The Bleeding Edge: Technology in Pluralistic Music Education Research

  • Jay DorfmanEmail author
Part of the Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education book series (LAAE, volume 23)


In this essay I explore several of the connections between technology and music education research, and the risks that can be involved in using technology as a research aid. The essay serves as a companion to some previous chapters written about this subject (e.g. Tobias, E., The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2014); (Webster, P., The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning. Schirmer Books, New York, NY, 2002)), but furthers the thinking in those chapters to focus on pluralistic work. The essay includes reviews of some recent research that has featured technology, and critiques of how technology may have helped or hindered those studies. I examine the usefulness of technology as a tool for research design, data collection and analysis. I discuss the implications of reliance on technology for each of these phases of the research process, and interrogate the goodness and appropriateness of software for qualitative data analysis. I also evaluate the most recent scholarship on the benefits and limitations of statistical software for social sciences research. Finally, I examine recent thought on the use of digital multimedia tools, and how this form of data generation and collection may lend itself especially well to a pluralistic approach to music education research.


  1. Barrett, J. R. (2007). The researcher as instrument: Learning to conduct qualitative research through analyzing and interpreting a choral rehearsal. Music Education Research, 9(3), 417–433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, W. I. (2013). The acquisition of musical technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22(2), 51–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, W. I. (2015). Music learning and technology. New Directions in Music Education, 1.Google Scholar
  5. Bolden, B., & Nahachewsky, J. (2015). Podcast creation as transformative music engagement. Music Education Research, 17(1), 17–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colwell, R. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the music educators National Conference. New York: Schirmer Books.Google Scholar
  7. Daignault, L. (1996). Children’s creative musical thinking within the context of a computer-supported improvisational approach to composition. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  8. Dammers, R. J. (2010). A case study of the creation of a technology-based music course. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 186, 55–65.Google Scholar
  9. Dammers, R. J. (2012). Technology-based music classes in high schools in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (194), 73–90.Google Scholar
  10. Dorfman, J. (2008). Technology in Ohio’s school music programs: An exploratory study of teacher use and integration. Contributions to Music Education, 35, 23–46.Google Scholar
  11. Dorfman, J. (2013). Theory and practice of technology-based music instruction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dorfman, J. (2015). Perceived importance of technology skills and conceptual understandings for pre-service, early-career, and late-career music teachers. Symposium of the College Music Society, 55. Retrieved from
  13. Dorfman, J. (2016a). An examination of models of technology integration in music teacher preparation programs. Visions of Research in Music Education, 28. Retrieved from
  14. Dorfman, J. (2016b). Music teachers experiences in one-to-one computing environments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(2), 1590178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drisko, J. W. (2013). Qualitative data analysis software: An overview and new possibilities. In A. E. Fortune, W. J. Reid, & R. L. Miller Jr. (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 284–303). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ennis, C. D. (1999). A theoretical framework: The central piece of a research plan. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct survey studies: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert, L. S., Jackson, K., & di Gregorio, S. (2014). Tools for analyzing qualitative data: The history and relevance of qualitative data analysis software. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 221–236). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hahn, D. M. (2015). An investigation of the creative process in songwriting in an undergraduate songwriting survey class. (DMA dissertation), Boston University. Retrieved from (1696060630).
  20. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. The University of Texas at Austin: The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  22. Haning, M. (2015). Are they ready to teach with technology? An investigation of technology instruction in music teacher education programs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(1), 78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes, T. C. (1983, March 21). Hope at Storage Technology, The New York Times.Google Scholar
  24. Henry, A. (2006). Historical studies: Groups/institutions. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 333–356). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hernández-Bravo, J. R., Coardona-Moltó, C. M., & Hernández-Bravo, J. A. (2016). The effects of an individualised ICT-based music education programmer on primary school students’ musical competence and grades. Music Education Research, 18(2), 176–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillier, A., Greher, G., Queenan, A., Marshall, S., & Kopec, J. (2015). Music, technology and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: The effectiveness of the touch screen interface. Music Education Research., 18, 269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofstetter, F. T. (1978). Computer-based recognition of perceptual patterns in harmonic dictation exercises. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26(2), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofstetter, F. T. (1980). Computer-based recognition of perceptual patterns in chord quality exercises. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofstetter, F. T. (1981). Computer-based recognition of perceptual patterns and learning styles in rhythmic dictation exercises. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(4), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015). A case study of a TPACK-based approach to teacher professional development: Teaching science with blogs. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2.) Retrieved from
  32. Kim, M. C., Kozan, K., Kim, W., & Koehler, A. A. (2013). Technology integration: From implementation to dynamic scaffolding. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Knezek, G. A., & Christensen, R. (2014). Tools for analyzing qualitative data. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 173–194). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committe on Innovation and Technology, Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowlege (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge/American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, B. (2015). Successful implementation of TPACK in teacher preparation programs. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4(1), 17–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLaren, S. V. (2012). Considering some big issues and the role of technology in transformational change. In P. J. Wiliams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 231–260). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Menard, E. A. (2015). Music composition in the high school curriculum: A multiple case study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(1), 114–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miksza, P., & Johnson, E. (2012). Theoretical frameworks applied in music education research: A content analysis of the journal of research in music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 193, 7–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mroziak, J., & Bowman, J. (2016). Music TPACK in higher education: Educating the educators. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 285–296). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Powell, S. R. (2016). The influence of video reflection on preservice music teachers’ concerns in peer- and field-teaching settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(4), 487–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reese, S. (2003). Four years of progress: Illinois teachers and schools using technology. Illinois Music Educator, 63(3), 78–81.Google Scholar
  43. Reese, S., & Rimington, J. (2000). Music technology in Illinois public schools. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 18(2), 27–32.Google Scholar
  44. Sehmann, K. H., & Hayes, C. (1997). The status of computer technology in Kentucky’s music classrooms. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 9, 26–34.Google Scholar
  45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: A conception of teacher knowledge. American Educator, 10(1.), 9–15), 43–44.Google Scholar
  46. Sims, W. L., Lordo, J., & Phelps, C. W. (2016). Analysis of publication decisions for journal of research in music education manuscripts (2009–2014). Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(1), 5–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tobias, E. (2012). Hybrid spaces and hyphenated musicians: Secondary students’ musical engagement in a songwriting and technology course. Music Education Research, 14(3), 329–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tobias, E. (2014). Collecting, generating, and analyzing multimodal and multimedia data. In C. M. Conway (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 288–306). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tobias, E. S. (2015). Participatory and digital cultures in practice: Perspectives and possibilities in a graduate course. International Journal of Community Music, 8(1), 7–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Treiman, D. J. (2014). Quantitative data analysis: Doing social research to test ideas. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Vancas, M. F., & Ramachandran, R. (2016). Equipment development, design, and optimization. In V. I. Lakshmanan, R. Roy, & V. Ramachandran (Eds.), Innovative process development in metallurgical industry: Concept to commission (pp. 245–256). Cham, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webster, P. (2002). Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning. In R. Colwell & C. P. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 416–439). New York: Schirmer Books.Google Scholar
  53. Webster, P. R. (2007). Computer-based technology and music. In L. Brelser (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 1311–1328). Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Webster, P. R. (2011). Construction of music learning. In R. Colwell & P. R. Webster (Eds.), MENC Handbook of research on music learning (Vol. 1: Strategies, pp. 35–83). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hugh A. Glauser School of MusicKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations