Exploring the integration of maker culture activities in the theory of music course at a Greek conservatoire

References

1. Abrahams, D. (2018), ‘The efficacy of service-learning in students’ engagements with music technology’, Min-Ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 15:2, pp. 164–77.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Abrahams, F. and John, R. (2017), Becoming Musical, Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Angelo, T. A. and Cross, K. P. (1993), Classroom Assessment Techniques, 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Antle, A. N. and Wise, A. F. (2013), ‘Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design’, Interacting with Computers, 25:1, pp. 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2018), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dimitriadis, S. (2015), Learning Theories and Educational Software (in Greek), Athens: Association of Greek Academic Libraries.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dorfman, J. (2022), Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014), ‘Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews’, Qualitative Research, 14:3, pp. 341–52, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113481790.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Gold, N. E., Purves, R. and Himonides, E. (2021), ‘Playing, constructionism, and music in early-stage software engineering education’, Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 9:1, pp. 14–38, https://doi.org/mffg.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Greher, G. R. and Heines, J. M. (2014), Computational Thinking in Sound: Teaching the Art and Science of Music and Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Hatch, M. (2014), The Maker Movement Manifesto: Rules for Innovation in the New World of Crafters, Hackers, and Tinkerers, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Huang, H. (2020), ‘Music in STEAM: Beyond notes’, The STEAM Journal, 4:2, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/mffd.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Johnson, V. (2014), ‘The relevance of music theory concepts and skills as perceived by in-service music educators’, Visions of Research in Music Education, 25, Article 4.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kafai, Y. B. and Resnick, M. (eds) (2012), Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kalovrektis, K., Xenakis, A., Psycharis, S. and Stamoulis, G. (2021), Educational Technology, Robotics and IoT Development Platforms, Thessaloniki: Tziola.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Keller, D. (2020), ‘Everyday musical creativity’, in V. Lazzarini, D. Keller, N. Otero and L. Turchet (eds), Ubiquitous Music Ecologies, New York: Routledge, pp. 23–51.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Keller, D., Costalonga, L. and Messina, M. (2020), ‘Ubiquitous music making in COVID-19 times’, in A. Stolfi, L. Costalonga, M. Messina, D. Keller and L. Aliel (eds), Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Ubiquitous Music, UbiMus 2020, Porto Seguro, Brazil, 9–13 November.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kokkidou, M. and Mygdanis, Y. (2020), ‘New approaches in “theory of music” courses: Preliminary findings of a pilot study in conservatory settings’, Series Musicologica Balcanica, 1, pp. 320–37.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Konopasky, A. and Sheridan, K. (2020), ‘The maker movement in education’, in G. Noblit (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 495–504.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lee, E., Kafai, Y. B., Vasudevan, V. and Davis, R. L. (2014), ‘Playing in the arcade: Designing tangible interfaces with MaKey MaKey for Scratch games’, in A. Nijholt (ed.), Playful User Interfaces, Singapore: Springer, pp. 277–92, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-96-2_13.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Mesz, B., Sigman, M. and Trevisan, M. A. (2012), ‘A composition algorithm based on crossmodal taste-music correspondences’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00071.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Mygdanis, Y. (2021), ‘Virtual instruments in music teaching and learning at kindergarten-age: An educational proposal using Synth4kids web-application’, in M. Panagopoulos, A. Papadopoulou and A. Giannakoulopoulos (eds), Digital Culture & Audiovisual Challenges: Interdisciplinary Creativity in Arts and Technology, Pune: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 141–48.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Mygdanis, Y. (2022a), ‘Designing the axes of development of training programs for the teachers of the “theory of music” course’, in M. Argyriou and K. Kasimati (eds), Proceedings of the 7th Scientific Conference: Designing Teaching, Education & Professional Training of Educational Specialties, vol. B, Athens, Greece, Athens: GAPMET, pp. 225–32.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Mygdanis, Y. (2022b), ‘Designing an educational musical software combining traditional music-pedagogical methods and emerging technologies: The case of Synth4Kids’, International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 11:2, pp. 103–20.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Mygdanis, Y. and Papazachariou-Christoforou, M. (2021), ‘Transformation of music educators’ perceptions of modern technologies in music teaching-learning through a training intervention in the STEAM model’, International Journal of Educational Innovation, 3:3, pp. 66–77.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Mygdanis, Y. and Papazachariou-Christoforou, M. (2022), ‘Maker movement in “music theory” classes in a conservatoire setting in Greece: Preliminary findings from an educational intervention’, Mousikopaidagogika, 20, pp. 31–53.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Niemeyer, D. J. and Gerber, H. R. (2015), ‘Maker culture and Minecraft: Implications for the future of learning’, Educational Media International, 52:3, pp. 216–26, https://doi.org/gn2b7v.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Palaigeorgiou, G. and Pouloulis, C. (2018), ‘Orchestrating tangible music interfaces for in-classroom music learning through a fairy tale: The case of ImproviSchool’, Education and Information Technologies, 23:1, pp. 373–92, https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s10639-017-9608-z.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Papert, S. (1993), The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Phillips, D. and Woollard, J. (2016), The Developing Concept of ‘Computational Thinking’, Southampton: University of Southampton.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Psycharis, S. and Kalovrektis, K. (2018), Teaching and Design of Educational Activities in STEM and ICT, Thessaloniki: Tziola.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K. and Xenakis, A. (2020), ‘A conceptual framework for computational pedagogy in STEAM education: Determinants and perspectives’, Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 1:1, pp. 17–32, https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v1i1.4.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Resnick, M. (2014), ‘Give P’s a chance: Projects, peers, passion, play’, in G. Futschek and C. Kynigos (eds), Constructionism and Creativity: Proceedings of the 3rd International Constructionism Conference, Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft, pp. 13–20.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H. and Park, M. S. (2012), ‘Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K–12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration’, School Science and Mathematics, 112:1, pp. 31–44, https://doi.org/fxtzvw.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Rogers, M. R. (2004), Teaching Approaches in Music Theory: An Overview of Pedagogical Philosophies, 2nd ed., Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Ruthmann, A., Heines, J. M., Greher, G. R., Laidler, P. and Saulters, C. (2010), ‘Teaching computational thinking through musical live coding in scratch’, in G. Lewandowski, S. Woflman, T. J. Cortina, E. L. Walker and D. R. Musicant (eds), SIGCSE ‘10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 10–13 March, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 351–55.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T. and Gaved, M. (2013), Innovating Pedagogy 2013: Exploring New Forms of Teaching, Learning and Assessment, to Guide Educators and Policy Makers (Report No. 2), Milton Keynes: The Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Stake, R. E. (2005), ‘Qualitative case studies’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 443–66.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Wing, J. M. (2006), ‘Computational thinking’, Communications of the ACM, 49:3, pp. 33–35, https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Yakman, G. (2008), ‘STEAM education’, Research on Technology, Innovation, Design & Engineering Teaching, 19, pp. 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Yin, R. K. (2018), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Zuckerman, O. and Gal-Oz, A. (2013), ‘To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces’, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 71:7–8, pp. 803–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.04.003.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Zuckerman, O., Arida, S. and Resnick, M. (2005), ‘Extending tangible interfaces for education: Digital Montessori-inspired manipulatives’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 22–27 April 2006, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 859–68.
    [Google Scholar]