Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T20:55:16.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Consilient Spheres of Influence in a Land Grant Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2013

Mark Ballora
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University, College of Arts & Architecture, School of Music/School of Theatre, Music Building 1, University Park, PA 16802-1901, USA E-mail: ballora@psu.edu; cjc18@psu.edu
Curtis Craig
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University, College of Arts & Architecture, School of Music/School of Theatre, Music Building 1, University Park, PA 16802-1901, USA E-mail: ballora@psu.edu; cjc18@psu.edu

Abstract

At Penn State, music technology is something of a stranger in a strange land. As a programme, it began in the early twenty-first century, when the necessity of the moment was an anticipated revision to the guidelines from the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), the North American accrediting body. Music schools were charged with ensuring that music majors were exposed to ‘relevant technologies’. It was left largely to individual institutions to interpret what this meant. At Penn State, a course was created to address this guideline, and it generated interest among students. This course then spawned a series of related courses. These courses eventually created enough of a curricular presence to warrant creating an undergraduate minor. We now expect that the minor will spawn an undergraduate major. The music technology programme's locus lies not solely within the School of Music; rather, it overlaps as an interdisciplinary area with a variety of programmes throughout the university's offerings. These overlaps are a unique feature of the programme. It is an unusual arrangement, but it is a product of its time and place. Three populations of students have coalesced, and the pedagogical challenge has been to create a curriculum that can serve all of them. The programme might be thought of as series of concentric spheres; each is centred around the same general concept structure, but with expanding breadth for different levels of student involvement.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ballora, M. 2006. On Teaching the History of Electro-Acoustic Music. College Music Symposium 46: 116.Google Scholar
Hedges, C. (2011). Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System. TruthDig.com (aa April). http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_united_states_is_destroying_her_education_system_20110410.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E.D. 2011. How to Stop the Drop in Verbal Scores. The New York Times (18 September). http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/opinion/how-to-stop-the-drop-in-verbal-scores.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
ICMC (International Computer Music Conference) (2006). Panel discussion, November 10, 2006: The Communities of Computer Music. Jon Appleton, Kris Burns, Pauline Oliveros, Greg Taylor; James Harley, chair. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Lehman, C., Darder, A., Cargill, B., Hess, F.M., McCluskey, N.P., Bush, J., Williams, V., Holliday, T., Biddle, R., Noguera, P. 2012. Room for Debate: The American Way of Learning. The New York Times (11 December). http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/10/the-american-way-of-learning/?ref=opinion.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar