collection and processing

In order to determine the pupils’ views to introducing ICT into music lessons, we prepared a questionnaire that was distributed among pupils.

For checking the measure of reliability in basic variables we calculated the following

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient, which were 0,695.

Table 1: KMO testKaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure

of Sampling Adequacy 0,695

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 382,029

Df 66Sig. 0

The questionnaire consisted of a scale of views and also included 12 statements, in which pupils expressed their agreement or disagreement with the set statements (annex 1).

Instructions were uniform for all pupils; they have solved the questionnaires independently, without any additional questions and explanations. Anonymity was assured. In carrying out the survey the questionnaire was objective, as it applied the scale of views, which provided specific answers (agreement or disagreement with statements), and pupils were given precise instructions before solving the questionnaire. Thus, the results of the survey were not affected by the subjective factors of the interviewer.

The data were analysed in the SPSS pro-gram. For the purposes of data processing we used the frequency distribution of responses, factor analysis and t-test. The frequency dis-tribution was used for presenting the number of female and male pupils included in our sur-

492

vey. The factor analysis was used for analysing relations between variables, where 4 factors were formed. These factors explained a large proportion of the entire dispersion (variance) of the data.

T-test was used for checking the hy-pothesis, if the dimensions of pupils’ views to introducing ICT in music lessons differ be-tween the measurements.

Definition of a sample

The sample represented fifth grade pu-pils of Primary school in Slovenia. The survey included 23 female pupils and 30 male pupils of the experimental group.

Table 2: Sample structure by gender

Frequencies Percentage

F 23 43,4M 30 56,6

Total 53 100,0

Chart 1: Sample structure by gender of EG pupils

Results and interpretation

We wanted to find out whether the hypothesis, in which we have assumed to be between pupils EG, showed a positive attitude towardsthe introduction of ICT in teaching music education. In doing so, we highlight certain dimensions of their attitudes towards the introduction of ICT in teaching music les-sons.

Hypothesis number 1, which assumes that pupils are inclined towards introducing ICT in lessons, is checked with frequency dis-tribution of responses.

All statements were assessed with values above 3,5, which shows pupils agree with the introduction of ICT into music lessons.

ICT is an innovation that encourages different work, emphasises own style of learn-ing and creativity (Burnard, 2007), own strat-egy of work, problem learning that links pu-pil’s experience with his or her objectives and plans for the future (Brodnik, Borota, 2006, Mason, Rennie, 2006), as well as participa-tion in groups (Savage, 2003; Brodnik, Boro-ta, 2006).

493

Table 3: Pupils’ inclination towards introducing ICT into music lessons

N Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation

1. I like to use the computer when I learn. 53 1 5 4,26 1,024

2. I like to face new challenges allowed by the computer.

53 1 5 4,43 0,907

3. I favour the use of computer in music lessons.

53 1 5 4,12 1,093

4. In music lessons, I like active methods of work offered by the computer.

53 1 5 4,32 0,956

5. I am confident that the use of comput-er in music lessons will allow cooperation with my classmates.

53 1 5 3,52 1,454

6. I am afraid that I will not be able to work with computer in music lessons.

53 1 5 4,55 0,816

7. I am sure that I will know to use music knowledge with computer independently.

53 1 5 4,42 0,927

8. I am afraid of forming melodies with computer slower than my classmates.

53 1 5 4,43 0,873

9. Creating music with computer is a chal-lenge for me.

53 1 5 3,82 1,254

10. I am afraid that melodies I write with computer will be worse than those written by my classmates.

53 1 5 4,32 0,946

11. I am happy when classmates praise my melodies, which I wrote with computer.

53 1 5 4,68 0,706

12. I am proud of melodies that I have de-veloped with my computer.

53 2 5 4,64 0,728

Valid number (N) 53

494

Factor model contains 12 variables; two have their communality values below 0,4, oth-ers above 0,6, which means the model is suf-

ficiently covered by the variance of each vari-able.

