457881

1Journal of Music Teacher EducationBauer

2012
JMT22210.1177/105708371245788

Journal of Music Teacher Education

The Acquisition of Musical 22(2) 51­–64
© 2012 National Association for

Technological Pedagogical and Music Education

Reprints and permission: http://www.

Content Knowledge
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1057083712457881
http://jmte.sagepub.com

William I. Bauer1, 2

Abstract
Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) is a conceptual framework
for the teacher knowledge necessary to effectively integrate technology into teaching
and learning. The purposes of this study were to (a) develop and administer an
instrument to measure music educators’ TPACK, (b) examine how music teachers
acquire their TPACK, and (c) determine if a relationship existed between those
teachers’ TPACK and their reported integration of technology. Participants (N = 284)
were music teachers who completed two questionnaires, one designed to measure
their TPACK (Musical TPACK Questionnaire [MTPACK-Q]) and another to describe
the level of technology integration in their classroom (Concerns-Based Adoption
Model–Levels of Use [CBAM-LoU] instrument). Scores on the technology-related
domains of the TPACK model were lower than content, pedagogical, or pedagogical
content domains. A moderate, significant, positive correlation (r = .51, p ≤ .01) was
found between the participants’ MTPACK-Q score and the level of technology
integration in their classroom as reported by the CBAM-LoU.

Keywords
music teacher preparation, technology, TPACK, pedagogy, professional development

Technology can be an effective tool to facilitate student learning. When used appro-
priately, instruction that uses technology has been documented to provide small to
moderate gains in student achievement over non-technology-based teaching (Tamim,
Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami,& Schmid, 2011). Technology also appears to make it
possible for students to exert more control over their own learning, leading to more
1
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
2
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
William I. Bauer, 463 Whitebark Circle, Wadsworth, OH 44281-2299, USA
Email: william.bauer@gmail.com

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

52 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

student-centered instruction (Russell &Sorge, 1999). Tony Bryk, the president of the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, is cautious, but he believes
that technology can be an asset to education. He states, “There is extraordinary
promise in being able to use multimedia tools to enhance the capacity of teachers to
teach” (Jaschik, 2008). Bryk believes teachers need to consider “how we can inte-
grate technology effectively into the work lives of adults and students that advance
much more ambitious instruction and higher levels and deeper learning by students”
(Jaschik, 2008). He also expresses a common fear for some educators, that technol-
ogy could result in education being “reduced to a very mechanical activity.”
The challenge is for teachers to use technology in pedagogically appropriate ways to
help students achieve curricular objectives.
Although there have been a number of studies of innovative approaches to music
learning with technology (Webster, 2011), few researchers have examined the integra-
tion of technology into music classes and rehearsals. A consistent finding of the extant
research has been that most music educators are not extensively using technology,
especially for instruction. In an early national study, Taylor and Deal (2000) learned
that music teachers were making use of technology for administrative purposes—letters,
memos, student handouts, programs, flyers, and so on—but found few curricular appli-
cations. Dorfman (2008), Jassmann (2004), Ohlenbusch (2001), and Reese and Rimington
(2000) have reported similar accounts. When Dorfman (2008) asked teachers how
frequently they used various technologies for their own professional productivity, few
teachers indicated regular use of a computer for (a) writing or arranging music—18%,
(b) creating music with a sequencer—3%, (c) recording live performances—7%,
(d) burning CDs—21%, (e) accompaniment—12%, and (f) multimedia presentations—7%.
These music educators had students use technology as part of formal instructional
activities even less, with only very small numbers reporting regular student use of the
computer for (a) writing or arranging music—4%, (b) creating music with a
sequencer—2%, (c) recording live performances—2%, (d) burning CDs—4%,
(e) accompaniment—3%, (f) multimedia presentations—2%, and (g) computer-assisted
instruction applications—7%. The music educators rated their own general level
of comfort with technology fairly high but were more moderate in their expressed com-
petence with music-specific technologies. Although most of the respondents indicated
interest in integrating technology into their teaching, they cited inadequate budgets and
facilities as barriers to doing so.
This apparent lack of technology integration into music teaching and learning comes
at the same time as state boards of education, accrediting organizations such as the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (http://ncate.org) and Teacher
Education Accreditation Council (http://www.teac.org/), and professional organizations
such as the International Society for Technology in Education (http://www.iste.org/) are
advocating increasing emphasis on the use of technology by teachers. Similar efforts in
music education have led to technology competencies for music teachers, such as those
outlined by the Technology Institute for Music Educators (Rudolph et al., 2005). The
National Association for Music Education has also established standards for using music

