INTRODUCTION

"Sometimes I feel like a partner in an unholy alliance," commented one of my Carnegie Scholar colleagues, "I pretend to teach, and my students pretend to learn." As I recalled teaching my general education music history course a few years back I smiled as I concluded his observation was only half trueÉin that particular course the handful of students sitting in front of me weren't even pretending to learn! They stared at me with bored, apathetic faces as I struggled to engage them in a stimulating discussion on the structural nuances of a Beethoven symphony. Beethoven? Their music heroes were Tupac and Nine Inch Nails. The situation was not unique to me. For several years enrollment in that general education music course had been declining. But why? I had a hypothesis that two of the most significant contributors to the decline were the kind of music being taught (content) and the manner in which it was being taught (delivery).

In terms of content, the existing course was based on Western European classical music. Although this curriculum remains the higher education standard, it does not adequately address the interests, needs, or cultures of contemporary students who listen to popular music and have come of age in an increasingly diverse, multicultural society. In terms of delivery, today's "digital generation" students have spent their lives surrounded by electronic media and learning through participation and experience. The existing course had been taught in the sequential, passive, and pyramidal approach of traditional higher education curriculum. If my hypothesis was correct, it meant that the course needed to be transformed into an entirely new course. The focus of my investigation, then, became:

How can I transform the existing course into a course that a) better attracts, engages, and retains students and, b) fosters deeper and more enduring learning because it uses more relevant content, better delivery, and more authentic assessment.

My project, then, became the documentation of that course transformation.

HOW THE PROJECT WAS DOCUMENTED

The project was undertaken using the methodology of a multilayered, multimedia hypertext electronic course portfolio. Although course portfolios are still in the process of invention, Lee Shulman has proposed four organizational frameworks, and my portfolio contains elements of all four. It looks at the structure of the course's content, delivery, and assessment (anatomical); analyzes the evolution of the course over a six year period from the baseline to its transformed versions (historical); investigates how the transformed course functions within the larger institutional context (ecological); and explores the efficacy of a series of interventions drawn from the two overarching hypotheses (investigation). It is an example of a new version of the course portfolio in that it attempts to utilize the distinct characteristics of the World Wide Web such as multimedia, interactivity, and hyperlinks to organize and report upon the investigation.

I organized the investigation into three components: content, delivery and assessment. Within each of these sections I described the baseline course, conducted an analysis out of which I developed hypotheses on the specific problems that were evident, identified interventions that were conducted to address those problems in the transformed course, and then gathered the evidence that emerged from those interventions. The evidence was acquired on two levels: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data consisted of an array of demographic characteristics and enrollment, retention, and student success statistics for a six year period beginning with the baseline course (1994-95). Qualitative data was obtained generally from the written work of students along with in-depth evidence provided by fifteen "Student Investigators" identified through a controlled random selection process.

Some of the most startling evidence emerged from the quantitative data. Since the baseline course had such difficulty attracting students, one of the original goals had been to create a course for which enrollment would no longer be an issue.

	Baseline Course 94-95	Trans- formed Course 95-96	96-97	97-98	98-99	99-2000
# of Students	45	45	106	176	501	782

Obviously lack of enrollment is no longer a concern! To place these statistics in a more systemic context, enrollment in equivalent music courses has declined, and enrollment college-wide has grown from 12,653 to 17,049. Thus the college-wide growth percentage was almost 35%, while the transformed course growth was an incredible 1,638%. The reasons for this stunning growth are complex, however it does not appear that it is because it is an "easy" course. One Student Investigator commented, "The course is definitely not an easy oneÉI would say that this class is pretty hard" and another wrote, "I have never heard anyone say that this is an 'easy' course!" Most students enroll in the course at the recommendation of a former student. Analysis of the qualitative data indicate that high student satisfaction is the result of four major interventions that can be organized into four curricular themes.