Table 4: Communalities Factor analysis  Initial Extracted

1. I like to use the computer when I learn. 1 0,6522. I like to face new challenges allowed by the computer.

1 0,6183. I favour the use of computer in music lessons. 1 0,7534. In music lessons, I like active methods of work offered by the computer. 1 0,7195. I am confident that the use of computer in music les-sons will allow cooperation with my classmates. 1 0,7056. I am afraid that I will not be able to work with com-puter in music lessons. 1 0,4357. I am sure that I will know to use music knowledge with computer independently. 1 0,6048. I am afraid of forming melodies with computer slower than my classmates. 1 0,7299. Creating music with computer is a challenge for me.

1 0,43210. I am afraid that melodies I write with computer will be worse than those written by my classmates. 1 0,79911. I am happy when classmates praise my melodies, which I wrote with computer. 1 0,8112. I am proud of melodies that I have developed with my computer. 1 0,804

Chart 2: Scree diagram

Component Number121110987654321

Eige

nval

ue

4

3

2

1

0

Scree Plot

495

The diagram of eigenvalues reveals that four factors have their communality values

above 1, which is one of the criteria for select-ing the number of factors.

Table 5: The proportion of explained variance

Compo-nents

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total%

of var-iance

cummu-lative % Total

% of vari-

ance

cummu-lative % Total

% of var-iance

cummu-lative %

1 3,449 28,739 28,739 3,449 28,739 28,739 2,736 22,798 22,798

2 1,978 16,487 45,226 1,978 16,487 45,226 1,997 16,641 39,439

3 1,386 11,547 56,774 1,386 11,547 56,774 1,697 14,139 53,578

4 1,248 10,4 67,173 1,248 10,4 67,173 1,631 13,595 67,173

5 0,899 7,488 74,662

6 0,755 6,291 80,953

7 0,532 4,433 85,386

8 0,458 3,815 89,201

9 0,449 3,745 92,946

10 0,35 2,917 95,863

11 0,263 2,195 98,057

12 0,233 1,943 100

Four factors explained 67% of the total variance of variables. The above table shows the proportion of explained variance with fac-tors according to the orthogonal rotation. The first factor explained 28,7%, and according to the orthogonal rotation 22,8% of the total var-iance of variables. The second factor explained

16,5%, and according to the orthogonal rota-tion 16,6%. The third factor explained 11,5%, and according to the orthogonal rotation the portion increases to 14,1% of the total vari-ance. The fourth factor explained 10,4%, and according to the orthogonal rotation 13,6% of the total variance.

496

Table 6: Factor loadings according to the orthogonal rotation

Components

1 2 3 4

3. I favour the use of computer in music lessons. 0,851 -0,063 0,146 0,056

4. In music lessons, I like active methods of work offered by the computer. 0,822 0,095 0,066 0,172

1. I like to use the computer when I learn. 0,799 -0,004 0,085 0,075

2. I like to face new challenges allowed by the computer. 0,732 0,207 0,122 0,158

10. I am afraid that melodies I write with com-puter will be worse than those written by my classmates.

0,091 0,862 0,156 -0,152

8. I am afraid of forming melodies with comput-er slower than my classmates. -0,008 0,852 -0,022 -0,047

6. I am afraid that I will not be able to work with computer in music lessons. 0,081 0,625 -0,079 0,178

11. I am happy when classmates praise my melo-dies, which I wrote with computer. 0,086 -0,004 0,888 0,116

12. I am proud of melodies that I have devel-oped with my computer. 0,257 0,029 0,853 0,092

5. I am confident that the use of computer in music lessons will allow cooperation with my classmates.

0,176 -0,185 0,069 0,797

7. I am sure that I will know to use music knowledge with computer independently. 0,201 0,214 -0,065 0,717

9. Creating music with computer is a challenge for me. 0,016 -0,012 0,303 0,583

Orthogonal and oblique rotations are very similar, because the correlation between the factors according to the oblique rotation totals under 0,3; the interpretation shall be subject to decision according to the orthogo-nal rotation.

The first factor inclination and interest for computer is best explained by the follow-ing variables:

497

4. In music lessons, I like active meth-ods of work offered by the com-puter.

3. I favour the use of computer in music lessons.

1. I like to use the computer when I learn.

2. I like to face new challenges al-lowed by the computer.

The statements relate to the dimension of inclination and interest for computer and are similar to the dimension interest accord-ing to the C. Peklaj’s classification (2000).

