Arts Education Policy Review

rP
Fo

Examining technology integration within the CAEP

standards and accreditation process: Considerations for
pre-service music teacher education

Manuscript ID
Manuscript Type:

VAEP-2016-0008
Original Article

rR

Keywords:

Arts Education Policy Review

ee

Journal:

Pre-Service Music Teacher Education, Technology Integration, CAEP

Standards, CAEP Accreditation Process

ie

ev
ly

On
URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 1 of 16

1
Introduction
This article concerns technology integration with regard to pre-service music teacher
education. It argues that technology integration, as presented by the CAEP standards and
accreditation process, is worthy of critical examination. CAEP is the Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation. It was recognized in 2014 by the Council for Higher

rP
Fo

Education Accreditation (CHEA 2016). CAEP sets policy by providing standards, accreditation,
and program review for Educator Preparation Providers. Having replaced the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and Teacher Education Accreditation Council
(TEAC) accreditation processes, CAEP is the governing body solely in charge of accreditation

ee

of teacher preparation across the nation (Martin 2015, 18).

rR

Pre-service music teacher education programs often function across university

departments. The majority of coursework may take place within a department of Music. The pre-

ev

service music teacher education program itself may be a concentration within the department of
Elementary education and/or Middle level education and/or Secondary education. University

ie

education departments across the nation will pursue CAEP accreditation for their teacher

preparation programs. Pre-service music teacher education programs under the purview of the

On

university Education department pursuing CAEP accreditation therefore are included within
CAEP review (CAEP 2014, 2).

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation vocalizes the importance of
technology integration across teacher preparation curricula (Martin 2015, 18). CAEP Standard
3.4 states that the integration of technology needs to occur in the development of content
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical skills. While the CAEP standards
do not offer definition of technology integration, they present two very different perspectives of

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

2
technology integration. From one perspective, technology integration is presented as a crosscutting theme. To cross-cut means to interweave or thread (CAEP 2015). Regarding technology
integration, material artifacts are interwoven with social practices (Winner 1997, 14). From a
second perspective, technology is imbedded in every aspect of educator preparation (CAEP
2013, 3), whereby technology lies at the core of pedagogic practice. These perspectives, as

rP
Fo

presented by CAEP, portend different interpretations and implementation of technology

integration by Educator Preparation Providers.
As a policy-making body, CAEP keeps an eye on trend lines and considers technology
integration within twenty-first century contexts (Choi & Piro 2009). The CAEP standards

ee

utilized the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) standards to develop the

rR

CAEP standards (CAEP 2015). ISTE presents its standards in terms of comprehensive
integration of technology that maximizes use of digital-age resources for teaching and

ev

learning (ISTE 2016, 1). The emphasis on technology integration in the twenty-first century
stems from the United States Department of Educations Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use

Technology Program (2006).

ie

This following sections: provide definition and foundational ideas concerning technology

On

integration; examine underlying assumptions regarding how the CAEP standards present
technology integration. This is followed by examination of how technology integration in music

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 2 of 16

teacher education is impacted by the Culture of Evidence and Culture of Innovation presented in
the CAEP accreditation policy documents and the resulting critical need for discourse. Finally,
implications and recommendations for pre-service music teacher education are discussed.

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 3 of 16

3
Definition and Foundational Ideas
In the 1998 book Technology integration: Making critical choices in a dynamic world,
author Marco Iansiti defines technology integration as a process of deciding how technologies
should be integrated and creating the building blocks of a proactive process for doing so (3).
Iansiti (1998) argues further that technology integration involves people mak[ing] choices about

rP
Fo

what should be integrated with what and for which purpose (1). Iansiti (1998) argues how the
concept of ubiquitous, sophisticated, rapidly changing technology is clich (7). He identifies
that technological environments are both novel and complex. There is need for interaction
between the novelty and complexity of technological environments. Iansiti (1998) defines

ee

novelty as the unpredictability of a knowledge domain (12). Complexity is defined as a high

rR

level of interdependence among domains (12). Iansitis text provides foundational ideas
concerning technology integration for university arts education in general and pre-service music
teacher education in particular.

ev

Key perceptions underlie the ubiquity of technology. Technology is perceived as a

ie

means to fulfill a human purpose (Arthur 2009, 4). In music education contexts, technology

is perceived as a tool that advances the ease with which teachers and students can do their

On

work (Dorfman 2013, 11). Iansiti (1998) observes that technology cannot be separated from
the activities around it (1). Technology as tool can condition human activity and create