CURRICULAR THEMES

The first curricular theme is a shift to multicultural content. The baseline course was a traditional "classical music" survey course. I had speculated that demographic changes resulted in students unmotivated to learn the material. Concluding that a characteristic that unified the students was "Americaness," I used ethnicity as a central organizing principle for a new course that traced the development of musics such as the blues, jazz, folk, country Tejano, Cajun, and various Asian-fusions from their roots in the ethnic traditions of a specific immigrant group to their development into a uniquely American music. I believe that this content has attracted and retained a more diverse student population. Students of color increased from 33% in Fall 1996 to 71% in Fall 1998 and 67% Fall 1999. Within overall college enrollment, students of color grew from 42% to 55%. Qualitative data indicate that although some students listen to classical music occasionally, the vast majority listen to one or more of the kinds of popular musics covered in the course on a regular basis, and students frequently comment that the course content is extremely interesting.

The second curricular theme is empowering students as "architects of their own learning." The baseline course had been taught in the sequential, passive, pyramidal approach of traditional higher-ed curriculum. The transformed course allows students to select from a variety of activities in a sequence of 12 topical modules to construct their own learning in ways that meet their individual learning styles and personal interests. Students consistently commented on the positive aspects of this student-centered approach, and the Students Investigators felt that this flexibility was instrumental in appreciation for the course

The third curricular theme was multimedia instruction (including online). The original course was taught in the traditional Face2Face format. The transformed course is offered using a blended delivery system where on one end of the continuum, students select from traditional Face2Face learning activities and on the other end, from the web-based version of the course (which offers text, assignments, private message center, academic forums, dialogue opportunities, and tests completely on-line). Students select where they want to be on this continuum at any point within the quarter. An analysis of assignment submittal indicates that less than 10% take the course completely in the traditional Face2Face mode and the vast majority prefer the blended version.

The final curricular theme is the search for more authentic assessment. I used a "Backward Design" course development model (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998) and redesigned assessment in terms of three stages in which I determined: 1) what was worthy and requiring of deep learning? (subdivided into knowledge, attitude, and skills) 2) what is evidence of deep learning? and 3) what learning experiences and teaching promote deep learning? A complete description of the results of this design are evident in the course portfolio. Although improving course design and assessment will be an on-going project, I am convinced that the transformed course's variety and flexibility is a vast improvement over the baseline course's dependence on conventional learning activities and exams. Qualitative data indicate that students are very pleased with the multiple learning and assessment strategies. Additionally, I am finding myself increasingly confident that the majority of students are, in fact, acquiring "deep learning."

IN CONCLUSION

In conclusion, six years ago I found myself wondering if trying to teach today's students had become my worst nightmare-most of the students were not only different from me, but they were also different from each other. Transforming the course into one that bridged the gaps seemed an impossible dream. Since I was too young to retire, I began the process of change. In this project, I attempted to analyze and document that transformation. The analysis has raised questions as well as answered them and I plan to continue the investigation. For example, I want to know whether the growing percentage of students of color is as an "add-on" to white students or at the "expense" of white students? I want to know what is the more powerful contributor to the dramatic increase of students under 20 years of age, the changes in content, delivery, or assessment? I want to apply this curricular model to other courses to see if we can duplicate results. The scholarship of teaching and learning will assist me in finding the answers to these and other questions and building upon the course portfolio will help me share my investigation with others. One thing is already clear though: teaching no longer feels like an "unholy alliance." It feels like a productive and stimulating partnership in which my students, colleagues and I work together to address some of today's thorniest educational challenges. In the process, we seem to be finding real solutions and powerful new ways to achieve deeper and more relevant learning.

Bibliography

Angelo, Thomas A., and K. Patricia Cross. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Barkley, Elizabeth. Web Site:Course Portfolio: Using the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning to Transform a General Education Music Course. http://kml.carnegiefoundation.org/gallery/ebarkley/

Boettcher, Judith V. 1999. Faculty Guide for Moving Teaching and Learning to the Web. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community Colleges, Information Technology Initiative.

Hutchings, Pat, ed. 1998. The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine Their Teaching to Advance Practice and Student Learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Wiggins, Grant and Jay McTighe, 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

<Back to Top>