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

Bauer 53

technology, outlining curriculum and scheduling, staffing, equipment, materials/

software, and facilities requirements for effective technology integration (MENC, 1999).
Even secondary school principals have indicated an interest in additional technology
course offerings in music (Abril & Gault, 2008). With such an emphasis on the use of
technology, it seems that possible reasons why it is not more fully used by music teach-
ers should be explored.

Teaching and Technology

Teaching is a very complex act, requiring teachers to use many different types of
knowledge. Mishra and Koehler (2006) describe teaching as “ill-structured” (2006, p.
1020) and label it as a “wicked problem” (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, p. 10), a phrase
originating in social planning used to describe a problem that is difficult to solve
because of a variety of factors, including incomplete or contradictory information and
no clear path to a solution being evident (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The teaching envi-
ronment is very contextual and constantly changing. There are no recipes or algorithms
for teaching that will work for every teacher, in every classroom, with every group of
students, on every day of the week. Rather, excellent teachers are constantly making
decisions, adapting, and adjusting in an ongoing manner during any instructional episode.
Adding the use of technology to the mix creates a whole other set of concerns.
Although many technologies in today’s classrooms are transparent—things such as
chalkboards and overhead projectors have become commonplace and are usually not
even considered technology—some characteristics of newer, digital technologies may
cause many teachers to be apprehensive about incorporating them into their classroom
routines. Koehler and Mishra (2008) describe recent technologies such as computers to
be protean—usable in many different ways, unstable—they change quickly, and
opaque—exactly how they work cannot be easily determined. In contrast, traditional
technologies such as the chalkboard are specific—they have a well-defined use, sta-
ble—they do not change much over time, and transparent—it is easy to understand
how they function. In addition, all technologies have certain affordances (benefits) and
constraints (limiting features). Teachers must conduct a cost/benefit analysis to deter-
mine if the use of any particular technology is worthwhile. Technology should only be
incorporated when there is a clear benefit to learning.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

For teachers to effectively help students learn, they need to have well-developed sub-
ject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and an understanding of curriculum.
In addition to the discrete competencies required in each of these domains, each area
also interacts and influences the others, forming what Shulman (1986) has called
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). PCK involves having an expert understanding
of a discipline, along with the ability to communicate that understanding to others
through a variety of pedagogical processes that account for the unique characteristics
of both students and various educational contexts. Shulman defined it thus:

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

54 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

The most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of
representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, exam-
ples, explanations, and demonstrations – in a word, ways of representing and
formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. Pedagogical
content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning
of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that
students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of
those most frequently taught topics and lessons. If those preconceptions are
misconceptions, which they so often are, teachers need knowledge of the strate-
gies most likely to be fruitful in reorganizing the understanding of learners,
because those learners are unlikely to appear before them as blank slates. (p. 9)

PCK is unique to each discipline. In other words, the music teacher will use a form
of PCK that is different from the math teacher, English teacher, science teacher, and so
on.
If technology is to be an integral part of teaching and learning, it would seem logi-
cal that teachers need not only well-developed PCK but also an understanding of
technology itself and how it interacts with PCK. Technology, if conceptualized as a
tool to be used to further curricular goals rather than as an end in itself, becomes a
third component of the pedagogical and content knowledge dyad.