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

automatisms, or actions performed unconsciously (Trouche 2003). The line between constraint
(or obliging the user in a particular way) and affordance (which is the favoring of gestures by the
user) can become blurred. The ubiquity of technology may engender reliance upon it and the
perception that technology is value-neutral. These perceptions can serve to initiate discourse as

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

4
university faculty plan for how technology can be imbedded and interwoven as the CAEP
standards are implemented.
Pre-service music teachers and faculty live in complex, ubiquitous relationship with
technology. As musicians and educators, they live in a culture that models close relationship
with music machines (Turkle & Papert 1992, 16). Music machines include voices and

rP
Fo

instruments played in a variety of teaching and learning contexts. This is coupled with twentyfirst century technologies both within and outside of the classroom, as well as connected spaces
in-between. Complexity can inspire critical thinking regarding the who, what, where, why, when,
and how of technology integration within pre-service music teacher education. Critical thinking

ee

develops perspective regarding technology integration, and resulting interpretation and

rR

implementation of the CAEP standards within pre-service music teacher education programs.

ev

Need for Examination of Underlying Assumptions

Access to digital technologies for all students is the rationale CAEP presents for

ie

technology integration in its current standards. CAEP addresses students widely differing

digital experiences that they bring to school by arguing for all students participation within

On

highly networked digital environments (CAEP 2013, 22). This approach fixes students
technological deficits, instead of encouraging the development of learning experiences directly

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 4 of 16

informed by pedagogic contexts, students technological schema, and other environmental

characteristics. This section examines underlying assumptions regarding how the CAEP
standards present technology integration, focusing on technological stratum, sophistication, and
knowledge frameworks.

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 5 of 16

5
Assumption One: No Technological Stratum
The CAEP Standards stipulate the use of Digital Age technologies in teacher preparation.
Indeed, Digital Age technologies are the major medium for technology integration for educator
preparation (CAEP 2013). CAEP views Digital Age technologies as connected technologies.
Wise (1997) asks What is being encultured in new technologies? and What do new

rP
Fo

technologies enculture? In response to this line of questioning, Greenfield (2015) observes that
Digital Age connected technologies blur linear thought sequence, focusing on present and
anticipated gratification. Time is short and there is little emphasis to turn to the past to
remember, plan, and imagine mindful decision-making for the future. This phenomenon reflects

ee

reactive participant experience shaped by technology, rather than humans proactively deciding

rR

how technology will integrate into their lives.

This conception of connected technologies conflicts with definition that accounts for

ev

technologies that combine and build upon existing technology (Arthur 2009, 28). The CAEP
standards do not account for technologies developed prior to the Digital Age. This presents

ie

conflict in music education contexts, because acoustic musical instruments are a major

technological medium for music teacher education and they are not Digital Age technology.

On

Moreover, acoustic musical instruments might be viewed as primitive technology (Thberge

1997). Arthur (2009) offers the concept of the technological stratum, whereby there is

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

opportunity to combine with and build upon existing technologies, essentially developing layers
of technological strata. Music education contexts have potential to combine with and build upon
existing technologies.
Core to music teacher education is corporeal interaction. Technology sociologist
Shanyang Zhao (2003) identifies this kind of interaction as the most primitive mode of human

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

6
togetherness (447). Acoustic instruments are a primitive mode of technology because their
sounding and vibration results from physical interaction with humans. Acoustic instruments,
including voice, are core to music teacher education. Eisner (2001) argues that somatic
knowledge, a form of body-situated knowing is required for developing relationships in music
(20). Digital Age technologies can combine with and build upon existing technologies. CAEPs

rP
Fo

perspective of technology integration as a cross-cutting theme, whereby material artifacts are

interwoven with social practices is a starting place for envisioning and developing technological
strata in music teacher preparation contexts.

ee

Assumption Two: Increasing Sophistication

rR

The second assumption addresses thinking that the process of learning to integrate
technology for K-12 school contexts leads to increasingly sophisticated levels of technology

ev

integration. CAEP standard 1.5 states candidates apply technology standards as they design,
implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning (CAEP

ie

2013, 11). CAEP is referring to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)

standards. ISTE standards specify digital technologies. The Level of Technology Implementation

On

(LoTi) framework is used to analyze technology integration in learning environments. Each level
of the LoTi framework represents increasingly sophisticated practice of technology integration
(William & Redish 2009).

