Monday, May 4, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Early Childhood Music Education
As early childhood education plays an increasingly prominent role in American school systems, music educators need to ensure preschool children are getting sufficient exposure to musical experiences. Researchers and professional music organizations have articulated this necessity.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) state, “Young children [ages two to five] respond to music in a natural, uninhibited manner, which makes musical activities extremely important to a child’s development during these years” (p. 293). Supporting this claim is Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. According to Gordon (1987), musical aptitude stabilizes around age nine but is developmental before that age and is especially influenced during the most early, formative years. Gordon claims children “must have favorable early informal and formal experiences in music in order to maintain that level of potential” they are born with, and if they don’t have these experiences, “that level of music aptitude will never be realized in achievement” (p. 8). So, in order for children to achieve in music at a later age, even in elementary school primary grades, they must have musical exposure in early childhood.
The National Association of Music Education (MENC) has four recommendations regarding early childhood music education. First, all early childhood music programs should include music as an integral part of the curriculum. Second, at least 12 percent of an early childhood students’ “school day” should be devoted to music. Third, a music specialist should be present in every early childhood center. Finally, early childhood classrooms should have a music center or “corner” for students to play with music materials (Abeles et al., 1995).
Music educators in Illinois currently receive certification for grades K-12. As more and more early childhood centers open, it will be interesting to see if music specialists will be hired for these schools, and if so, if these teachers will be required to also have an early childhood degree or certification. In the meantime, music educators should be able to adapt existing music curricula to be developmentally appropriate for early childhood students.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Gordon, E. E. (1987). The nature, description, measurement, and evaluation of music aptitudes. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, Inc.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) state, “Young children [ages two to five] respond to music in a natural, uninhibited manner, which makes musical activities extremely important to a child’s development during these years” (p. 293). Supporting this claim is Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. According to Gordon (1987), musical aptitude stabilizes around age nine but is developmental before that age and is especially influenced during the most early, formative years. Gordon claims children “must have favorable early informal and formal experiences in music in order to maintain that level of potential” they are born with, and if they don’t have these experiences, “that level of music aptitude will never be realized in achievement” (p. 8). So, in order for children to achieve in music at a later age, even in elementary school primary grades, they must have musical exposure in early childhood.
The National Association of Music Education (MENC) has four recommendations regarding early childhood music education. First, all early childhood music programs should include music as an integral part of the curriculum. Second, at least 12 percent of an early childhood students’ “school day” should be devoted to music. Third, a music specialist should be present in every early childhood center. Finally, early childhood classrooms should have a music center or “corner” for students to play with music materials (Abeles et al., 1995).
Music educators in Illinois currently receive certification for grades K-12. As more and more early childhood centers open, it will be interesting to see if music specialists will be hired for these schools, and if so, if these teachers will be required to also have an early childhood degree or certification. In the meantime, music educators should be able to adapt existing music curricula to be developmentally appropriate for early childhood students.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Gordon, E. E. (1987). The nature, description, measurement, and evaluation of music aptitudes. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, Inc.
Comprehensive Musicianship
Comprehensive Musicianship is a curricular philosophy that emphasizes an integrated approach to music education in which students in all musical settings learn to perform, analyze, and organize sounds. Sometimes referred to Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance (CMP), it has its roots in the 1959 “Contemporary Music Project” and can be utilized in both performing and non-performing groups.
The aforementioned 1959 project is sometimes called “The Young Composers Project” because it involved assigning young composers to universities or schools to write music for their performing groups, increasing community awareness of contemporary music. However, after the project was piloted, it became clear that music courses were “taught in isolation and fragmented fashion” and too often focused only on performance (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 290). Students needed to learn how to identify relationships among all areas of musical study to develop competency in analyzing, organizing, and performing music, therefore preparing them for all forms of music, including contemporary.
Although CMP was originally focused on upper-level education, the National Association of Music Education (MENC) has developed national standards based on the CMP philosophy for all ages of students in all music courses. For example, in a performance class centered on the CMP curricular philosophy, students would not just learn to read printed music for the sake of a performance product. They would learn the historical background of a composition they were performing, performance practices of the time, and something about the composer and why the he wrote it. There would be time to analyze the theoretical aspects of the composition or compare works from the same time period or by the same composer as well as to evaluate recorded performances and the ensemble’s own efforts. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a music theory class would not focus strictly on analyzing the form and structure of music. Students would use their understanding of music theory to write their own compositions or arrangements and to improvise within a given idiom. Aural discrimination skills could be honed through sight-singing or sight-reading performance. The CMP philosophy seems easiest to integrate into a general music curriculum, especially at the elementary level. The whole purpose of a general music class is to give students a broad range of experiences in singing, playing instruments, reading and notating music, arranging, improvising, analyzing and describing, evaluating, relating music to other art forms, and learning the historical and cultural implications of music.
The CMP curricular philosophy was designed to expose collegiate music students to necessary performance, analysis, and organizational tools so that as teachers they would be “sufficiently equipping to teach contemporary idioms” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 297). However, educators in all age settings can follow the philosophy to create well-rounded musicians at even the youngest grade levels.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
The aforementioned 1959 project is sometimes called “The Young Composers Project” because it involved assigning young composers to universities or schools to write music for their performing groups, increasing community awareness of contemporary music. However, after the project was piloted, it became clear that music courses were “taught in isolation and fragmented fashion” and too often focused only on performance (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 290). Students needed to learn how to identify relationships among all areas of musical study to develop competency in analyzing, organizing, and performing music, therefore preparing them for all forms of music, including contemporary.
Although CMP was originally focused on upper-level education, the National Association of Music Education (MENC) has developed national standards based on the CMP philosophy for all ages of students in all music courses. For example, in a performance class centered on the CMP curricular philosophy, students would not just learn to read printed music for the sake of a performance product. They would learn the historical background of a composition they were performing, performance practices of the time, and something about the composer and why the he wrote it. There would be time to analyze the theoretical aspects of the composition or compare works from the same time period or by the same composer as well as to evaluate recorded performances and the ensemble’s own efforts. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a music theory class would not focus strictly on analyzing the form and structure of music. Students would use their understanding of music theory to write their own compositions or arrangements and to improvise within a given idiom. Aural discrimination skills could be honed through sight-singing or sight-reading performance. The CMP philosophy seems easiest to integrate into a general music curriculum, especially at the elementary level. The whole purpose of a general music class is to give students a broad range of experiences in singing, playing instruments, reading and notating music, arranging, improvising, analyzing and describing, evaluating, relating music to other art forms, and learning the historical and cultural implications of music.
