Music+Trainers+2.1.2

INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE REVIEWS
 * Music Trainers 2.1.2**

1. CITATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION • Music Trainers 2.1.2 • Ricci Adams • [|MusicTheory.net] • Freeware • Copyright 2000-2005 content licensed under creative commons • Platform- Macintosh/Windows • Peripherals- Microphones • Grade/Age- Junior HS/Middle School, High School, Adult • Type of Class- Theory

2. TEACHER SUPPORT • The website has a link that allows you to report bugs and a "contact" link that lets you contact the author. • Objectives- The website has three main divisions that are further divided into lessons. The teacher can assign different lessons or aural training. The aural training keeps score of how many the student identify correctly.

3. INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT • Teaches lessons on basic understandings on the following: clefs, note value, rhythm and meters, major and minor scales, key signatures, keys, and chords. • National Music Standards that could be addressed through this software 5. Reading and notating music 6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music.

4. INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS

• Teaching strategy appropriate for student level and is based on best-known methods? This program can be used for drill and practice as well as exploratory and tutorial. The students can work at their own pace with this program. I really like that this program is dual platform and can be used offline. One MAJOR detail that bothers me about this program is that when it shows a scale or chord progression, it is not always played for the student. Hearing the music you are seeing is an important part of learning the relationship between notated music and audio affirmation and should be included in nearly every example. The program overall is not very interactive, so I doubt its effectiveness in a teaching setting.

• Presentation on screen contains nothing that misleads or confuses students? I dislike that once you enter a lesson you can only return to the previous page, not go back to the home site. This could be a potentially frustrating feature. Also, when you mouse over buttons, it does not tell you what they do. The lessons are grouped in pedagogically sound order. Also, the drill and practice feature is separate form the lessons, but still easily accessible.

• Readability and difficulty at an appropriate level for students who will use it? In my opinion, there are not enough reinforcement to properly teach the lessons. For example, the program teaches a major scale, but never has the student create one on their own. There is no section to test their newly acquired knowledge, so it is possible that it will not be reinforced, and therefore will not be retained.

• Graphics fulfill important purpose (motivation, information) and not distracting to learners? This is another issue with the program. There is no motivation within the program for the learners. The lesson frame is very clean and order driven, but there is not reward or motivation for doing well. This would have to be implemented by the teacher. For example, the teacher could give extra credit if students get over a certain percentage on identifying intervals.

• User normally has some control of movement within the program (can go from screen to screen at desired rate; can read text at desired rate; can exit program when desired)? It is sometimes difficult to return to the main page, even upon completing the lesson. The pages load at a reasonable rate, and only the lessons with MIDI sounds take any time to load.

• Program Structure? o Drill and Practice o Tutorial- This program is tutorial based, but does a poor job with interactivity
 * High degree of control over presentation rate (unless the method is timed review)
 * Appropriate feedback for correct answers (none, if timed; not elaborate or time consuming)
 * Feedback is more reinforcing for correct than for incorrect responses
 * High degree of interactivity (not just reading information)
 * High degree of user control (forward and backward movement, branching upon request)
 * Comprehensive teaching sequence so instruction is self-contained and standalone
 * Adequate answer-judging capabilities for student-constructed answers to questions

• Sequence of Materials (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor)? Good • Pace of Instruction (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor)? Fair -In my opinion, the program skips too far between different pedagogical steps. • Quality of Interaction (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor)? Poor • Motivation for Students (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor)? Poor

5. RECORD KEEPING In the drill and practice section, it keeps track of the number correct and incorrect per session. This does not carry over when you leave the drill.

6. OVERALL EVALUATION • Although the program presents subjects in a manner that makes sense, there are too many leaps between content knowledge. The program does a very poor job at being interactive, and therefore would not keep students interest. The lack of a "play" feature for the some of the lessons could be detrimental to students learning.

//**Final rating:** two stars out of four**//
Reviewed by Renee Blackburn (11/17/2008)