Integrating technology is not about technology—it is primarily about content

and effective instructional practices. Technology involves the tools with which
we deliver content and implement practices in better ways. Its focus must be on
curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or type of
technology used, but by how and why it is used. (Earle, 2002, p. 7)

Technology makes the complexities of teaching even more wicked. What is needed
is a way to both conceptualize and actualize the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
educators need to be able to effectively integrate technology into teaching and
learning.

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

Building on Shulman’s (1986) ideas, some researchers have developed a hybrid model
of teaching and learning with technology.

Previous approaches to helping teachers learn to take advantage of technology

have focused on teaching teachers about technology. We believed (erroneously,
as the research increasingly indicates) that after teachers learned to use technol-
ogy, they would naturally figure out how to use the technology to teach their
content area. What is clear now is that we need to go beyond simplistic techno-
centric approaches because knowledge of technology does not necessarily lead

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

Bauer 55

to effective teaching with technology. Effective use of technology, we have

learned, involves the ability to make informed decisions on how to take advan-
tage of the affordances of technology (with a sensitivity to the concomitant
constraints technologies bring to the table) to support specific pedagogies within
a particular content area. Thus, teachers need the total PACKage: the knowledge
that lies at the intersection of knowledge of Content, Pedagogy AND Technology
i.e., TPACK. (Thompson & Mishra, 2007-2008, p. 38)

The technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) model (see

Figure 1) provides a way to conceptualize how technology can be effectively inte-
grated into teaching and learning. Technological, pedagogical, and content knowl-
edge are each necessary. However, it is the way they overlap and interact that
potentially affects a teacher’s choices of the type of technology, the pedagogies used,
and even the specific content to be taught. The TPACK framework has the potential
to take the focus off technology itself and place it on ways in which technology might
assist students in achieving curricular goals. Teachers who have an understanding of
the specific content and pedagogical needs for a subject can then examine the affor-
dances and constraints of any particular technology, making appropriate decisions as
to how to use the technology appropriately.
Technology can be a beneficial tool for learning. Yet music teachers do not exten-
sively use technology for instruction. TPACK is a conceptual framework for the
teacher knowledge necessary to effectively integrate technology into teaching and
learning. If music educators have well-developed TPACK, would they be more likely
to use technology with students? The purposes of this study were to (a) develop and
administer an instrument to measure music educators’ TPACK, (b) examine how
music teachers acquire their TPACK, and (c) determine if a relationship existed
between those teachers’ TPACK and their reported integration of technology.

Procedure
Participants

Participants were 284 music educators who were enrolled in 1-week music technology
workshops held in 17 separate locations throughout the United States. The participants,
who were 48% male and 52% female, came from 26 states. Their teaching experience
ranged from 1 to 40 years (M = 12.95, SD = 9.48) and they held bachelor’s (48%),
master’s (48%), and doctoral degrees (2%). The teachers worked in both public (89%)
and private schools (11%) and were located in rural (15%), suburban (59%), or urban
(26%) settings. They taught in all areas of music education, including band (43%),
strings (18%), choral (41%), elementary general (36%), secondary general (29%), and
other music areas (19%). The teachers also represented all grade levels, K–12 (see
Table 1). Near the beginning of their workshop, the participants completed an online

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

56 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

Table 1. Grade Levels Taught by Participants

Percentage of Participants Teaching at This

Grade Level Grade Level
K 29
1 32
2 34
3 34
4 45
5 50
6 43
7 45
8 44
9 36
10 37
11 38
12 39

questionnaire that incorporated two measurement instruments (see the following

section).

Measurement Instruments
Two measurement instruments were used in this study: the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model–Levels of Use (CBAM-LoU; Griffin & Christensen, 1999) instrument and the
researcher-designed Musical TPACK Questionnaire (MTPACK-Q). The CBAM-LoU
is a self-assessment measure for use in ascertaining the level of technology use in
education. It is based on the eight levels of use defined in the Levels of Use Chart
(Loucks, Newlove, & Hall, 1975). The levels of use are as follows: (0) Nonuse,
(I) Orientation, (II) Preparation, (III) Mechanical Use, (IVA) Routine, (IVB)
Refinement, (V) Integration, and (VI) Renewal. The respondent selects a single level
that best describes his or her present level of technology use.
The MTPACK-Q, developed by the researcher, was constructed in three parts and
is based on two existing questionnaires (Bauer, Forsythe, & Kinney, 2009; Schmidt
et al., 2009). The first part of the MTPACK-Q sought to measure the various compo-
nents, separate and combined, that comprise TPACK in music teachers. The basis for
this part of the questionnaire was a survey developed by Schmidt et al. to measure the
various TPACK domains of preservice teachers. These domains are created by the
intersections of technology, content, and pedagogical knowledge (see Figure 1)
and include (a) technology knowledge (TK), (b) content knowledge (CK), (c) peda-
gogical knowledge (PK), (d) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), (e) technological
pedagogical knowledge (TPK), (f) technological content knowledge (TCK), and

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

Bauer 57

Figure 1. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Source: http://tpack.org/.

(g) technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). For the MTPACK-Q,
the researcher used the TK, PK, and TPK sections of the original survey. The sections
of the Schmidt et al. survey that included questions related to content were adapted to
reflect musical content, specifically the musical domains of creating, performing, and
responding to music. See Table 2 for examples of questions from each TPACK domain.
The second part of the MTPACK-Q examined respondents’ paths to the develop-
ment of various components of their TPACK. This portion of the instrument was
modeled on a professional development survey created by Bauer et al. (2009). It
asked participants to indicate the ways they had acquired their current understanding
of the various TPACK domains: (a) technology (TK), (b) music (CK), (c) generalized
approaches to teaching (PK), (d) music-specific approaches for teaching (PCK),
(e) technologies that are used in music (TCK), (f) generalized approaches for teach-
ing with technology (TPK), and strategies for combining music, technology, and
teaching and learning strategies (TPACK). Possible responses included participation
in conferences, summer workshops, local in-services, online learning, learning infor-
mally with a friend or mentor, learning through self-exploration, and undergraduate

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

58 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

Table 2. Sample Questions From the Musical TPACK Questionnaire

TPACK Domain Sample Question

Technology knowledge (TK)
Content knowledge (CK)
Pedagogical knowledge (PK)
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
Technological content knowledge (TCK)
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) I can choose technologies that enhance
Technological pedagogical and content
knowledge (TPACK)
I know how to solve my own technical
problems.
I have sufficient knowledge and skill as a musical
performer (singing and/or playing instruments,
reading and notating music).
I can adapt my teaching based on what students
currently understand or do not understand.
I know how to select effective teaching and
learning strategies to guide student knowledge
and skill development in music creativity
(improvising, composing, and arranging).
I know about technologies that I can use for
listening to music.
students’ learning for a lesson.
I can teach lessons that appropriately combine
music theory, history, genres/styles, and/or
cultural contexts, technologies, and teaching
and learning strategies.

and graduate courses. The final part of the questionnaire collected demographic
information on the participants.

Results
Responses for each TPACK component in the first part of the questionnaire were
summed to provide a score for each of the TPACK domains. These values were then
tallied to arrive at an overall TPACK score. The raw domain scores were converted to
a percentile score (raw score divided by total possible score) in order to determine the
relative strength of each TPACK component (see Table 3). Finally, the percentile
scores were ranked from highest to lowest. They were (a) PK (85.71%), (b) CK
(85.07%), (c) PCK (81.95%), (d) TCK (76.60%), (e) TPK (75.20%), (f) TPACK
(72.95%), and (g) TK (70.63%). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of the
TPACK domain subscales. Reliability of the seven subscales ranged from .87 to .95
(see Table 4).
Part 2 of the questionnaire examined how participants developed the various com-
ponents of their TPACK. Respondents were asked to check all the options that they
had used to learn in each domain. The frequency of responses was tallied and divided
by the total number of respondents to arrive at a percentage of respondents who had
selected each option. The top ways respondents reported learning about technology
(i.e., TK) were (a) by exploring on their own (81%), (b) summer workshops (69.4%),
and (c) music education conferences and conventions (68.3%). Learning about music