The CMP curricular philosophy was designed to expose collegiate music students to necessary performance, analysis, and organizational tools so that as teachers they would be “sufficiently equipping to teach contemporary idioms” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 297). However, educators in all age settings can follow the philosophy to create well-rounded musicians at even the youngest grade levels.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Multicultural Music Education
Multicultural music education is becoming increasingly necessary in American school systems. As the United States becomes more and more culturally diverse, or pluralistic, it is essential for students to recognize music from other countries and ethnic groups as valid and valuable forms of expression.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) emphasize the necessity for students to “develop respect for the achievements of cultures other than their own” through musical means (p. 285). The authors warn against two common misconceptions: one, that music is a universal language, and two, that the United States is a melting pot. Both views are ethnocentric in that they suggest all music can be understood through a Western filter and that all immigrants assimilate to U.S. culture. Although music is a universal form of human expression, there are drastic differences between musics of different cultures, and immigrants to the United States bring this rich heritage with them. It is the role of music educators to help students better understand and appreciate these differences.
When implementing a multicultural curriculum, educators must be aware of practical problems and considerations. First, music educators are often not trained in multicultural music. Second, music educators must be careful to not automatically compare all works of other cultures to their own culture. Third, it is difficult to choose which multicultural music to include in a curriculum when there are such a vast number of choices. And finally, educators and their students must not assume music of their own culture is superior to that of other cultures, curbing cultural biases and attitudes (Abeles et al., 1995).
The authors cite Joyce Jordan’s 1992 writing on “Curricular Development” in addressing the concerns of multicultural music education. She offers three solutions: first, educators need access to an electronic instrument capable of producing scales and pitches that aren’t available through a conventional keyboard or classroom instrument. Although it doesn’t seem that music educators have readily available access to such a device even in 2009, modern media has at least enabled music teachers to have easy access to recorded performances in authentic settings through such Internet sites as YouTube. Second, Jordan recommends multicultural music sourcebooks designed for elementary teachers, since student bias is minimal at a young age. A quick perusal of a music catalog such as West Music will reveal an abundance of such materials. Finally, Jordan suggests the need for a database of all multicultural music materials for the sake of cross-referencing. Although one all-encompassing database might not exist, the Internet has once again proven an invaluable resource in connecting students and teachers to other parts of the world.
Abeles et al. (1995) further recommend that music educators: 1) choose a representative sample of different world musics for use in the classroom, 2) present multicultural music authentically through recordings or guest performers, and 3) overcome ethnocentrism by making “every effort to instill in students an attitude of respect and acceptance toward all types of music” (p. 287). However, educators must bear in mind that it is still their job to teach basic music skills and that multicultural music (or music of the dominant culture) should be chosen based upon what concepts and skills students can learn through it. In doing so, students will “develop those analytical skills that will assist them in understanding the development of music as an art form, especially as it is utilized throughout the world” (p. 287).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) emphasize the necessity for students to “develop respect for the achievements of cultures other than their own” through musical means (p. 285). The authors warn against two common misconceptions: one, that music is a universal language, and two, that the United States is a melting pot. Both views are ethnocentric in that they suggest all music can be understood through a Western filter and that all immigrants assimilate to U.S. culture. Although music is a universal form of human expression, there are drastic differences between musics of different cultures, and immigrants to the United States bring this rich heritage with them. It is the role of music educators to help students better understand and appreciate these differences.
When implementing a multicultural curriculum, educators must be aware of practical problems and considerations. First, music educators are often not trained in multicultural music. Second, music educators must be careful to not automatically compare all works of other cultures to their own culture. Third, it is difficult to choose which multicultural music to include in a curriculum when there are such a vast number of choices. And finally, educators and their students must not assume music of their own culture is superior to that of other cultures, curbing cultural biases and attitudes (Abeles et al., 1995).
The authors cite Joyce Jordan’s 1992 writing on “Curricular Development” in addressing the concerns of multicultural music education. She offers three solutions: first, educators need access to an electronic instrument capable of producing scales and pitches that aren’t available through a conventional keyboard or classroom instrument. Although it doesn’t seem that music educators have readily available access to such a device even in 2009, modern media has at least enabled music teachers to have easy access to recorded performances in authentic settings through such Internet sites as YouTube. Second, Jordan recommends multicultural music sourcebooks designed for elementary teachers, since student bias is minimal at a young age. A quick perusal of a music catalog such as West Music will reveal an abundance of such materials. Finally, Jordan suggests the need for a database of all multicultural music materials for the sake of cross-referencing. Although one all-encompassing database might not exist, the Internet has once again proven an invaluable resource in connecting students and teachers to other parts of the world.
Abeles et al. (1995) further recommend that music educators: 1) choose a representative sample of different world musics for use in the classroom, 2) present multicultural music authentically through recordings or guest performers, and 3) overcome ethnocentrism by making “every effort to instill in students an attitude of respect and acceptance toward all types of music” (p. 287). However, educators must bear in mind that it is still their job to teach basic music skills and that multicultural music (or music of the dominant culture) should be chosen based upon what concepts and skills students can learn through it. In doing so, students will “develop those analytical skills that will assist them in understanding the development of music as an art form, especially as it is utilized throughout the world” (p. 287).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Curricular Models
A curriculum can be planned around one of three models: linear/control, consensus, or dialogue/freedom. Each model is based upon a different philosophical perspective and allows for varying levels of student input.
In the linear/control model, specific learner outcomes are pre-determined by experts, and students are expected to perform specific tasks based on teacher-led instruction. It is the teacher’s role to give students the necessary tools to achieve these learning objectives, and evaluation would occur through pre-testing/post-testing. This model is based upon the realist or empiricist philosophy and allows for the least amount of student control. In an elementary general music classroom following the linear/control curricular model, one would see activities such as rote/echo singing, a sequenced introduction to rhythmic and melodic patterns, folk dances and other organized movement, skill practice such as mallet technique, and teacher-selected listening examples.
The consensus model allows for slightly more student input and is based upon the pragmatic philosophy. It is the teacher’s role to act as a guide after identifying student needs and concerns, leading them to gain “understandings, values, and skills through group planning” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 275). Evaluation is undertaken cooperatively. Student choice would play an important role in an elementary music classroom under this model. While the teacher might choose a particular song or piece to perform, students could work together to determine their preferred form, instrumental arrangement, expressive elements, etc. Singing games with structured vocal improvisation would provide student choice, as would various other compositional, improvisational, or arranging activities. A teacher would choose repertoire based upon student interest.
Leading even further away from teacher control is the dialogue/freedom model in which students decide on their own learning outcomes. Based on the naturalist philosophy, the teacher acts only as a facilitator, also leaving students in charge of their own assessments. The general/vocal elementary music classroom under this model would provide plenty of opportunities for unstructured improvisation, exploration, and play. Composition and notation would find their place when students would want to remember something they created for a later date by writing it down. Movement activities would be less structured, or students would create their own dances.
Although the formal curriculum may lean heavily toward one of these models, the instructional curriculum in practice may combine elements of each model, depending on what the teacher feels best meets the needs of the students, the level of interest students express in various activities, and student readiness.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
In the linear/control model, specific learner outcomes are pre-determined by experts, and students are expected to perform specific tasks based on teacher-led instruction. It is the teacher’s role to give students the necessary tools to achieve these learning objectives, and evaluation would occur through pre-testing/post-testing. This model is based upon the realist or empiricist philosophy and allows for the least amount of student control. In an elementary general music classroom following the linear/control curricular model, one would see activities such as rote/echo singing, a sequenced introduction to rhythmic and melodic patterns, folk dances and other organized movement, skill practice such as mallet technique, and teacher-selected listening examples.
The consensus model allows for slightly more student input and is based upon the pragmatic philosophy. It is the teacher’s role to act as a guide after identifying student needs and concerns, leading them to gain “understandings, values, and skills through group planning” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 275). Evaluation is undertaken cooperatively. Student choice would play an important role in an elementary music classroom under this model. While the teacher might choose a particular song or piece to perform, students could work together to determine their preferred form, instrumental arrangement, expressive elements, etc. Singing games with structured vocal improvisation would provide student choice, as would various other compositional, improvisational, or arranging activities. A teacher would choose repertoire based upon student interest.
Leading even further away from teacher control is the dialogue/freedom model in which students decide on their own learning outcomes. Based on the naturalist philosophy, the teacher acts only as a facilitator, also leaving students in charge of their own assessments. The general/vocal elementary music classroom under this model would provide plenty of opportunities for unstructured improvisation, exploration, and play. Composition and notation would find their place when students would want to remember something they created for a later date by writing it down. Movement activities would be less structured, or students would create their own dances.
Although the formal curriculum may lean heavily toward one of these models, the instructional curriculum in practice may combine elements of each model, depending on what the teacher feels best meets the needs of the students, the level of interest students express in various activities, and student readiness.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Curricular Viewpionts
The term “curriculum” can mean any number of things to educators, administrators, parents, students, and community members. Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) broadly define curriculum as “a set of planned experiences” (p. 272). They further outline four specific curricular viewpoints: operational, ideal, formal, and instructional.
The operational curriculum is based on an administrative perspective. In this viewpoint, administrators or trained evaluators concern themselves with activities that are actually going on in the classroom rather than seeing curriculum as something written in stone. The classroom activities in this model should be based upon specific learning objectives.
The ideal curriculum is self-explanatory in that it represents what should be taught, not necessarily what is really offered. Often conceived under scholarly conditions, the ideal curriculum is theory-based and may or may not exist in practice.
In the formal curriculum viewpoint, the concerns of the state department of education, the local school board, parent groups, business partners, politicians, and others are taken into account. This may take the form of state or district standards that teachers are required to follow.
Finally, the instructional curriculum represents teachers’ perceptions of what is actually being taught. Teachers often must modify the formal curriculum to meet individual student needs but may be wary to do so because of pressure to follow the formal curriculum. Also relevant are parent, student, and societal perceptions, among others.
Regardless of the viewpoint, a curriculum will be influenced by various stakeholders’ attitudes and their relative position in affecting decisions. A curriculum will also, by its very nature, need to be modified according to school conditions and student needs.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
The operational curriculum is based on an administrative perspective. In this viewpoint, administrators or trained evaluators concern themselves with activities that are actually going on in the classroom rather than seeing curriculum as something written in stone. The classroom activities in this model should be based upon specific learning objectives.
The ideal curriculum is self-explanatory in that it represents what should be taught, not necessarily what is really offered. Often conceived under scholarly conditions, the ideal curriculum is theory-based and may or may not exist in practice.
In the formal curriculum viewpoint, the concerns of the state department of education, the local school board, parent groups, business partners, politicians, and others are taken into account. This may take the form of state or district standards that teachers are required to follow.
Finally, the instructional curriculum represents teachers’ perceptions of what is actually being taught. Teachers often must modify the formal curriculum to meet individual student needs but may be wary to do so because of pressure to follow the formal curriculum. Also relevant are parent, student, and societal perceptions, among others.
Regardless of the viewpoint, a curriculum will be influenced by various stakeholders’ attitudes and their relative position in affecting decisions. A curriculum will also, by its very nature, need to be modified according to school conditions and student needs.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Research Article Summary: Propst 2003
In Tonya Gray Propst’s doctoral dissertation, “The Relationship between the Undergraduate Music Methods Class Curriculum and the Use of Music in the Classrooms of In-Service Elementary Teachers,” the author set out to determine which undergraduate elementary music methods experiences were most likely to affect the amount of time elementary classroom teachers used music with their students on a weekly basis. A summary of her dissertation appears in the Journal of Research in Music Education in the winter 2003 issue.
Propst’s article begins with a literature review of different research related to music methods courses offered to elementary education majors. Some researchers found that the “techniques, methods, and approaches” in these methods courses varied drastically from institution to institution (p. 317). Other researchers noted a “mismatch” between what undergraduate students learn in these methods classes and what classroom teachers find useful for their classrooms (p. 317). Propst suggests that teachers’ perceived usefulness of activities learned in music methods courses could have a direct impact on the activities they actually use in the classroom and the amount of time they spend on these activities. Additionally, many studies focusing on music methods courses for non-music elementary teachers “have produced inconclusive results and therefore a weak foundation for articulating the objectives and content of courses most beneficial for the classroom teacher” (p. 317). Propst’s research, then, focused on determining which music experiences in the undergraduate elementary music methods curriculum, out of a list of 17, would be the strongest predictors of the length of time elementary classroom teachers would use these same music concepts and activities in their classrooms. She also focused her study in a geographical region that had not yet been investigated, the southern mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
In the method section, Propst describes how she surveyed 416 elementary classroom teachers from Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia with at least 100 subjects from each state. The measurement instrument for Propst’s study was a closed-ended questionnaire listing the 17 music activities/concepts. Subjects were first asked to evaluate the amount of time they spent in undergraduate music methods courses on these activities (never, rarely, sometimes, regularly) and then were asked to do the same for how often they use the same activities in their classrooms. Selected subjects took the survey again two weeks later to determine reliability, and Propst noted, “The validity of this study assumes good memory of subjects for college methods class activities, as well as accuracy of self-reported time estimates for teaching concepts and activities” (p. 318). The procedure for distributing the survey was to: 1) obtain addresses of public elementary schools from the U.S. Department of Education website, 2) number the schools in consecutive order and randomly select twelve, and 3) mail the principal of each school a packet with questionnaires, instructions, and a prepaid return envelope.
In the results section, Propst explains how the 17 activities were reduced to three categories roughly related to creating, performing and responding. A discriminant analysis was conducted for the study but only included those subjects who took an undergraduate music methods course. The independent variables were the three activity categories, and the dependent variables were the minutes per week teachers spent on the activities. Propst states that the purpose of the discriminant analysis was “to weigh the three cluster variable groupings to maximally predict group membership on the criterion, minutes per week the classroom teacher used music in the classroom activities” (p. 321). Her calculations showed that “the more subjects were exposed to the music activities…, the more time they reported using music weekly in their classroom,” and “Having information about how much students were exposed to music activities as undergraduates doubles the ability to predict how much they reported using music on a weekly basis in their classrooms. The exposure to activities emphasizing creating and responding to music contributed most uniquely to this increase on predictor accuracy” (p. 323). However, there was not a strong relationship between the specific activities in the undergraduate methods course and the amount of time teachers used music in the classroom.