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 16

The LoTi framework and CAEP standard 1.5 is echoed in music educator Jay Dorfmans
conception of technology integration. Dorfman (2013) presents a theoretical order of technology
integration in music education. He describes how each level is increasingly sophisticated,

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 7 of 16

7
culminating with the technological pedagogic content summit whereby technology is the major
medium by which music concepts and skills are introduced, reinforced, and assessed (7).
The CAEP standards, the LoTi Framework, and Dorfmans thinking articulate increasing
sophistication of technology integration when technology is integrated in additional aspects of
teaching and learning, leading towards technological saturation. The LoTi framework identifies a

rP
Fo

by-product of this hierarchical process occurs when digital technology becomes the medium to
explore and express higher order thinking skills and authentic real-world problems.
The problem with this viewpoint of sophistication of technology integration is it begins
with and is dependent upon technology use. Referring back to Iansiti (1998) people, not

ee

technology, are the driving force for making choices and decisions regarding technology

rR

integration contexts. That technology is ubiquitous and there are multiple technologies to
consider within music teaching and learning contexts is more reason for human discourse to be at

ev

the core of technology integration in pre-service education. A core CAEP principle is

continuous improvement (CAEP 2014, 1). It is important not to conflate continuous

ie

improvement with increasing use of technology in teacher preparation.

Assumption Three: Knowledge Frameworks

On

The third assumption concerns the integration of technology within knowledge

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

frameworks. The CAEP standards utilize Shulmans (1987) content and pedagogical knowledge
framework for teacher preparation. Terminology within this framework includes content
knowledge, pedagogic knowledge, and pedagogic content knowledge. Citing Shulman (1987),
the CAEP standards describe content knowledge as the depth of understanding of critical
concepts, theories, skills, processes, principles, and structures that connect and organize ideas

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

8
within a field (CAEP 2013, 4). Pedagogic knowledge is the broad principles and strategies of
classroom management and organization that appear to transcend subject matter (Shulman
1987, 8). Pedagogic content knowledge is the special amalgam of content and pedagogy
(Schulman 1987, 8) for the purpose of advancing students learning through presentation of
subject matter in a variety of ways that are appropriate to different situations (CAEP 2013, 5).

rP
Fo

The CAEP standards incorporate technology within the content and pedagogical
knowledge framework. To review, CAEP Standard 1.5 under Content and Pedagogical
Knowledge states: Providers ensure that completers model and apply technology standards as
they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning;

ee

and enrich professional practice (CAEP 2013, 11). Technology standards refers to the ISTE

rR

standards. CAEP standard 1.5 is closely aligned with ISTE Standard 2, which states: Teachers
design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessments incorporating

ev

contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the [ISTE] Standards.

ie

Technology has been conceptualized within Shulmans framework (Koehler & Mishra

2006), and includes the following terminology: technology knowledge, technological content

On

knowledge, technological pedagogic knowledge, and technological pedagogic content

knowledge. Technology knowledge is knowledge about standard and more advanced

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 8 of 16

technologies. Technological content knowledge is the knowledge about the manner in which
technology and content are reciprocally related (1028). Technological pedagogic knowledge is
the awareness of technologies as they are used in teaching and their potential effect on teaching.
Technological pedagogic content knowledge represents a class of knowledge that is central to
teachers work with technology (1029).

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 9 of 16

9
The underlying assumption when considering knowledge frameworks is technological
pedagogic content knowledge is the central class of knowledge pre-service teachers need to
acquire as they engage in technology integration. Class of knowledge denotes hierarchy. This
echoes Dorfmans idea (2013) of reaching the technological pedagogic content summit.
Alternatively, the elements resulting from the work of Shulman (1987) as well as Koehler

rP
Fo

and Mishra (2006) present what can be conceptualized as a series of lenses. Regarding preservice music education students, these lenses represent the knowledge they are developing and
specific application as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences. Students might
begin with a singular lens, such as content or pedagogical knowledge in music. Indeed, CAEP

ee

standard 1.3 requires music completers to apply content and pedagogical knowledge that reflects

rR

standards and guidelines set by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). As preservice music students experience with complexity develops, they will realize interdependence

ev

among knowledge domains. This reflects Iansitis thinking on complexity. An example of

complexity is students finding connections and interdependence between music content

ie

knowledge and technology content knowledge. Indeed, lenses can overlap to design for and

respond to complex learning environments. The concept of lenses is a means for pre-service

On

music teachers to become classroom ready (CAEP 2015, 12) by learning to adapt knowledge
frameworks to complex teaching and learning environments, whereby technology changes in

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

form and function.