The second factor fear and stress has the strongest loadings in the following variables:

10. I am afraid that melodies I write with computer will be worse than those written by my classmates.

8. I am afraid of forming melodies with computer slower than my classmates.

6. I am afraid that I will not be able to work with computer in music les-sons.

This factor refers to the fear and stress (the dimension fear according to the C. Peklaj’s classification).

The third factor achievement motiva-tion has distinctive loadings in the following variables:

11. I am happy when classmates praise my melodies, which I wrote with computer.

12. I am proud of melodies that I have developed with my computer.

The statements refer to the achieve-ment motivation (part of the ho-monymous dimension according to the C. Peklaj’s classification).

The fourth factor success aspiration is explained by the following variables:

5. I am confident that the use of com-puter in music lessons will allow cooperation with my classmates.

7. I am sure that I will know to use music knowledge with computer independently.

9. Creating music with computer is a challenge for me.

These variables relate to the dimension referred to as success aspiration.

Following below we calculated four di-mensions that represent an average of a state-ment, which have the highest loadings in a given factor. The following table presents the basic statistics of newly obtained dimensions.

498

Table 7: Motivation – descriptive statistics Inclination towards introducing ICT into music lessons

  N Min. Max. Mean Standard de-viation

inclination, interest for com-puters 53 1,5 5 4,2843 0,81754

fear and stress 53 2 5 4,4346 0,70013

achievement motivation 53 1,5 5 4,6569 0,65242

success aspiration 53 1 5 3,9216 0,89391

Respondents evaluated all dimension above mean 3, which indicates that agree-ment is larger than disagreement. The high-est level of agreement is with the dimension referring to achievement motivation (4,7); the next highest rated dimension is fear and stress (4,4); and finally success aspiration (3,9).

According to opinions of many authors such as McDowall, (2003), Roblyer (2006), Breeze (2009), Kington, et al. (2002), pupils are motivated for work as they develop work-ing habits, higher forms of thinking and are more effective as regards learning (Camp-bell, Scott-Kassner, 1995; Ward, 2009). They choose activities for their work, which en-courage and challenge them. They value per-formed work, as ICT allows feedback and evaluation (Ward ibid.).

In our study we can see both, positive and negative attitudes on the introduction of ICT. It’s important that to consider both di-

mensions of attitudes. We can help pupils to improve their work and they succeed.

Pupils are able to actively obtain new data (Higgins, 2003). In addition to the fact that ICT promotes internal motivation in pu-pils, is on the other hand interesting as it takes place in forms of games and entertainment, and work is less straining. E-learning also al-lows exchange of opinions and cooperation among classmates (Clark, 2005), develops the ability of automation, fluency and upgrade of certain skills (Roblyer, 2006).

By using ICT, pupils develop their mu-sic and digital literacy (Mc Dowall, 2003; Ro-blyer ibid.).

Hypothesis number 1 is checked by the Paired Samples t-test, which is used for check-ing if dimensions of pupils’ views towards in-troduction of ICT into music lessons differ between both measurements.

499

Chart 3: Mean values of dimensions

Table 8: Paired Sample t-test

  T Degrees of freedom P

inclination, interest for computers – inclina-tion, interest for computers -2,673 52 0,01

fear and stress – fear and stress -1,155 52 0,253

achievement motivation – achievement mo-tivation -0,148 52 0,883

success aspiration – success aspiration -5,485 52 0

The biggest difference between the measurements is shown in the dimension success aspiration, which in the second meas-urement increased from 3,4 to 4,4 (t = -5,5, p < 0,01). The dimension inclination or in-terest for computers in the second measure-ment was also estimated with a higher value (t = -2,7, p = 0,01), while there were no dif-

ferences found between the measurements in dimension achievement motivation and fear and stress. Thus, the hypothesis, which as-sumes that there will be statistically relevant different among the EG pupils in their views towards the introduction of ICT into music lesson, is confirmed in two dimensions.

500

Among pupils has increased the level of their expectations and the level of interest for computers. During the active work pupils learned how to develop their own ideas; they work with others and they became active in creating their own knowledge.