In the discussion, Propst recognizes that most elementary classroom teachers in the study used activities from the creating and responding cluster variable and not the performing category, possibly due to teacher feelings of inadequacy. This result brings up the question of whether elementary methods classes should include more creating and responding activities, since teachers seem to find these useful in the general classroom, or more performing activities, since teachers tend to implement these activities the least. The majority of teachers in the sample incorporated musical activities for 15-30 minutes per week, but Propst emphasizes the necessity for observational research to confirm teachers’ self-reported times. Propst also recommends further research in comparing elementary teachers who did and did not have an undergraduate music methods course in what kind of music activities and how often these activities are used in the classroom. She also recommends additional research in determining what factors other than undergraduate music methods course influence elementary teachers’ use of music activities in the classroom, since it seems that subjects in the study were not implementing music activities with great frequency. Propst concludes that since classroom teachers have an influence on a child’s musical development, and since the undergraduate music methods course has an impact on teacher use of musical activities in the classroom, this course is “an integral part of music education in the United States” and is “vital to the continued existence of music education in the schools, and its importance must not diminished” (p. 327).
Propst’s article begins with a literature review of different research related to music methods courses offered to elementary education majors. Some researchers found that the “techniques, methods, and approaches” in these methods courses varied drastically from institution to institution (p. 317). Other researchers noted a “mismatch” between what undergraduate students learn in these methods classes and what classroom teachers find useful for their classrooms (p. 317). Propst suggests that teachers’ perceived usefulness of activities learned in music methods courses could have a direct impact on the activities they actually use in the classroom and the amount of time they spend on these activities. Additionally, many studies focusing on music methods courses for non-music elementary teachers “have produced inconclusive results and therefore a weak foundation for articulating the objectives and content of courses most beneficial for the classroom teacher” (p. 317). Propst’s research, then, focused on determining which music experiences in the undergraduate elementary music methods curriculum, out of a list of 17, would be the strongest predictors of the length of time elementary classroom teachers would use these same music concepts and activities in their classrooms. She also focused her study in a geographical region that had not yet been investigated, the southern mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
In the method section, Propst describes how she surveyed 416 elementary classroom teachers from Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia with at least 100 subjects from each state. The measurement instrument for Propst’s study was a closed-ended questionnaire listing the 17 music activities/concepts. Subjects were first asked to evaluate the amount of time they spent in undergraduate music methods courses on these activities (never, rarely, sometimes, regularly) and then were asked to do the same for how often they use the same activities in their classrooms. Selected subjects took the survey again two weeks later to determine reliability, and Propst noted, “The validity of this study assumes good memory of subjects for college methods class activities, as well as accuracy of self-reported time estimates for teaching concepts and activities” (p. 318). The procedure for distributing the survey was to: 1) obtain addresses of public elementary schools from the U.S. Department of Education website, 2) number the schools in consecutive order and randomly select twelve, and 3) mail the principal of each school a packet with questionnaires, instructions, and a prepaid return envelope.
In the results section, Propst explains how the 17 activities were reduced to three categories roughly related to creating, performing and responding. A discriminant analysis was conducted for the study but only included those subjects who took an undergraduate music methods course. The independent variables were the three activity categories, and the dependent variables were the minutes per week teachers spent on the activities. Propst states that the purpose of the discriminant analysis was “to weigh the three cluster variable groupings to maximally predict group membership on the criterion, minutes per week the classroom teacher used music in the classroom activities” (p. 321). Her calculations showed that “the more subjects were exposed to the music activities…, the more time they reported using music weekly in their classroom,” and “Having information about how much students were exposed to music activities as undergraduates doubles the ability to predict how much they reported using music on a weekly basis in their classrooms. The exposure to activities emphasizing creating and responding to music contributed most uniquely to this increase on predictor accuracy” (p. 323). However, there was not a strong relationship between the specific activities in the undergraduate methods course and the amount of time teachers used music in the classroom.
In the discussion, Propst recognizes that most elementary classroom teachers in the study used activities from the creating and responding cluster variable and not the performing category, possibly due to teacher feelings of inadequacy. This result brings up the question of whether elementary methods classes should include more creating and responding activities, since teachers seem to find these useful in the general classroom, or more performing activities, since teachers tend to implement these activities the least. The majority of teachers in the sample incorporated musical activities for 15-30 minutes per week, but Propst emphasizes the necessity for observational research to confirm teachers’ self-reported times. Propst also recommends further research in comparing elementary teachers who did and did not have an undergraduate music methods course in what kind of music activities and how often these activities are used in the classroom. She also recommends additional research in determining what factors other than undergraduate music methods course influence elementary teachers’ use of music activities in the classroom, since it seems that subjects in the study were not implementing music activities with great frequency. Propst concludes that since classroom teachers have an influence on a child’s musical development, and since the undergraduate music methods course has an impact on teacher use of musical activities in the classroom, this course is “an integral part of music education in the United States” and is “vital to the continued existence of music education in the schools, and its importance must not diminished” (p. 327).
Monday, March 9, 2009
Assessment in the Affective Domain
The cognitive domain of student learning is an area in which educators have much experience teaching and assessing. Music educators, however, spend a significant amount of time teaching to the affective domain, which can prove difficult to assess.
In order to assess students, educators need to look for behavioral indicators. Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) note that a student’s behavior, which is “an overt action reflecting the student’s values,” is not always the same as a student’s behavioral intentions due to environmental factors (p. 314). Abeles summarizes the problem in the formula BI ≈ BH = AS + En, where BI stands for behavioral intentions, BH for behavior, AS for affective set, and En for environmental factors. For example, a student’s behavioral intentions may be to listen to a piano concerto in his free time because his affective set represents a value for this type of music, but the environmental factor of his friend telling him it’s not “cool” may cause a behavior (such as not listening to the concerto or not admitting to listening to the concerto) that doesn’t align with the affective set. Although educators must assess student behaviors in order to assess at all, there is clearly a challenge in doing so for the affective domain.
Abeles et al. (1995) point out, “The well-developed techniques employed to measure the products of cognitive processes, such as multiple-choice tests, are not successful in measuring affective behaviors” (p. 238). Reasons include that changes in affective behaviors are very gradual and that affective terminology such as “appreciate” or “enjoy” doesn’t lend itself to readily observable behaviors. The authors suggest two types of assessment in the affective domain: Likert scales and behavioral assessments. Although Likert scales are a quick and efficient way to assess values, “Verbal measures… will not be as accurate an indication of attitudes as observations of behaviors” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 314). However, frequent observations of different behaviors “may begin to neutralize the environmental factor…and eventually provide the most accurate assessment of affective set” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 314). Observations should be systematic, not casual, and can include behavioral-evidence categories such as physical characteristics, expressive movement, physical location, language and time duration (Abeles et al., 1995). However, this method of assessing in the affective domain is obviously more time-consuming.
Regardless of the greater difficulty in assessing affective over cognitive behaviors, the task remains essential to music educators if they wish to validate the inclusion of the affective domain in curricula. Krathwohl’s taxonomy of the affective domain can assist educators in writing attainable and observable behavioral objectives.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
In order to assess students, educators need to look for behavioral indicators. Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) note that a student’s behavior, which is “an overt action reflecting the student’s values,” is not always the same as a student’s behavioral intentions due to environmental factors (p. 314). Abeles summarizes the problem in the formula BI ≈ BH = AS + En, where BI stands for behavioral intentions, BH for behavior, AS for affective set, and En for environmental factors. For example, a student’s behavioral intentions may be to listen to a piano concerto in his free time because his affective set represents a value for this type of music, but the environmental factor of his friend telling him it’s not “cool” may cause a behavior (such as not listening to the concerto or not admitting to listening to the concerto) that doesn’t align with the affective set. Although educators must assess student behaviors in order to assess at all, there is clearly a challenge in doing so for the affective domain.
Abeles et al. (1995) point out, “The well-developed techniques employed to measure the products of cognitive processes, such as multiple-choice tests, are not successful in measuring affective behaviors” (p. 238). Reasons include that changes in affective behaviors are very gradual and that affective terminology such as “appreciate” or “enjoy” doesn’t lend itself to readily observable behaviors. The authors suggest two types of assessment in the affective domain: Likert scales and behavioral assessments. Although Likert scales are a quick and efficient way to assess values, “Verbal measures… will not be as accurate an indication of attitudes as observations of behaviors” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 314). However, frequent observations of different behaviors “may begin to neutralize the environmental factor…and eventually provide the most accurate assessment of affective set” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 314). Observations should be systematic, not casual, and can include behavioral-evidence categories such as physical characteristics, expressive movement, physical location, language and time duration (Abeles et al., 1995). However, this method of assessing in the affective domain is obviously more time-consuming.
Regardless of the greater difficulty in assessing affective over cognitive behaviors, the task remains essential to music educators if they wish to validate the inclusion of the affective domain in curricula. Krathwohl’s taxonomy of the affective domain can assist educators in writing attainable and observable behavioral objectives.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Behavioral Objectives and Modifications
The effect of behavioral psychology on American education can clearly be seen through the widespread use of behavioral objectives and behavior modification in the school setting. The “clear articulation of the outcomes of instruction through the use of well-defined behavior objectives” is the first step in the behaviorist instructional system, followed by developing instructional material to assist the student in meeting the objectives, assessment of the students’ success in reaching the stated objectives, and revising the instructional materials based on the results of the assessment process (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 243). Behavior modification, on the other hand, focuses on the use of different reinforcers to increase or decrease a desired student behavior.
According to Abeles et al. (1995), “Behavioral objectives must be precise, clear, and unambiguous” (p. 244). A well-written behavioral objective should have four elements: a verb, a statement of conditions under which the behavior occurs, the standard of quality that the performance must reach, and the learner (Abeles et al., 1995). For example, in the objective “Students will be able to sing a pentatonic song in the key of F=Do accurately and in tune by themselves,” the verb is “sing,” the condition is “by themselves,” the quality is “accurately and in tune,” and the learners are “students.” In my undergraduate experience at North Central College in Naperville, IL, all learning objectives needed to begin with “The student will be able to,” or “SWBAT,” followed by such recommended verbs as identify, describe, differentiate, demonstrate, define, etc. Some educators believe that behavioral objectives are limiting, especially in the arts, and advocate the additional use of problem-solving objectives with expressive outcomes (Abeles et al., 1995).
Abeles et al. (1995) suggest that the other strong influence from the behavioral psychology school on education, behavior modification, “appeals to teachers because of its emphasis on direct application and its focus on solving specific problem behaviors. In addition, its techniques seem easy to learn and apply” (p. 260). In contrast, intrinsic rewards are much more difficult to control. Psychologists and educators focus on the type of reinforcer in use and the frequency in which the reinforcer is associated with the desired (or undesired) response when implementing behavior modification. Research in music education indicates that behavior modification is generally successful: “behavioral strategies may alter musical preferences, reduce disruptive behavior in music instructional situations, increase the amount of time students practice, and reduce instrumental music performance anxiety” (p. 263). A potential limitation in implementing behavior modification strategies is the amount of time and resources needed to “1) Select the behavior to be modified and identify the desired or goal behavior, 2) Observe the frequency of the behavior and its antecedents and possible reinforcing events, 3) Plan a program to alter the behavior and monitor the change, and 4) Remove the program and monitor to see if the goal behavior is maintained” (p. 261). In order to thoroughly monitor such progress, an outside observer or some kind of recording device would be necessary.
The popularity of behavior modification is not likely to fade in the near future, and its perceived usefulness in improving instruction validates its placement in the classroom for the time being. Additionally, standards-based movements have had a lasting and long-term effect on education, and teachers can again take advantage of this by improving student instruction through the use of behaviorally stated learning objectives.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
According to Abeles et al. (1995), “Behavioral objectives must be precise, clear, and unambiguous” (p. 244). A well-written behavioral objective should have four elements: a verb, a statement of conditions under which the behavior occurs, the standard of quality that the performance must reach, and the learner (Abeles et al., 1995). For example, in the objective “Students will be able to sing a pentatonic song in the key of F=Do accurately and in tune by themselves,” the verb is “sing,” the condition is “by themselves,” the quality is “accurately and in tune,” and the learners are “students.” In my undergraduate experience at North Central College in Naperville, IL, all learning objectives needed to begin with “The student will be able to,” or “SWBAT,” followed by such recommended verbs as identify, describe, differentiate, demonstrate, define, etc. Some educators believe that behavioral objectives are limiting, especially in the arts, and advocate the additional use of problem-solving objectives with expressive outcomes (Abeles et al., 1995).
Abeles et al. (1995) suggest that the other strong influence from the behavioral psychology school on education, behavior modification, “appeals to teachers because of its emphasis on direct application and its focus on solving specific problem behaviors. In addition, its techniques seem easy to learn and apply” (p. 260). In contrast, intrinsic rewards are much more difficult to control. Psychologists and educators focus on the type of reinforcer in use and the frequency in which the reinforcer is associated with the desired (or undesired) response when implementing behavior modification. Research in music education indicates that behavior modification is generally successful: “behavioral strategies may alter musical preferences, reduce disruptive behavior in music instructional situations, increase the amount of time students practice, and reduce instrumental music performance anxiety” (p. 263). A potential limitation in implementing behavior modification strategies is the amount of time and resources needed to “1) Select the behavior to be modified and identify the desired or goal behavior, 2) Observe the frequency of the behavior and its antecedents and possible reinforcing events, 3) Plan a program to alter the behavior and monitor the change, and 4) Remove the program and monitor to see if the goal behavior is maintained” (p. 261). In order to thoroughly monitor such progress, an outside observer or some kind of recording device would be necessary.
The popularity of behavior modification is not likely to fade in the near future, and its perceived usefulness in improving instruction validates its placement in the classroom for the time being. Additionally, standards-based movements have had a lasting and long-term effect on education, and teachers can again take advantage of this by improving student instruction through the use of behaviorally stated learning objectives.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor Taxonomies
Psychologists have developed taxonomies in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains so teachers can have a common language when developing curriculum, instructional objectives, assessment strategies, etc. These taxonomies can also prove useful to music educators in particular.
Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain is well known to many educators and “provides a hierarchy of mental skills employed by students when they process cognitive information” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 234). From least to most complex, these skills are: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Students must demonstrate lower-level behaviors before being able to move up the taxonomy. By referencing these cognitive behaviors when planning instruction, teachers (including music teachers) are “likely to provide more systematic and effective instruction” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 237). Educators often emphasize Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain more so than the affective and psychomotor domains (Abeles et al., 1995).
The affective domain is particularly important to arts education. Like the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom and Massia’s taxonomy of the affective domain is arranged from least to most complex, or more specifically, from weakest to highest levels of internalized commitment: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization by a value or value complex. Again, higher-level behaviors are contingent upon students mastering lower-level behaviors. Because aesthetic awareness is often a primary goal of music education, Abeles et al. (1995) emphasize the usefulness and importance of the affective taxonomy, particularly in regards to assessment: “The ability of music teachers to meet this [aesthetic] goal to some extent relies on their ability to develop and assess affective behaviors. If teachers do not assess the affective outcomes of their curriculum, they have no guidelines to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum and no evidence on which to base modifications” (p. 239).
The psychomotor domain often receives even less attention in schools than the affective domain. Simpson’s psychomotor taxonomy is again organized from the least to the most complex, but this time with some subcategories: 1) perception: sensory stimulation, cue selection, translation; 2) set: mental set, physical set, emotional set; 3) guided response: imitation, trial and error; 4) mechanism; 5) complex overt response: resolution of uncertainty, automatic performance; 6) adaptation; and 7) origination. This taxonomy is particularly useful to music teachers because of the strong emphasis on skill development in music education. For example, much rote learning is done through echo work, and specific instrumental techniques are clearly related to the psychomotor domain.
Although psychologists originally created the cognitive, affective and psychomotor taxonomies to aid in creating assessments (student outcomes are listed behaviorally), music and other educators can use the taxonomies to develop curriculum by backward design. Educators should bear in mind that all three of the domains frequently overlap each other, and that the eventual goal of all education is for students to function at the higher levels of the taxonomies.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain is well known to many educators and “provides a hierarchy of mental skills employed by students when they process cognitive information” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 234). From least to most complex, these skills are: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Students must demonstrate lower-level behaviors before being able to move up the taxonomy. By referencing these cognitive behaviors when planning instruction, teachers (including music teachers) are “likely to provide more systematic and effective instruction” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 237). Educators often emphasize Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain more so than the affective and psychomotor domains (Abeles et al., 1995).
The affective domain is particularly important to arts education. Like the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom and Massia’s taxonomy of the affective domain is arranged from least to most complex, or more specifically, from weakest to highest levels of internalized commitment: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization by a value or value complex. Again, higher-level behaviors are contingent upon students mastering lower-level behaviors. Because aesthetic awareness is often a primary goal of music education, Abeles et al. (1995) emphasize the usefulness and importance of the affective taxonomy, particularly in regards to assessment: “The ability of music teachers to meet this [aesthetic] goal to some extent relies on their ability to develop and assess affective behaviors. If teachers do not assess the affective outcomes of their curriculum, they have no guidelines to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum and no evidence on which to base modifications” (p. 239).
The psychomotor domain often receives even less attention in schools than the affective domain. Simpson’s psychomotor taxonomy is again organized from the least to the most complex, but this time with some subcategories: 1) perception: sensory stimulation, cue selection, translation; 2) set: mental set, physical set, emotional set; 3) guided response: imitation, trial and error; 4) mechanism; 5) complex overt response: resolution of uncertainty, automatic performance; 6) adaptation; and 7) origination. This taxonomy is particularly useful to music teachers because of the strong emphasis on skill development in music education. For example, much rote learning is done through echo work, and specific instrumental techniques are clearly related to the psychomotor domain.
Although psychologists originally created the cognitive, affective and psychomotor taxonomies to aid in creating assessments (student outcomes are listed behaviorally), music and other educators can use the taxonomies to develop curriculum by backward design. Educators should bear in mind that all three of the domains frequently overlap each other, and that the eventual goal of all education is for students to function at the higher levels of the taxonomies.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Piaget's Stage Theory
Jean Piaget’s work in developmental psychology is widely known in the United States and has had a strong influence on education. His stage theory provides a framework for educators, including music educators, to help children of all ages to accommodate and assimilate new concepts and information.
The first of Piaget’s four stages of intellectual development is the sensorimotor stage. Children in this stage are pre-lingual and interact with their environment primarily through their senses. They begin to achieve object permanence (just because they can’t see it doesn’t mean it no longer exists), and they recognize themselves as agents of action (e.g., shaking a rattle will make a sound) (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995).
Around age two, children enter the preoperational stage and stay in this stage until about age seven. Children acquire the ability to store images and represent objects as symbols, most notably evidenced by the acquisition of language but also by the child’s newfound ability to fantasize. Children in this stage can also classify objects by single features common attributes (Abeles et al., 1995).
An important different between preoperational children and concrete operational children is the ability to conserve. Children ages seven to ten in this third stage can also classify objects according to the common features between the objects. These children begin to think more logically and can perform increasingly complex mental actions, such as organizing characteristics along a continuum (small/smaller/smallest) rather than into dichotomies (small/big) (Abeles et al., 1995).
Finally, children enter the formal operational stage around age eleven. These adolescents can deal with abstract thoughts and are better able to evaluate and problem-solve through testing hypotheses systematically. They can also look beyond the present to the future more so than concrete operational children. Adolescents in formal operations “have developed most of the basic thought processes of adults” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 199).
All educators, including music educators, might want to take a student’s placement in Piaget’s four developmental stages into consideration when planning instruction. A single concept could be modified to be developmentally appropriate for any student. For instance, students of any age could study the concept of tone color or timbre, but each stage would require a vastly different approach. Children in the sensorimotor stage would need a lot of exposure to different musical instruments, listening to the sounds made by themselves or others. The more exposure students have to different sounds up until age two, the better they would be able to recognize these timbres during the preoperational stage. Children ages two to seven could begin to associate images to sound, such as connecting the sound of a drum to a picture of a drum, or imagining a picture of a drum when hearing a drum sound. In the concrete operational stage, children could begin to classify musical sounds into categories such as: metals, woods, drums and shakers/scrapers; aeorophones, chordophones, membranophones and idiophones; or woodwind, brass, string and percussion. They could even understand more complex categorization, such as woodwind instruments with a single reed, double reed or no reed. Finally, adolescents in formal operations could begin to understand why instruments have different timbres, studying the abstract acoustical concepts of overtones or attack and decay.