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

Bauer 59

Table 3. TPACK Scores

Raw Raw Percentile

TPACK Domain Score M Score SD Score
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) 30.00 3.65 85.71
Content knowledge (CK) 51.04 6.58 85.07
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) 16.39 2.36 81.95
Technological content knowledge (TCK) 15.32 2.86 76.60
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) 18.80 3.76 75.20
Technological pedagogical and content 29.18 6.30 72.95
knowledge (TPACK)
Technology knowledge (TK) 24.72 5.68 70.63
Questionnaire Total Score 185.45 23.18 78.31

Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha for Each TPACK Subscale

TPACK Subscale Cronbach’s Alpha

Technology knowledge (TK) .92
Content knowledge (CK) .94
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) .93
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) .87
Technological content knowledge (TCK) .89
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) .91
Technological pedagogical and content .95
knowledge (TPACK)

(i.e., CK) was accomplished through (a) music education conferences and conventions
(82.7%), (b) undergraduate courses (81%), and (c) exploring on their own (80.6%).
Participants developed their understanding of generalized approaches to teaching (i.e.,
PK) as a result of (a) in-services held in their school district (70.4%), (b) music educa-
tion conferences and conventions (67.3%), and (c) undergraduate courses (61.6%).
Primary approaches used to acquire music-specific approaches for teaching (i.e., PCK)
were (a) music education conferences and conventions (77.8%), (b) undergraduate
courses (76.4%), and (c) exploring on their own (67.6%). Teachers reported learning
about technologies that are used in music (i.e., TCK) through (a) exploring on their
own (59.5%), (b) music education conferences and conventions (58.8%), and (c) sum-
mer workshops (55.6%). Generalized approaches for teaching with technology (i.e.,
TPK) were attained by (a) exploring on their own (64.8%), (b) in-services held in their
school districts (58.5%), and (c) learning informally from a friend or mentor (42.6%).
Finally, the top ways respondents reported learning about strategies for combining
music, technology, and teaching and learning strategies that assist students in learning
music concepts and skills (i.e., TPACK) were (a) exploring on their own (57%),
(b) music education conferences and conventions (53.9%), and (c) summer workshops
(47.9%).

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

60 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

In addition to the MTPACK-Q, respondents also completed the CBAM-LoU. Here,

participants placed themselves at one of eight possible levels (from low to high) that
represented their present level of technology use. The sixth level (IVB: Refinement—“I
vary the use of information technology in education to increase the expected benefits
within the classroom. I am working on using information technology to maximize the
effects with my students”) was the response most frequently selected. The mean level
selected was 5.31, with a standard deviation of 1.87.
A Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient was calculated to determine if
there was any relationship between participants’ reported level of technology use and
their overall MTPACK-Q score. A moderate, positive, significant (r = .51, p ≤ .01)
correlation was found between the two variables. The higher the participants’
MTPACK-Q score was, the higher their reported level of technology use tended to be.
A Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient was also calculated to determine
if there was any relationship between participants’ reported level of technology use
and their score on the TPACK subscale of the MTPACK-Q. A moderate, positive,
significant (r = .58, p ≤ .01) correlation was found between the two variables. The
higher the participants’ TPACK subscale score was, the higher their reported level of
technology use tended to be.

