The Integration of Music Theory, Music History,
Performance, and Technology in the Classroom
Through the Assignment of Group Projects
Cynthia Folio
Temple University
http://astro.temple.edu/~cfolio
Preview of Presentation:




Rationale and Resources
Idea and Implementation
Examples and Execution
Post-mortem: Pluses and Pitfalls
Books, articles, websites on
collaborative learning:

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/docs/bibliography.htm

http://astro.temple.edu/~cfolio
Comparison of Old and New Paradigms of Teaching
(from Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, Active Learning (1991), p. 1:7)
Old Paradigm
New Paradigm
Knowledge
Transferred From Faculty to
Students
Jointly Constructed By Students And
Faculty
Students
Passive Vessel To Be Filled By
Faculty’s Knowledge
Active Constructor, Discoverer,
Transformer Of Own Knowledge
Faculty Purpose
Classify and Sort Students
Develop Students’ Competencies And
Talents
Relationships
Impersonal Relationships
Among Students and Between
Faculty & Students
Personal Transaction Among Students
And Between Faculty and Students
Context
Competitive/Individualistic
Cooperative Learning In Classroom And
Cooperative Teams Among Faculty
Assumption
Any Expert Can Teach
Teaching Is Complex And Requires
Considerable Training
Instructor’s Role
(Johnson, Johnson & Smith, Active Learning, p. 4:3)

Choice: “a sage on the stage” or “a
guide on the side”
Problems with the Lecture Format
(from Johnson, Johnson & Smith, Active Learning, p. 5:6-9)





Students’ attention to what the instructor is saying decreases as
the lecture proceeds. (ZZzzzzzzzzzz . . . )
The lecture format is based on a series of assumptions about
the cognitive capabilities and strategies of students: that all
students need the same information, presented orally, presented
at the same pace, without dialogue with the presenter, and in an
impersonal way.
It tends to promote only lower-level learning of factual
information and doesn’t “engage” the student.
The students tend not to like it. They can also retreat into an
anonymous feeling of isolation, where they feel that no one
cares about their academic progress.
Students can easily misunderstand the material unless there is
some means of checking their understanding.
Goals for Collaborative Learning:




To enlist the students as active
participants
To sharpen problem-solving skills
To share a wide range of possible
approaches
To reflect actual practice
Implementation




Topics for the group projects (and
student assignments)
Requirements and deadlines
Criteria and grades
Group evaluations
Group topics and student assignments











#1 C min Fugue from W.T.C.
#2 The Blues
#3 First movement from any classical string quartet
#4 “Marche” from L’Histoire
#5 Bartok: “Evening in the Country” (in the textbook)
#6 Beethoven Minuet (in the textbook)
#7 Third movement from any classical string quartet
#8 Recitative and Aria from Purcell: Dido & Aeneus
#9 Kyrie from Bach’s Mass In B minor
#10 Stravinsky: Fanfare for 2 trumpets
#11 Josquin: Tu pauperum refugium
Assignments to Groups



I went against “conventional wisdom” that suggests grouping
randomly (to create heterogeneous groups).
I grouped by instrumentation and majors:
One group of pianists
Two string quartets (plus two other instruments)
One group of jazz majors
Three groups of vocal majors
One woodwind group
One brass group
(The final 2 groups might be called “miscellaneous”)
I assigned pieces that would relate to their major, with the hope
that some would be performed in class. This resulted in several
in-class performances
Requirements



Format: Each group will create:
 (1) A 15-minute presentation to the class, including the playing of all or part of
a piece (either a recording or a live performance)
 (2) A 2-3 page outline of the presentation (typed in a word processing program
and printed out). This outline can be a mixture of prose, lists, and examples.
 (3) A completed evaluation form (completed AS A GROUP) of how much
each student contributed to the group (see next slide).
Content: The project should be a mixture of music history (such as information about
the composer or the composition) and music theory. The content need not be limited to
the questions on the topic sheet, but use these questions as a general guideline.
Presentation: The presentation should be organized and should use some of the
technology of the smart classroom. For example, make some pdf files or picture files
with musical excerpts or with the analysis; or a presentation in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Presentations of Projects


Each group had a different deadline for
presentation, which was coordinated
with the material covered in each week.
From mid-semester to the end, there
was a group project in nearly every
class.
Evaluation Form: Rate the level of student
contribution. Do this AS A GROUP.
The group does not have to select a leader, but if it does, there can be only one. The leader
receives more extra credit points than “a lot”. “A little” has points subtracted and “none”
gets a zero.
Student Name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(6)
NONE
A LITTLE
(less than others)
ENOUGH
(average)
A LOT
(more than others)
LEADER (optional)
ZERO
-10 points (out of
100)
Nothing added
or subtracted
+5 points
+10 points
The Benefits of Group Projects




Students (both the presenters and the audience)
became involved, active participants.
Most of the groups presented a live performance of
the assigned work, making the project more
meaningful for them and for the class.
Most of the groups used recent technology, both in
the process and the presentation.
In the process of guiding the groups, and helping
students, I got to know them better.
Live student performances (TOPIC)






A jam session on Billie’s Bounce (Blues)
Purcell: Recitative & Lament from Dido
(Ostinato)
Haydn: string quartet (Rondo)
Bach: Fugue in C min, Bk I (Fugue)
Stravinsky: Fanfare for 2 Tpts (12-tone)
Bartok: Evening in the Country (Scales)
Example of Group Project
QuickTime™ and a
H.263 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Integration of Technology

Model
My daily presentations and use of technology in a smart
classroom provided a model for their presentations.

Preparation
Through Blackboard, students could communicate with their
groups using the group email & group chat features.

Presentation
Most groups prepared PowerPoint presentations, which also
incorporated music typesetting, word processing, scanning, and
importing graphics.
Assessment: How well did group
projects work?


Comparison of final exam grades for the past
3 years (the final exams were very similar,
with minor changes that reflected what
repertoire was or was not covered)
Comparison of the Temple University
Institutional Course Evaluations for the past 2
years regarding important questions relating
to teaching.
The Pitfalls
(And things that I will do differently next time)





A few groups had some inaccurate information, or weaker
presentations. (Solution: require that they report to me earlier.)
There were 2 students (out of 69) who did not contribute at all.
(Solution: monitor this more carefully and require multiple
assesments.)
Some groups had trouble scheduling time together. (Solution:
give them more class time or lab time; encourage them to use
the group communication tool in Blackboard.)
I had less time to cover my “lecture” material, which did not
seem to matter in the end.
Organizing, monitoring, mentoring, and implementing the group
projects required a lot of work! (I’m afraid there is no solution for
this.)
Concluding Remark

(Johnson, Johnson & Smith, Active Learning, p. 4:3)
The challenge in college teaching is
not COVERING the material FOR the
students, it’s UNCOVERING the
material WITH the students.