It is important that pupils in music les-sons are no longer passive listeners but ac-tive creators. Their learning is much more ef-fective, encourages self-motivation, critical thinking and problem solving, and this means different acceptance of music as art (Mash, 2005). Pupils develop musical creativity, in-tegrate musical notations and sound, exper-iment with timbre in virtual bands, monitor and analyze sound changes resulting from transposing, change of tempo and modula-tion (Rudolph et al. 2005).

ICT is not a toy to be included in lessons for the purpose of relaxation, but is a teach-ing tool that allows and encourages creative processes (Ward, 2009). Introduction of ICT into music lessons promotes the development of self-esteem, self-discipline and personal creativity, enables the development of learn-ing and personal skills, and while positive-ly impacts all other areas of learning (Alvaro, 2010).

ICT allows pupils acquire new knowl-edge, but also allowed them autonomy and individualization.

Conclusion

ICT nowadays represents means of ed-ucation by which we are able to achieve the objectives of lessons. However, we need to be aware of limitations and suitably articulate particular stages of educational work. The ba-sis is the curriculum, which allows the reali-zation of the set objectives of lessons. Mod-ern technology is incorporated into learning process, by which are reflected the benefits of such work, as it encourages constructive work, mutual cooperation and own pace of work. It allows pupils different way of work. All this affects their views towards introducing ICT into lessons. Pupils in this survey demonstrat-ed their agreement with the introduction of the new technology into music lessons. In re-search, we found that pupils’ views are also af-fected by teachers and their attitude towards technology. Inclination is frequently reflected in motivating pupils to find information, in-dependent research and upgrade of work.

The results of our research showed agree-ment in views towards the ICT in dimensions showing a positive attitude towards tech-nology. The computer itself is a motivation-al tool. Within the Finale Note Pad program computer allowed pupils to research and de-velop own musical achievements pupils were able to hear, change and modify these musical achievements which is important for promot-ing their interest for music. All pupils in our

501

study were successful in their musical activity by use of ICT and were able to help each oth-er in the learning process. There was also the fear of failure, so it is important that teach-ers motivate pupils with their own forms of work, differentiation and individualisation. It is necessary to change the evaluation of pupil’s work, based on their past work and upgrades. This encourages assessment, which includes systematic monitoring each pupil individual-

ly. Here we highlight portfolio as an authentic form of evaluation pupil’s progress.

The findings of our research confirm pupil’s positive attitude towards the introduc-tion ICT in teaching music. However, the re-search offers the new possibilities. What are their attitudes on portfolio as authentic as-sessment method and how this contributes to their knowledge?

Refererence

1. Addessi, A, Pachet, F (2005). Experiments with a Musical Machine: Musical Style Replication in 3 to 5 Year Old Children. British Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 21–46.

2. Alvaro, F. (2010). Using ICT and electronic music to reduce school dropout in Europe. ELearning Pa-pers, 19, Barcelona: P. A. U. Education, S. L.

3.Andrade, J. et al. (2005). Guidelines for the Development of E-learning Systems by Means of Proac-tive Questions. Computers & Education, 51 (4), 1510–1522.

4. Bagnasco, A. et al. (2000). A Virtual Laboratory for Remote Electronic Engineering Education. In: Orange, G. in Hobbs, D. (ed.), International Perspectives on Tele-Education and Virtual Learn-ing Environments. Hampshire: Ashgate.

5. Beckstead, D. (2001). Will Technology Transform Music Education? Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 44–49.

6. Blažič, M. et al. (2003). Didaktika. Novo mesto: Visokošolsko središče, Inštitut za raziskovalno in razvojno delo.

7. Borota, B., Brodnik, A. (2006). Učenje glasbe podprto z IKT tehnologijo. Organizacija, 39 (8), 532−536.

8. Breeze, N. (2009). Music and ICT in European Education. European Association for Music in Schools, University of Bristol.

9. Bueher, T. (2000). An Alternative Pedagogical Paradigm for Aural Skills: An Examination of Con-structivist Learning Theory and Its Potential for Implementation into Aural Skills Curricula. Dis-sertation Abstracts International, 61 (4), 1210.

502

10. Burnard, P. (2007). Reframing Creativity and Technology: Promoting Pedagogic Change in Music Education. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1 (1), 37−55.