Discussion
The sample in this study was diverse, including music educators who (a) encompassed
a wide range of years of teaching experience, (b) were from multiple geographic
locations, and (c) represented a variety of music teaching specialties and settings.
Anecdotally, after many years of teaching similar workshops, the author has found
that the in-service teachers who enroll in professional development experiences
such as these vary greatly in skill and experience with technology and exhibit dis-
parate attitudes toward its integration into music classes and rehearsals. They are
not necessarily technologically inclined or savvy. However, it should be kept in
mind that the participants in this study were volunteers who had chosen to enroll in
technology workshops that were designed to develop basic competencies in using
technology for music learning. They were not randomly selected from the popula-
tion of all music educators. Although there is no evidence that the participants as a
group were atypical as to their backgrounds, experiences, or attitudes toward music
education or technology, caution should be used when generalizing the results of
this study to the profession at large. Despite this possible limitation, it does appear
that the general principles of TPACK have merit as a conceptual model for the inte-
gration of technology into music classes and rehearsals, as a potential framework
for the design of professional development experiences for pre- and in-service
music teachers, and as a theoretical construct for research.
Participants rated themselves as strongest in their PK—85.71%, closely followed
by their knowledge about music (i.e., CK—85.07%) and PCK—81.95% (see Table 3).
It is not surprising that PK, CK, and PCK were the highest rated of the TPACK

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

Bauer 61

domains. These areas are focused on extensively in undergraduate music education

curricula. In addition, teachers typically engage in many professional development
opportunities that serve to develop these competencies (Bauer, 2007; Bauer et al.,
2009). TK, however, received the lowest score of any of the MTPACK-Q subscales
(70.63%). Subscale scores for other domains that included technology (TCK—
76.60%, TPK—75.20%, and TPACK—72.95%) also were rated lower. Clearly, the
technology component was the weakest aspect of the TPACK triad (technology, con-
tent, and pedagogy) for these teachers. These lower technology domain scores seem to
align with previous researchers’ findings of minimal technology integration by music
teachers (Dorfman, 2008; Jassmann, 2004; Ohlenbusch, 2001; Reese & Rimington,
2000; Taylor & Deal, 2000) and raise the question of the degree to which inadequate
TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK affect music educators’ use of technology. This topic
needs further inquiry.
To acquire and develop their TPACK, these music educators used a number of
approaches. Although undergraduate coursework was cited as being influential in the
development of CK, PK, and PCK, less than a third of the respondents indicated that
their preservice curriculum was a means to develop any of the TPACK domains that
included technology. Some of this may be related to when the participants completed
their undergraduate education. Those teachers who graduated more recently may have
had classes that focused on developing technological knowledge and its integration
into teaching and learning, whereas older music educators may not have had such
coursework. Or it may be that most undergraduate curricula do not provide students
with the background necessary to effectively integrate technology. Additional studies
in this area would be beneficial.
Interestingly, the top means of learning about all four of the domains that include
technology (TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK) was through self-exploration. Similar results
have been reported in studies of technology integration in general education, where
researchers have found that teachers’ use of technology is dependent on them having
acquired the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes, often through self-study or for-
malized professional development (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). It appears that if teachers
have access to technological tools and are able to explore and become comfortable
with them, they will not only develop their TPACK but also may be more likely to
attempt to use the technologies in the teaching/learning process. It could also be that
because of a lack of formal learning opportunities related to technology, those educa-
tors who are most interested and motivated to discover ways to integrate it into their
instructional practice take the time to explore the possibilities on their own.
Music education conferences and conventions were an important means of acquir-
ing understandings in nearly all of the TPACK domains. Summer workshops figured
prominently in several of them, especially those that include technology. Conferences,
conventions, and workshops are an important means of professional development for
music educators (Bauer, 2007; Bauer et al., 2009). Those individuals responsible for
planning and organizing them should be sure to include sessions that assist teachers in
developing their understanding of technology, ways in which specific technologies are