Although Piaget’s stage theory has come under some criticism, the basic idea of adjusting learning concepts to a child’s developmental readiness is a basic tenant of education. Educators can use Piaget’s and others’ theories to assist in planning or modifying curricular sequencing and style of instruction.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
The first of Piaget’s four stages of intellectual development is the sensorimotor stage. Children in this stage are pre-lingual and interact with their environment primarily through their senses. They begin to achieve object permanence (just because they can’t see it doesn’t mean it no longer exists), and they recognize themselves as agents of action (e.g., shaking a rattle will make a sound) (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995).
Around age two, children enter the preoperational stage and stay in this stage until about age seven. Children acquire the ability to store images and represent objects as symbols, most notably evidenced by the acquisition of language but also by the child’s newfound ability to fantasize. Children in this stage can also classify objects by single features common attributes (Abeles et al., 1995).
An important different between preoperational children and concrete operational children is the ability to conserve. Children ages seven to ten in this third stage can also classify objects according to the common features between the objects. These children begin to think more logically and can perform increasingly complex mental actions, such as organizing characteristics along a continuum (small/smaller/smallest) rather than into dichotomies (small/big) (Abeles et al., 1995).
Finally, children enter the formal operational stage around age eleven. These adolescents can deal with abstract thoughts and are better able to evaluate and problem-solve through testing hypotheses systematically. They can also look beyond the present to the future more so than concrete operational children. Adolescents in formal operations “have developed most of the basic thought processes of adults” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 199).
All educators, including music educators, might want to take a student’s placement in Piaget’s four developmental stages into consideration when planning instruction. A single concept could be modified to be developmentally appropriate for any student. For instance, students of any age could study the concept of tone color or timbre, but each stage would require a vastly different approach. Children in the sensorimotor stage would need a lot of exposure to different musical instruments, listening to the sounds made by themselves or others. The more exposure students have to different sounds up until age two, the better they would be able to recognize these timbres during the preoperational stage. Children ages two to seven could begin to associate images to sound, such as connecting the sound of a drum to a picture of a drum, or imagining a picture of a drum when hearing a drum sound. In the concrete operational stage, children could begin to classify musical sounds into categories such as: metals, woods, drums and shakers/scrapers; aeorophones, chordophones, membranophones and idiophones; or woodwind, brass, string and percussion. They could even understand more complex categorization, such as woodwind instruments with a single reed, double reed or no reed. Finally, adolescents in formal operations could begin to understand why instruments have different timbres, studying the abstract acoustical concepts of overtones or attack and decay.
Although Piaget’s stage theory has come under some criticism, the basic idea of adjusting learning concepts to a child’s developmental readiness is a basic tenant of education. Educators can use Piaget’s and others’ theories to assist in planning or modifying curricular sequencing and style of instruction.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Musical Ability
Psychologists disagree on the nature of musical ability and whether musical ability is inherited or developed. Research can be cited to support either viewpoint as well as for the differing opinions psychologists hold regarding the relationship between musical ability and intelligence.
It is necessary to define musical ability before determining how students acquire it.
Psychological researchers have employed two different methods in defining musical ability: comparing characteristics of “musical” versus “non-musical” people, and measuring specific musical behaviors through assessments such as Gordon’s Musical Aptitude Profile (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995). Furthermore, Radocy and Boyle point out that “musicality” is an imprecise term and instead suggest that “musical capacity” should refer to genetic or developmental abilities, “musical aptitude” should include the former plus environmental factors, and “musical ability” should refer to both the previous factors plus formal instruction (1995).
Based on these definitions of musical ability, psychologists have broken into two theoretical schools of thought regarding its nature: the theory of specifics and the omnibus theory. The former asserts that musical ability is comprised of many unrelated traits or talents while the latter takes the oppositional view and states that musical ability is singular. A third group of psychologists believe the truth lies somewhere in between (Abeles et al., 1995).
The debate over whether musical ability is inherited (nature) or developed (nurture) closely parallels the question of the source of general intelligence. Some psychologists reference child prodigies in their belief of musical ability being innate. Genetic research has also found that people with high musical ability have a larger plana temporale than their non-musical counterparts (Abeles et al., 1995). However, other psychologists cite environmental factors to support their developmental viewpoint. Experts believe environment can affect IQ scores up to 25 points, and researchers such as Gordon have found that musical aptitude fluctuates up until age ten, suggesting environmental influences, such as early exposure to music, affects childrens musical aptitude (Abeles et al., 1995).
Similarly, the correlation between musical ability and intelligence is unclear. Some researchers cite cases of idiot savants and comparisons of musical aptitude to intelligence test results to support a low correlation. Others such as Radocy and Boyle have concluded, “all highly musical people appear to be highly intelligent, but not all highly intelligent people are musical” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 224).
Though psychological researchers are not likely to find definitive conclusions to these debates in the near future, music educators should take an interest in the subject: if musical ability were proved to be innate, teachers could justify excluding particular students from instruction, but if musical ability were proved to be influenced by the environment, music teachers could strongly advocate for universal musical instruction (Abeles et al., 1995). It seems likely that both nature and nurture play a role in musical ability, and music educators can have a strong influence over a child’s musical nurturing.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
It is necessary to define musical ability before determining how students acquire it.
Psychological researchers have employed two different methods in defining musical ability: comparing characteristics of “musical” versus “non-musical” people, and measuring specific musical behaviors through assessments such as Gordon’s Musical Aptitude Profile (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995). Furthermore, Radocy and Boyle point out that “musicality” is an imprecise term and instead suggest that “musical capacity” should refer to genetic or developmental abilities, “musical aptitude” should include the former plus environmental factors, and “musical ability” should refer to both the previous factors plus formal instruction (1995).
Based on these definitions of musical ability, psychologists have broken into two theoretical schools of thought regarding its nature: the theory of specifics and the omnibus theory. The former asserts that musical ability is comprised of many unrelated traits or talents while the latter takes the oppositional view and states that musical ability is singular. A third group of psychologists believe the truth lies somewhere in between (Abeles et al., 1995).
The debate over whether musical ability is inherited (nature) or developed (nurture) closely parallels the question of the source of general intelligence. Some psychologists reference child prodigies in their belief of musical ability being innate. Genetic research has also found that people with high musical ability have a larger plana temporale than their non-musical counterparts (Abeles et al., 1995). However, other psychologists cite environmental factors to support their developmental viewpoint. Experts believe environment can affect IQ scores up to 25 points, and researchers such as Gordon have found that musical aptitude fluctuates up until age ten, suggesting environmental influences, such as early exposure to music, affects childrens musical aptitude (Abeles et al., 1995).
Similarly, the correlation between musical ability and intelligence is unclear. Some researchers cite cases of idiot savants and comparisons of musical aptitude to intelligence test results to support a low correlation. Others such as Radocy and Boyle have concluded, “all highly musical people appear to be highly intelligent, but not all highly intelligent people are musical” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 224).
