Presentation of Learning

Yesterday we had our Presentation of Learning. We presented all our tech projects to a bunch of music education enthusiasts and it was an amazing Night!! Every seemed pretty amazed by our hard work on the MYOD Table and very impressed by the matching shirts we had created.  I loved hearing and sharing our ideas with everyone and I hope this inspires us to keep on exploring the world of technology ❤


Composition final reflection


  1. This is the time dedicated for final touches in my composition. I really like how i’ve changed the piano parts around and the different melody’s along with the rhythmical castanets sound very flamingo-y. I now have to decide on the different dynamics and techniques I want within the different sections along with making sure the score is presentable for marking. Overall I wanted the introduction ti be soft and then gradually build up to a climax (section C) and then die down in the coda (repetition of the introduction). After adding these certain dynamics into muse score I then listen for any inaccuracies that needed to be sort out before recording the Piece. I used a zoom recorder to record the violin part while I used good quality midi sounds from Logic pro for the piano and castanets. I then will mix the tracks together onto the garage band and hopefully it will be in a good shape to submit.

Final Score, mp3 and MIDI


Tech – the research

i was also in charge of finding academic research as to why we are creating our MYOD program. I first started to look at websites demonstrating the  maker movement and wrote of the importance of the maker movement and why this was a large part of our project. the step to the research was finding articles!!! the articles needed to demonstrate the importance of the maker movement, the financial funding in education, primary school knowledge on music and the importance of pbl learning. Here is my full research draft below!!!

The Make your own Device Scheme


The ‘Make your own Device’ is a festivity of artistry, innovation and investigation illustrating the relevance of the Music Maker Movement.  Our ‘Make your own Device’ is a Project Based Learning (PBL) program where students can learn, inspect, create and design their own piece of musical technology. We have designed the ‘Make your own Device’ as an inexpensive way to allow all music students to have a chance at performing and composing music, sharing the importance of the use of technology within the music classroom.

The frequent use of technology in civilisation today provides an amplification of ideas to use in musical learning. Technology supplies new directions for musical understanding and distribution of knowledge. Music Technology acts as a beneficial aid for educators to instruct students on music creation through multimedia utilities, guided learning through DAW software and other music mixing applications that relate to the modern ways musicians perform and create music in the digital age (Cremata, 2010, pg 20). This further integration between technology and music encourages the creative thinking and exploration of broader musical concepts allowing students to develop an appreciation for music conceived in the cyber world (Lin, 2005, pg 15).

The Music maker movement is an engaging approach compressing music and technology to educate the role of mechanics within the music industry. The music maker movement is based on the ‘Do it Yourself’ ethos combining Music and STEM (Science, technology, engineering, mechanics) expertise. This allows students to understand and explore the transformation of energy while producing their own sounds. Within our ‘Make your own device’ scheme, students will be constructing and designing Midi controllers of which they will use to create sounds and compositions in the classroom. The ‘Maker’ bears all creative control in designing these devices supporting students into making unique and exclusive gadgets heightening creative thinking within the maker.  The creation of these devices demonstrates the process on deconstructing and reconstructing equipment encouraging the “reuse and repurposing of everyday materials”, finding new ways to use everyday objects (Pelly, 2014, pg 6).  An immense factor of the desire for the maker movement experience is through the open-ended exploration a student experiences. This gives more opportunity for students to experiment with the creation of the device along with game-like play (Peppler, 2013, pg. 3).  The music maker movement also provides the opportunity for students to learn the necessity of problem-solving, problem-finding and the potential of group work and social study through interactive activities to concur any sized problem (Smith, 2016, pg.4). By sharing and communicating with peers, teachers and other ‘makers’, it inspires students to reflect on how they’ve designed their own project and what they encountered during the process.