11. Bush, J. (2001). Introducing the Practioner’s Voice through Electronic Monitoring. Journal of Tech-nology in Music Learning, 1(1), 4–9.

12. Campbell, P. S in Scott-Kassner, C. (1995). Music in Childhood: From Preschool through the El-ementary Grades. New York: Schrimer Books.

13. Childs, J. (1996). Making Music Special. London: David Fulton Publishers.14. Clark, R. E in Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia

Learning. V Mayer, R. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

15. Fiske, D. W., Maddi, S. R. (1961). A Conceptual Framework. In: Fiske, D. W., Maddi, S. R. (ed.), Functions of varied experience Homewood: Dorsey Press, 11–56.

16. Fuertes, C. (2003). Computers in Music Education. European Telematics Network for Education: http://www.xtec.es/rtee/eng/index.htm

17. Gall, M. Brezze, N. (2005). Music Compositional Lessons: The Multimodal Affordances of Technol-ogy. London: Educational Review, 57 (4), 415−433.

18. Gerlič, I. (2006). Stanje in trendi uporabe informacijsko komunikacijske tehnologije (IKT) v slov-enskih šolah. Maribor: Pedagoška fakulteta.

19. Gleen, S., Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Technology and Student Attitudes, Motivation, and Self-efficacy: A Qualitative Study. NAXWPI Journal, 4–15.

20. Greher, G. (2004). Multimedia in the Classroom: Tapping Into an Adolescent’s Cultural Literacy. Journal of Technology in Music Learning, 2 (2), 21–43.

21. Hannafin, M. J. et al. (1999). Open Learning Environments. In: Reigeluth, C. M. (ed.), Instruction-al-design Theories and Models, No. 2, Mahwah, New York: Erlbaum.

22. Higgins, W. (1992). Technology. In: Colwell, R. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Schrimer Books, 480–497.

23. Higgins, S. (2003). Does ICT Improve Learning and Teaching in Schools? Nottingham: British Ed-ucational Research Association.

24. Hodges, R. (2005). ICT and Music Education. In: Philppot, C., Plummeridge, C. (ed), Issues in Music Teaching. London: Routledge, 170−181.

25. Horton, W. (2000). Designing web-based Training. New York: John Wiley & Sons.26. International Society for Technology in Education−ISTE NETS (2006). The National Educational

Technology Standards: http://nets.iste.org27. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environment. In: Reigeluth, C. M. (ed.),

Instructional-design Theories and Models, No. 2. Mahwah, New York: Erlbaum.

503

28. Keast, D. (2004). Implementation of Constructivist Techniques into on Online Activity for Graduate Music Education Students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(8), 2932.

29. Kington, A. et al (2002). Innovative practice using ICT in schools: findings from two case studies. Management in Education. 16 (1), 31–35.

30. Lango, J (2006). Računalnik in glasba. In: Žvar, D. (ed.), Glasba v šoli, 11 (4), 21−33.31. Lango, J (2007a). Glasba in računalnik, računalnik kot glasbeni instrument. In: Krek, J. et al. (ed.),

Učitelj v vlogi raziskovalca: akcijsko raziskovanje na področjih medpredmetnega povezovanja in vzgojne zasnove v javni šoli. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta, 386−405.

32. Lango, J. (2007b). Glasba in multimedija. In: Žvar, D. (ed.), Glasba v šoli in vrtcu, 12 (3−4), 41−54.33. Leggete, R. (2002). The Effect of Technology-Assisted Music Instruction on the Self-concept and Ac-

ademic Achievement of Fourth Grade Public School Student. Contribution to Music Education, 29 (1), 59–69.

34. Marentič Požarnik, B. (2000). Psihologija učenja in pouka. Ljubljana: DZS.35. Mash, D. (2005). Technology in Music Education. In: Rudolph, T. E. et al. (ed.), Technology Strat-

egies for Music Education, 1-2.36. Mason, R. (1994). Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning. London: Kogan

Page.37. Mason, R., Rennie, F. (2006). E-learning, The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.38. McDowall, J. (2003). Music Technology: New Literacies in Early Year: http://crpit.com/confpa-

pers/CRPITV34McDowall.pdf39. Music Educators National Conference−MENC (2006). National Standards for Music Education:

http://www.menc.org40. Naidu, S. (2003). Learning & Teaching with Technology: Principles and Practices. London and

New York: Routledge Falmer. 41. O’Neill, K., Singh, G., O’Donoghe, J. (2004). Implementing E-learning Programmes for Higher Ed-

ucation: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Information Technology Education, and No. 3. 42. Pančur, R. (1997). Računalnik pri glasbenih dejavnostih. Glasbeno-pedagoški zbornik Akademije

za glasbo, 2 (2), 129−141.43. Resse, S. (2001). Tools for Thinking in Sound. Music Educators Journal, 88(1), 42–45.45. Rosenberg, M. J. (2000). E-learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New

York, McGraw-Hill.46. Rovai, A. (2004). A Constructive Approach to Online College Learning. The Internet and Higher

Education, 7 (2), 79–93.47. Rudolph, T. E., et al. (2004). Teaching Music with Technology, Chicago: GIA publications.

504

48. Rudolph, T. E. et al. (2005). Technology Strategies for Music Education, Wyncote, PA: Technology Institute for MusicEducators.

49. Savage, J. (2003). Reconstructing Music Education through ICT. Journal: Research in Education, 78, 65−77.

50. Shelton, K in Saltsman, G. (2004). Tips and Tricks for Teaching Online: How to Teach like a Pro! Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(10), 53–65.

51. Syllabus: Primary School Programme, Music Education. (2011). Lju-bljana:Ministrstvo zašolstvo, znanost inšport, Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo.

52. Stefanija, L. (2006). Računalniško poučevanje glasbe. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 1–47.53. Sutherland, R. et al. (2004). Transforming Teaching and Learning: Embedding ICT into Everyday

Classroom Practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 413−425.54. Uhan, S. (2008). Metodologija in epistemologija raziskovanja:

www.fsd.uni-lj.si/mma_bin.php/$fId/2008061711541738/.../fsd.stal.ppt55. Ward, C. J. (2009). Musical exploration using ICT in the middle and secondary school classroom.

International Journal of Music Education, 27 (2), 154–168.56. Webster, P. (2002). Computer−based Technology and Music Teaching and Learning. In: Colwell,

R. Richardson C. (ed.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, 416−439.

57. Webster, P. (2007) Computer-based Technology and Music Teaching and Learning: 2000-2005. In: Bresler, L. (ed.), International Handbook of Research in Art Education. Dordreht: Springer, cop., 2. 1311–1328.

505

Annex 1: Pupils’ views towards introducing ICT into music lessons

To find outwhatare yourviews on theintroduction ofICT inteachingmusic education, com-plete the questionnaire. Carefully read each statement and then circle one number from 1 to 5 in the line next to each statement, depending on how firmly particular statement holds true for you: not true at all (1), mostly not true (2), sometimes true, sometimes not true (3), mostly true (4), al-ways true (5). If you make a mistake in circling or change your mind, strike the old answer off and circle a new one. Please make sure not to leave out any statement. In each statement circle only one answer.

not true at all

mostly not true

sometimes true, some-times not

true

mostly true

always true

1. I like to use the computer when I learn. 1 2 3 4 52. I like to face new challenges allowed by the computer.

1 2 3 4 53. I favour the use of computer in music lessons.

1 2 3 4 54. In music lessons, I like active methods of work offered by the computer. 1 2 3 4 55. I am confident that the use of computer in music les-sons will allow cooperation with my classmates. 1 2 3 4 56. I am afraid that I will not be able to work with comput-er in music lessons. 1 2 3 4 57. I am sure that I will know to use music knowledge with computer independently. 1 2 3 4 58. I am afraid of forming melodies with computer slower than my classmates. 1 2 3 4 59. Creating music with computer is a challenge for me.

1 2 3 4 510. I am afraid that melodies I write with computer will be worse than those written by my classmates. 1 2 3 4 511. I am happy when classmates praise my melodies, which I wrote with computer. 1 2 3 4 512. I am proud of melodies that I have developed with my computer. 1 2 3 4 5