Module 8
Module 8 Summary, Synthesis, & Inquiry
Summary
In Andreas Förster’s Accessible Digital Musical Instruments in Special Educational Needs Schools - Design Considerations Based on 16 Qualitative Interviews with Music Teachers, the author identifies the problem statement that there is no established design framework for building accessible digital musical instruments (ADMIs), and attempts to design a framework through deductive and inductive synthesis of data collected from 16 qualitative interviews with German special education needs (SEN) music teachers. Förster defines accessibility as “overcoming disabling barriers that exclude people from participation” (Förster, 1), divides accessibility into three types (cognitive, physical, and sensory), and acknowledges the “history of criticism on the terminology used to describe the complex phenomena of disability” (Förster, 10). Förster shares an overview of existing ADMIs, and references Emma Frid’s 2019 comprehensive systematic review when noting that most ADMIs were designed for users with physical impairments and single person use. Förster references related work of Ward et al. (2017) and Graham–Knight and Tzanetakis (2015) that supports the claim for students and teachers to participate in an iterative design process, and acknowledges that there is a “dearth of research relating to this research area” (2) . Over 5 months in 2020, Förster conducted 16 qualitative problem-centered interviews via telephone, and then used MAXQDA for a structured qualitative content analysis that identified 10 design considerations across 8 SEN specializations: multimodality, manageability, flexibility, compatibility, discovery learning, sound quality, transportability, hygiene, robustness, and financial viability. Förster briefly defined each design consideration, and identifies limitations and contradictions inherent in his research process such as the interviewees being disproportionately male, the nontransferability of the research to countries outside of Germany, and that one instrument’s accessible design for one may be a barrier for another. He concludes that accessible design can either result in instruments that are highly adaptive, classrooms with a wide variety of instruments with different aspects of accessibility, or bespoke instruments designed for each student based on their intersecting SEN specializations.
WC: 317
Synthesis
Förster’s article supported claims and conclusions made in Randall Allsup’s Remixing The Classroom (2018), and Adam Patrick Bell’s Can We Afford These Affordances? (2015). I found Föster’s framework for creating accessible digital musical instruments to support Bell’s claim that “possession of music technology is the key to unlocking the hibernating musician within” especially when those musicians may have intersecting SEN specializations and limited access to resources. The aforementioned scholars reference barriers to access lying with the educator’s lack of awareness or fear of trying new things, with Bell expressing that just because you have access to and power over the tools does not mean you can use them to create great art. Föster claims that “discovery learning” is an important design component for ADMIs, making sure that the instruments are able to be independently explored and that they have some capacity to provide feedback to the user, whether it be tactile, audible, or visual. Creating new instruments, or engaging in an iterative design process that includes students and teachers reminded me of Allsup’s constructivist “museum” vs. “laboratory” model that encourages the creation of new knowledge from close proximity and regular traveling between both areas for inspiration. Creating bespoke ADMI’s and giving students a wide range of ADMI’s helps to overcome presumed, privileged, protected, prevented and provided barriers as defined by Bell. An interviewer in Föster’s study identified the social aspect of music making as the most important, supported by Allsup’s claim that “technology has opened up spaces that are potentially more cooperative and more socially just than the Master-apprentice model.” As an educator who comes from a traditional classical music background that involved a lot of individual practice, I do struggle to create activities and classrooms that are accessible to students without much traditional technical musical knowledge and ability, but with capacity to awaken their “hibernating” musical selves. These technologies inspire me to “remix” how I structure my classrooms to engage all students and all levels, and to work collaboratively with my students to design curriculum and deliverables.
WC: 338
Inquiry
Of the 10 design considerations outlined by Föster, which would be easiest to implement in your current classroom setting, which would be the most challenging, and why?
How could the 10 design considerations for ADMIs be applied to acoustic instruments to provide a bridge for teachers who are less comfortable with technology?
What activities could you do with your students to collaboratively design bespoke DMIs?
Reference Page
Förster, Andreas Accessible Digital Musical Instruments in Special Educational Needs Schools - Design Considerations Based on 16 Qualitative Interviews with Music Teachers. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2023.
Bell, Adam Patrick. Can we afford these affordances: GarageBand and the double-edged sword of the digital audio workstation. Action, Theory, and Criticism for Music Education, 2015
Allsup, Randall Everett. Remixing the Classroom: Toward an Open Philosophy of Music
Education. Indiana University Press, 2016.