Not only is our ‘Make your own device’ program intellectually sufficient for students, it is a very budget friendly program and can also be used to aid non-music educators to teach music. Due to the current deflation of government funding, schools around Australia have reduced subject funding, having the decision to cut programs in the curriculum. Most schools choose to reduce funding in Art programs, music education in particular (Slaton ,2012 pg 2). The average amount of funds supplied to music departments across NSW High Schools is around $22,000 annually and can range from $100,000 to having no specific budget for music at all.  This budget must also cover maintenance for band and/or choir, professional development, print expenses, sheet music purchasing, possible music camps, instrument tuning and cleaning as well as the purchasing and repairing of instruments. With the average metallophone costing $269, only 33% of high schools can afford having a sound instrument for each student to play (Johnson, 2013, pg 52) . These instruments are then quickly broken or missing parts which then must be replaced frequently. The devices created for our program cost less than $40 per unit including the Arduino boards, buttons and programming software (excluding designing materials). Students will be given some designing materials however, we encourage students to f designing materials and/or bring recycled materials from home to use when designing their midi controllers.  As the student is a vital part of the building process, they will develop a sense of responsibility and be trusted not to break their instruments. If tech parts are broken, there is always Arduino support to help students and teachers with their tech troubles. These instruments can then be deconstructed and reused for the following years to come. Additionally, from the Australian Music Education Statics 2012, 9.4% of primary schools in NSW have no music program due to the lack of staff or priority in the school. Out of the 30 universities that offer a primary teaching degree, 23 of these universities teach music as part of an Arts course incorporated with other subjects such as Dance, Drama, media and visual arts (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012). This means that 78% of primary educators do not have the acceptable training to teach music in a classroom and as music carries a large importance to our lives today, this is an extremely worrying trend. Our program can then be altered to fit all year groups from Kindergarten up to year 12 and consists of a range of digital procedures accessible online with many resources to educate both teacher and student. This is a simple way for non-music teachers to teach a fun and unique component of music without needing formal musical training. Our Make your own device program is an advancement to the formal music education system used today and we hope to inspire many students and teachers to create, discover and share.




Cremata, R. (2010). The use of music technology across the curriculum in music education settings: Case studies of two universities (Order No. 3430388). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (765231890). Retrieved from

Hoegh-Guldberg, H. (2012). MUSIC EDUCATION STATISTICS.

Lin, P. (2005). The effects of integrating music technology into music teaching and learning and perceptions of students and teachers (Order No. 3178882). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305011868). Retrieved from

Pelly, L. (2014). Where DIY Music Meets Tech Culture: Searching for Future Sounds at the World Maker Faire.

Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. The Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27. Retrieved from

Shorner-Johnson, K. (2013). Building Evidence for Music Education AdvocacyMusic Educators Journal, 99(4), 51-55. Retrieved from

Slaton, E. (2012). Music Education Budget Crisis. Music Educators Journal, 99(1), 33-35. Retrieved from

Smith, W., & Smith, B. (2016). Bringing the Maker Movement to School. Science and Children, 54(1), 30-37. Retrieved from


This is also shown on our website –

Composition Reflection 9


  1. I decided to then work on the melodic elements for my section B and C. I wanted to repeat the introduction in the end as a coda like sequence to show the piece connecting as a whole. To create the next few melodic phrases, I played around on the piano to see what I thought was in the Latin American style and came up with this phrase. This is in the further repeated and integrated in the right hand piano part. As I have not yet changed the piano part in section B, I decided to keep it simple with it being very similar to section A and then changed the whole vibe of the song in Section C. In Section C I decided to fully change the piano part rhythm while still keeping the same chords. This new rhythm is faster and has a heavier feel that the first piano idea. This seems to drive the piece along and have a more masculine feel in comparison to the first one. I then found that having the new melody in the right hand of the piano didn’t sound as deep as I wanted. I then Changed the parts around, having the bass play the melody and right hand play the chordal accompaniment. This then caused more clashing sounds so i changed it back to the original

Draft 3

Composition Reflection 8

  1. Recently I had to workshop my draft to my peers. The feedback was very helpful and I agreed with most comments. This is the feedback from the class.
  2. ddsss.JPG
  3. From the feedback from the class I realised how difficult the castanet part was to play along with the right hand of the piano being very plain. This made me question whether or not I needed some of the instruments within my composition. I decided that ill possibly get rid of the cello part and instead add the cello parts into the right hand of the piano so there is more of a connection between the violin and piano. I also decided to have easier rhythms in the castanets and have them rhythmical the same to some of the melodic motifs in the violin part.

Composition Reflection 7


  1. I started to work on Section B today. I needed to make sure that there was a clear difference between section A and Section B. I again linked this sections with the Hernandos hideaway theme. Section B I decided to add some castanet sounds which are very common in Latin American music. I wanted to feature the castanet within section B and also have a castanet improvisation part to full show the potential of the castanet performer. To link sections A and B I decided to have a small break where the castanets were introduced with a slightly varied Hernandos hideaway theme to go to section B. I want to create a small interplay between the cello and violin throughout the entire piece while having repeating castanet rhythms over the top. The castanet rhythms I simply made by clicking my fingers to the beat of the piano part and them improvising some rhythmical ostinatos to then put in the castanet section.  I then worked on different rhythmical ideas for the castanet to play.