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

62 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

suited to the achievement of curricular objectives, and appropriate pedagogies for use
with students in varied music learning environments.
A moderate, yet significant, positive relationship was found between the partici-
pants’ TPACK subscale scores and their level of technology integration as measured
by the CBAM-LoU, as well as between their MTPACK-Q total score and CBAM-LoU
level. It appears that the higher a teacher’s TPACK, the more likely it will be that he or
she will use technology for student learning. However, the strength of the correlation
suggests that there may be additional factors that also affect a teacher’s use of technol-
ogy. Dorfman (2008) found that inadequate budgets and facilities were perceived as
barriers to technology integration, whereas others have cited a lack of computers and
inadequate technical support, along with insufficient professional development, as
inhibiting elements (National Education Association, 2008). Perhaps these or other
variables also influenced decisions about incorporating technology in the classrooms
of the music educators in the present study. Further research is needed.
TPACK appears to be a promising model to better understand the knowledge and
skills needed by teachers to effectively integrate technology in to teaching and learn-
ing. Further study of the most effective and efficient means of developing musical
TPACK is needed. Additional ways to assess an individual’s TPACK should also be
examined. If music teachers have a fully developed understanding of the affordances
and constraints of various technologies, and have thoughtfully considered ways in
which those technologies interact with musical content, pedagogy, and the classroom
environment, students may benefit from approaches to music study that can poten-
tially enhance and even transform their learning experience.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Abril, C., & Gault, B. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s
perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 68-81.
Bauer, W. I. (2007). Research on the professional development of experienced music teachers.
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(1), 12-21.
Bauer, W. I., Forsythe, J., & Kinney, D. (2009). In-service music teachers’ perceptions of
professional development. In L. K. Thompson & M. R. Campbell (Eds.), Research
perspectives: Thought and practice in music education (pp. 101-123). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

Bauer 63

Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and
perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39,
395-414.
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.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises
and challenges. ET Magazine, 42, 5-13. Retrieved from http://bookstoread.com/etp/earle
.pdf
Griffin, D., & Christensen, R. (1999). Concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): Levels of use
of an innovation (CBAM-LOU). Denton, TX: Institute for the Integration of Technology into
Teaching and Learning.
Jaschik, S. (2008, January 9). New leader for Carnegie. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://
www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/09/carnegie
Jassmann, A. E. (2004). The status of music technology in the K–12 curriculum of South Dakota
public schools (EdD dissertation). University of South Dakota, Vermillion. Available from
ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3127829)
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for
educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Loucks, S. F., Hall, G. E., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Measuring levels of use of the innovation:
A manual for trainers, interviewers, and raters. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
MENC. (1999). Opportunity-to-learn standards for music technology. Retrieved from http://
musiced.nafme.org/about/the-national-standards-for-arts-education-introduction/opportunity-
to-learn-standards-for-music-technology/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A frame-
work for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
National Education Association. (2008). Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology.
Washington, DC: Author.
Ohlenbusch, G. (2001) A study of the use of technology applications by Texas music educa-
tors and the relevance to undergraduate music education curriculum (DMA dissertation).
Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA. Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations
database. (Publication No. AAT 3010524)
Reese, S., & Rimington, J. (2000). Music technology in Illinois public schools. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 18(2), 27-32.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4, 155-169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
Rudolph, T. E., Richmond, F., Mash, D., Webster, P., Bauer, W. I., & Walls, K. (2005). Technol-
ogy strategies for music education. Wyncote, PA: Technology Institute for Music Educators.
Russell, J., & Sorge, D. (1999). Training facilitators to enhance technology integration. Journal
of Instruction Delivery Systems, 13(4), 6.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. (2009). Tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

64 Journal of Music Teacher Education 22(2)

an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42, 123-149.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge in the growth in teaching. Educa-
tional Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011).
What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-
order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4-28.
doi:10.3102/0034654310393361
Taylor, J., & Deal, J. (2000, November). Integrating technology into the K-12 music curricu-
lum: A national survey of music teachers. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for Technology in Music Instruction, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007-2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38.
Webster, P. R. (2011). Key research in music technology and music teaching and learning.
Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 4, 115-130. doi:10.1386/jmte.4.2-3.115_1

Downloaded from jmt.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015