The primary purpose of this study was to examine the potential of LOw LAtency (LOLA), a low latency audio visual technology designed to allow simultaneous music performance, as a distance learning tool for musical styles in which synchronous playing is an integral aspect of the learning process (e.g., jazz, folk styles). The secondary purpose was to describe participant perceptions of the effectiveness of three technologies used to teach music: LOLA, PolyCom, and Skype. To achieve these goals, we isolated a classical masterclass, jazz lesson, and old-time fiddle session and described trends for these lessons across the three technology platforms. Participants rated the overall effectiveness of LOLA (M = 4.25) higher than PolyCom (M = 3.06) and Skype (M = 2.80). Participants shared their perception that LOLA was superior to other technologies for learning and teaching music. Implications for music teaching are discussed.
AndersonA. (2008, September). Music lessons via satellite. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Computers in Education Conference, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
2.
BartletteC.HeadlamD.BockoM.VelikicG. (2006). Effect of network latency on interactive network performance. Music Perception, 24(1), 49–62.
3.
BrändströmS.WiklundC.LundströmE. (2012). Developing distance music education in arctic Scandinavia: Electric guitar teaching and master classes. Music Education Research, 14, 448–456.
4.
BusoN. (2011, November). LOLA e la nuova frontiera dell’educazione musicale a distanza [LOLA and the new frontier of music education at a distance]. Paper presented at the Conferenza GARR 2011, Trieste, Italy.
CriswellC. (2009). Teaching music from a distance. Teaching Music, 16(4), 26–27.
10.
DammersR. J. (2009). Utilizing internet-based videoconferencing for instrumental music lessons. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(1), 17–24.
11.
KruseN. B.HarlosS. C.CallahanR. M.HerringM. L. (2013). Skype music lessons in the academy: Intersections of music education, applied music, and technology. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 6, 43–60.
12.
KruseN. B.VeblenK. (2012). Music teaching and learning online: Considering YouTube instructional videos. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 5, 77–87.
MakiJ. (2001, June). Is it possible to teach music in a classroom from a distance of 1000 km? Learning environment of music education using ISDN-videoconferencing. Paper presented at ED-Media 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland.
15.
NakaiN. (2011). Vi r music handbook: Distance teaching technology and possibilities. Helsinki, Finland: Saresto Academy.
16.
OrmanE. K.WhitakerJ. A. (2010). Time usage during face-to-face and synchronous distance music lessons. American Journal of Distance Education, 24, 92–103.
RileyP. (2009). Video-conferenced music teaching: Challenges and progress. Music Education Research, 11, 365–375.
21.
SchuettN. (2002). The effects of latency on musical performance (Unpublished undergraduate honors thesis). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
22.
ShepardB. K. (2012, November). The global village gets a music school. PowerPoint presentation presented at the College Music Society National Conference, San Diego, CA.
WaldronJ. (2011). Locating narratives in postmodern spaces: A cyber ethnographic field study of informal music learning in online community. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 10(2), 31–60.
25.
WelshS. (2012). The pros and cons of long-distance learning. Strings, 27(2), 61–62.
