Chris Rodriguez

4/1/16
Dr. C. Hauser
Media and Technology

For the first article, I chose to read:

Foote, C., (2012). Learning Together: The evolution of a 1:1 iPad Program
This talks about a Pilot iPad program that happened in Westlake High School in Texas. It
first happened with a poll to see which teachers would even utilize an iPad and based on that
poll, they decided to give the 11th and 12th grade teachers and students an iPad because they were
the majority who said they would utilize an iPad. They then go in detail about how the teachers
had to receive training over summer on how to use the iPad and its features easily. Then on the
third day of the school year the school issued out the iPads to the upperclassmen. For technical
reasons the school set up a tech support for the iPads in the library and thus started reformatting
the library setup to accommodate this change.
This article then dives into the positive ways the iPad has been in the classroom. One
positive aspect they stress is the ability to be paper-free in lessons through the iPad and certain
apps that allow students to receive a PDF document and actually take notes, save it, and submit it
anywhere like they would on paper. They also note that the cameras in the iPads are extremely
helpful for projects which would have taken weeks to complete. With the camera in their iPads
they can have a video project done in a matter of days. They go into detail on how some apps
that are available make the iPad an even more useful tool for the classroom and how it even
caters to those with special needs.

They are also talking about potentially having eBooks in the library ready to be checked
out by the students easily through apps and certain platforms. This poses reduced book costs and
saving both the students and the school some money on supplies. They briefly touch on the
immediate costs of the iPads but they quickly cite a post where someone has done the financial
cost in the long run which ended up showing that it will save costs on several aspects of the
schools budget. They also asses the iPads potential use as a distraction to students while in the
classroom. They combat that idea with the fact that some teachers have already utilized the idea
of a backwards classroom where the teacher is able to see if everyone is on task while using
their iPads. They also took a poll and asked students both in high school and in college whether
or not their experience with the iPad in school was positive. Most of the votes came back with
positive experiences but the students did point out that they were sometimes distracted because
of the iPads but they were also more distracted at home.
My general thought on this article is yes the iPad is a useful and convenient tool but I
hope theyre not completely throwing away the book option. Im a firm believer in the traditional
looking things up in the library kind of person because for a really long time I did not have a
computer and really had no access to one for the first 14 years of my life. I did not completely
grow up with a cell phone, I got my first iPhone when I was 21, and I got my first iPad when I
started attending Concordia University Chicago in the fall of 2015. My generation is one that
didnt necessarily grow up with technology because it was still a somewhat new concept that
only some people could afford. Now, everyone has an iPad, an iPhone, a laptop, several
computers at home, etc. I see infants using an iPad as entertainment and its not terrible but it is
allowing them to be used to just technology. I know people in college who dont know how to
check out or even find a book in the library because theyre so used to everything being available

online that they dont know how to actually find a physical copy in a library. The iPad is
convenient but it doesnt always have what you need ready to go, sometimes someone will need
to go to the library to find what they need. As long as libraries and other databases similar to a
library exist I believe students should still be taught and forced to look up books in the library. I
know I have to still do that in college and its 2016. It just seems like iPads are being used too
frequently to replace what is still necessary in the real world. If anything, limiting use to just the
upper level grades (11th and 12th grade in this case) is ideal because I do admit that being
technologically apt is necessary in college as well.
The second article I read was:
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective: The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music
Educators Journal.
This article is written by a Dr. David A. Williams of University of South Florida. He is a
professor that teaches undergrad and graduate music education courses. He starts off by saying
how many people do not see the iPad and sometimes other electronic devises as musical
instruments and how many of these people who agree with that statement probably have never
heard anything performed by an iPad ensemble such as the one he has in USF. He goes on to
give the definition of a musical instrument as defined in the dictionary and compares what the
iPad and other traditional instruments have in common. It all came down to what the person does
with the object because thats what an oboe and an iPad were, objects and that the music comes
from the person not the object. He points out that some instruments are suited for certain settings
better than others. What an oboe would do better at a clarinet may not same goes for the iPad he
claims. But he puts out the idea that traditional instruments come from western European
classical tradition and they are held to a higher regard than anything else and therefore people in

music tend to marginalize anything that doesnt exactly fit those standards. And given that
marginalization, it also marginalizes those who are interested in the non-traditional music.
He uses the argument of the electric guitar which was not deemed worthy for the
classroom until recently. He also points out that the classroom music profession tends to look
away from electronic instruments which really gained popularity and changed the way music
was made from the 80s onward. He continues on to say that music educators have closed their
minds to todays musical instruments and are instead committed to championing instruments
and styles of music that are absent outside the classroomespecially in youth culture in the
hopes that students can find musical salvation. He believes that is what music educators imply
when they have ensembles and programs that offer only one style of music.
Dr. Williams has his own iPad quintet called Touch and he gives the argument that his
ensemble is musically no different than any other ensemble because they have to listen to each
other, balance sound, and actually practice so their sound is musical just like any other ensemble.
At the end of the article he sums up everything and clearly states that just like any other
instrument, the iPad cannot do it all and has its limitations but it can still be used to make music.
Dr. Williams ends with this statement, our profession does too much ignoring, and we continue
to do it at our own peril.
My reaction to this article was general disappointment. I was really hoping for an
argument that did not sound biased for one. I also took the initiative to listen to Dr. Williams
iPad quintet which was available on YouTube as a Tedx talk and I was just not impressed. I was
hoping for a sound that was new and I was disappointed to hear that what they made with the
iPads was already made back in the 70s and beyond. They just did not sell it. It was impressive

that they were able to be synchronized and that nothing that was coming out of the iPads were
looped but other than that, it just could have been better.
Dr. Williams points out that by marginalizing music made by technology that we are also
marginalizing those who are interested in that type of music. I agree with his statement but what
I dont agree with is his tone and rhetoric in which he said it. In context it almost sounded like he
was trying to strip away the importance and foundational work that classical music has done so
that the music we have today could be possible. It didnt seem like he was giving credit where
credit was due and instead he sounded like he was bashing classical music and professors who
hold classical music in high regard. He was putting his own personal agenda and feelings
towards the matter into his argument and thats where I think his argument fell apart for me. This
entire article had some great points but its really how he said it not what he said.