A Culture of Evidence
The CAEP accreditation manual (2015) states the accreditation process is designed to
support a culture of evidence (6). It requires the Education Preparation Provider to interpret all

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

10
of the available evidence about its quality (6). A culture of evidence supports data collection
and monitoring (6). Collecting and interpreting data are opportunity for universities to initiate
Iansitis concept (1998) of a proactive process regarding what should be integrated with what
and for which purpose.
Discourse is critical to developing understanding for technology integration in pre-service

rP
Fo

music teacher programs. It will inform the thinking and rationale underpinning data collection
and interpretation. Discourse among faculty within music education focuses ideas for later
interaction with other arts education and general education faculty. A starting place is finding
connections and alignment between CAEP, NASM, and EdTPA1 technology requirements, as

ee

applicable to the university music teacher preparation program. Discourse can serve to map out

rR

technological strata in music education, how knowledge frameworks inform technological

practices within the field, and critical thinking on technology integration in the literature.

ev

Approaches to interweaving and imbedding technology for the music teacher education
program then can be developed. This process maps out a technology integration terrain that

ie

sets the groundwork for developing assessment tools for data collection and monitoring.

A Culture of Innovation

On

The CAEP accreditation process also supports a culture of innovation (CAEP 2015).

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 10 of 16

Within the CAEP accreditation manual, innovation most often is cited with continuous
improvement. Innovation is defined by the CAEP glossary (2016) as implementation of
something new or different in the preparation of educators that leads to the improvement of
teaching and support of student learning (11). Technology integration falls within the scope of
innovation, because new and different technologies or technological use can be implemented

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 11 of 16

11
within the preparation of educators. Emphasis on innovation within the CAEP accreditation
process stems from the Framework for Twenty-First Century Learning presented by the
Partnership for Twenty-First Century Skills (2009). The core of the P21 framework presents
Learning and Innovation Skills. Innovation results from acting upon ideas that have resulted
from thinking creatively and working collaboratively with others.

rP
Fo

Inclusion of technology is one of the innovations in the 2014 National Core Music
Standards. The standards are developed for different music content areas. Technology use in
music is woven through each content area standards document. In addition, Music Technology is
a separate content area standards document. Given that the standards were released in 2014 and

ee

state adoption of the standards is in the beginning stages, not enough time has elapsed to

rR

determine what are effective and best practices regarding innovation and technological
application.

ev

Considering knowledge frameworks as overlapping lenses is a starting place for

developing innovative practice involving technology. An example of overlapping lenses is music

ie

content knowledge and technology content knowledge. A common factor between them from

music teacher education is content knowledge regarding acoustic and digital musical

On

instruments. Approached from a CAEP imbedded technology integration perspective, digital

musical instruments could be imbedded into the core of instrumental performing ensemble

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

experiences, serving to combine technologies (Arthur 2009). Approached from a CAEP

interweaving technology integration perspective, a digital instrument could be threaded through a
musical composition that uses mostly acoustic instruments. Building upon existing technology
(Arthur 2009), the digital instrument could be a sampled acoustic instrument that has been
technologically altered by students. As pre-service music students gain experience with

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

12
designing, implementing, and assessing student learning, additional knowledge frameworks can
be applied.
Discourse between music education faculty, pre-service music students, and K-12 music
teachers from clinical experiences is critical to develop inquiry and understanding of current
innovations in practice. It is a way to examine how past and present technologies are used and to

rP
Fo

imagine possibilities for innovative practice within pre-service music teacher partnerships. As a
culture of innovation is implemented within the CAEP accreditation process, discourse regarding
diversity within innovation and in what ways can innovative practice support music teaching and
learning is critical.

rR

ee
Implications and Recommendations

This article has argued that pre-service music teacher education brings unique voice to

ev

discourse concerning technology integration within the context of implementing the CAEP
standards and accreditation process. Moreover, it is common that a pre-service music teacher

ie

program is a concentration within a general education teacher preparation department. There are

implications across university departments: Pre-service music teacher education may experience

On

difficulty voicing discipline perspective implementing the CAEP standards and accreditation
process. Development of technological strata and combining of knowledge frameworks may be

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 12 of 16

set aside by the primary university education stakeholder in the CAEP accreditation process. Preservice music teacher education brings a distinct viewpoint to the process and deserves
recognition. Comprehensive development of technology integration that develops in the
discipline of music potentially is at risk of exclusion from wider CAEP discourse.

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 13 of 16

13
There also are implications for music departments with pre-service music teacher
education programs. Faculty may choose to address technology integration in the CAEP
standards by setting aside a section of the academic year to teach explicitly to the standards. It is
unlikely pre-service music teacher education will eliminate older technologies. A digital
technology module could be developed that involves exclusive work with digital technology

rP
Fo

utilizing the technological pedagogic content knowledge framework. While this is one option for
technology integration, it should not be the only approach. A diversified approach to technology
integration offers potential for the internalization of foundational technology integration
concepts, versatile movement between content and pedagogic knowledge frameworks, and the

ee

development of innovative practice in pre-service music teacher education.

rR

It is recommended that CAEP encourages and assists with facilitating a culture of

discourse. A culture of discourse recognizes multiple viewpoints. The CAEP accreditation

ev

process offers national peer expertise. While discourse within and across university departments
is critical, extending the discourse to include CAEP would provide national perspective to help

ie

inform decision-making processes. It is recommended that CAEP utilize the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) as a structure for building its cadre of peer reviewers. This federal law

On

names specific subject areas that constitute a well-rounded education. This list includes both
Music and the Arts (Public Law 114-95 2015, 807). CAEPs peer reviewers would include

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

experts from both music education and arts education. They would provide national perspective
specific to arts education and music education. These recommendations would develop a culture
of discourse whereby pre-service music teacher education neither would be set aside or need to
assume a reactive stance in response to the CAEP standards and accreditation process.
Technology integration is an important element of music teacher education. It presents

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

14
opportunity for proactive engagement with complexity and innovation. A culture of discourse
enables diverse consideration of how the changing form and function of technologies can inform
pre-service music teacher education.

Note

rP
Fo

1. EdTPA stands for Teacher Performance Assessment. It is a national portfolio-based,

subject-specific assessment. It is used to demonstrate classroom readiness of pre-service
teachers.

ie

ev

rR

ee
ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 14 of 16

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Page 15 of 16

15
References

Arthur, Brian. 2009. The nature of technology. New York: Free Press.
Choi, Haeryun, and Joseph M. Piro. 2009. Expanding arts education in a digital age. Arts
Education Policy Review 110 (3): 27-34. doi:10.3200/AEPR.110.3.27-34.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. 2013. CAEP accreditation standards and
evidence: Aspirations for educator preparation. Washington, DC: Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation.

rP
Fo

. 2014. CAEP policy manual. Washington, DC: Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation.
. 2015. CAEP accreditation manual. Washington, DC: Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation.

ee

. 2016. Glossary. Washington, DC:

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.

rR

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. 2016. Programmatic Accrediting Organizations.

Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

ev

Dorfman, Jay. 2013. Theory and practice of technology-based music instruction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

ie

Greenfield, Susan. 2015. Mind change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our
brains. New York: Random House.

Iansiti, Marco. 1998. Technology integration: Making critical choices in a dynamic world.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

On

International Society for Technology Education. ISTE standards for administrators.

http://www.iste.org/standards/ISTE-standards/standards-for-administrators.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Arts Education Policy Review

Koehler, Matthew J. & Punya Mishra. 2009. What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9 (1): 60-70.
Martin, Barbara. 2015. Successful implementation of TPACK in teacher preparation programs.
International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education 4 (1): 17-26.
doi:10.5121/ijite.2015.4102.
Partnership for Twenty-First Skills. 2009. Framework for 21st century learning. Washington,
DC: Partnership for Twenty-First Skills.

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu

Arts Education Policy Review

16
Public Law 114-95. http://www.nafme.org/wp-content/files/2015/11/Text-of-the-Every-StudentSucceeds-Act-S1177.pdf.
Shulman, Lee S. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review 57 (1): 1-21.
Thberge, Paul. 1997. Any sound you can imagine. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Trouche, Luc. 2003, June. Managing the complexity of human/machine interaction in a
computerized learning environments: Guiding students command process through
instrumental orchestrations. Paper presented at The Third CAME Symposium: Learning in a
CAS Environment: Mind-Machine Interaction, Curriculum & Assessment. Reims, France.

rP
Fo

Turkle, Sherry & Seymour Papert. 1992. Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the
concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 11 (1): 3-33.
United States Department of Education. Preparing tomorrows teachers to use technology
program. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teachtech/index.html.

ee

William, Jo & Traci Redish. 2009. ISTEs technology facilitation and leadership standards:
What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: International
Standard for Technology in Education.

rR

Winner, Langdon. 1997. Cyberlibertarian myths and the prospects for community. Computers
and Society 27 (3): 14-19.

ev

Zhao, Shanyang. 2003. Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 12 (5): 445-455. doi:10.1162/105474603322761261.

ie

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 16 of 16

URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aepr E-mail: conwaycm@umich.edu