Though psychological researchers are not likely to find definitive conclusions to these debates in the near future, music educators should take an interest in the subject: if musical ability were proved to be innate, teachers could justify excluding particular students from instruction, but if musical ability were proved to be influenced by the environment, music teachers could strongly advocate for universal musical instruction (Abeles et al., 1995). It seems likely that both nature and nurture play a role in musical ability, and music educators can have a strong influence over a child’s musical nurturing.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
No Child Left Behind
The "No Child Left Behind" act is the latest revision of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was signed into law by the Bush administration at the beginning of 2002. According to the Illinois State Board of Education website, the law requires that:
In order for school districts to meet these goals, they must fulfill certain requirements:
The growing use of standards-based reformed and test-driven accountability, culminating in NCLB, has had an obvious effect on general education. Jennings and Stark Rentner (2006) cite ten big effects of the NCLB act on public schools:
Of greatest concern to music educators is point number two. In Gerrity's 2007 study on the impact of No Child Left Behind on music education in the state of Ohio, "Significant differences between the attitudes [toward music education] of principals serving in 'excellent' or 'effective' schools and the principals of 'academic watch' or 'academic emergency' schools were revealed," and "When considering the expectation of principals that music teachers devote some of their instructional time to other subjects, 43% of Ohio's music programs record a weaker status since the passage of No Child Left Behind." Additionally, Heffner's 2007 study surveying district and arts supervisors indicated that "since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or [sic] instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes." Further studies and anecdotal stories yield the same conclusions.
In counteracting the negative effects of NCLB on arts education, educators should be aware that NCLB mandates the arts and music as a core subject. The problem, then, seems to be with state and district misinterpretation of the law and possibly not the law itself. The designation of arts as a core subject means that the arts can qualify for federal funding just as much as other core subjects (Morrison 2006).
Currently, the National Association for Music Education (MENC) is circulating a Petition for Equal Access to Music Education. MENC's goal is to gather one million signatures on paper petitions to deliver to the new Secretary of Education on June 18, 2009. The petition states, "Be it therefore resolved that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind, not only identify music as a core subject, but also recognize music education as a mandatory component of every public education curriculum in the United States of America." The petition may be accessed here.
Gerrity, K. W. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States -- Ohio. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3262133).
Heffner, C. J. (2007). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, instructional time, and student participation in music programs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States -- Florida. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3281531).
Illinois State Board of Education. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Overview and Highlights. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.isbe.net/nclb/htmls/highlights.htm
Jennings, J. & Stark Rentner, D. (2006). Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on the Public Schools. Center on Education Policy: Washington DC. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12843
MENC: The National Association for Music Education (2008). 3 Ways to Change Music Education: Petition Drive. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.menc.org/resources/view/3-ways-to-change-music-education-petition-drive
Morrison, B. (2006). A Music Parents Guide to "No Child Left Behind." Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.oldmedia.com/ELMSbands/Newsletters/ParentTips.html
-All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014.
-By 2013-2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the end of the third grade.
-All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English.
-By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.
-All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free and conducive to learning.
-All students will graduate from high school.
In order for school districts to meet these goals, they must fulfill certain requirements:
-Annual testing of all students against state standards in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and in science at three times in a student’s school career (including once in high school).
-“Verification” of each state’s assessment system via required participation (every other year) by selected districts in the NAEP test.
-Aggregate and disaggregate analysis and reporting of student achievement results.
-A state definition and timeline for determining whether a school, district and the state are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward the goal of 100 percent of students meeting state standards by the 2013-2014 school year.
-Technical assistance and then sanctions for schools, districts and the state for failure to make AYP.
-Highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects by 2005-2006.
-Highly qualified aides or paraprofessionals.
-Support for students not meeting standards and/or for those who have special needs (e.g., homeless, limited-English-proficiency).
-The use of “scientifically-based” programs and strategies.
The growing use of standards-based reformed and test-driven accountability, culminating in NCLB, has had an obvious effect on general education. Jennings and Stark Rentner (2006) cite ten big effects of the NCLB act on public schools:
1. State and district officials report that student achievement on state tests is rising, which is a cause for optimism.
2. Schools are spending more time on reading and math, sometimes at the expense of subjects not tested.
3. Schools are paying much more attention to the alignment of curriculum and instruction and are analyzing test score data much more closely.
4. Low-performing schools are undergoing make overs rather than the most radical kinds of restructuring.
5. Schools and teachers have made considerable progress in demonstrating that teachers meet the law's academic qualifications — but many educators are skeptical this will really improve the quality of teaching.
6. Students are taking a lot more tests.
7. Schools are paying much more attention to achievement gaps and the learning needs of particular groups of students.
8. The percentage of schools on state "needs improvement" lists has been steady but is not growing.
9. The federal government is playing a bigger role in education.
10. NCLB requirements have meant that state governments and school districts also have expanded roles in school operations, but often without adequate federal funds to carry out their duties.
Of greatest concern to music educators is point number two. In Gerrity's 2007 study on the impact of No Child Left Behind on music education in the state of Ohio, "Significant differences between the attitudes [toward music education] of principals serving in 'excellent' or 'effective' schools and the principals of 'academic watch' or 'academic emergency' schools were revealed," and "When considering the expectation of principals that music teachers devote some of their instructional time to other subjects, 43% of Ohio's music programs record a weaker status since the passage of No Child Left Behind." Additionally, Heffner's 2007 study surveying district and arts supervisors indicated that "since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or [sic] instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes." Further studies and anecdotal stories yield the same conclusions.
In counteracting the negative effects of NCLB on arts education, educators should be aware that NCLB mandates the arts and music as a core subject. The problem, then, seems to be with state and district misinterpretation of the law and possibly not the law itself. The designation of arts as a core subject means that the arts can qualify for federal funding just as much as other core subjects (Morrison 2006).
Currently, the National Association for Music Education (MENC) is circulating a Petition for Equal Access to Music Education. MENC's goal is to gather one million signatures on paper petitions to deliver to the new Secretary of Education on June 18, 2009. The petition states, "Be it therefore resolved that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind, not only identify music as a core subject, but also recognize music education as a mandatory component of every public education curriculum in the United States of America." The petition may be accessed here.
Gerrity, K. W. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States -- Ohio. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3262133).
Heffner, C. J. (2007). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, instructional time, and student participation in music programs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States -- Florida. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3281531).
Illinois State Board of Education. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Overview and Highlights. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.isbe.net/nclb/htmls/highlights.htm
Jennings, J. & Stark Rentner, D. (2006). Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on the Public Schools. Center on Education Policy: Washington DC. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12843
MENC: The National Association for Music Education (2008). 3 Ways to Change Music Education: Petition Drive. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.menc.org/resources/view/3-ways-to-change-music-education-petition-drive
Morrison, B. (2006). A Music Parents Guide to "No Child Left Behind." Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.oldmedia.com/ELMSbands/Newsletters/ParentTips.html
Monday, March 2, 2009
Soundscapes
Seriously hoping Google Docs beta is ready to move up to the next phase. Any other good document sharing sites anyone can recommend?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Creativity
Creativity is largely defined by what it is not: it is “not a deliberate imitation of something that already exists” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 172). Several factors define what creativity is, however, which can be connected to musical creativity. Once the traits related to creativity are clear, music educators must then decide the best structure and procedures in which to encourage creativity in all students.
Creativity can be divided into three traits: fluency, flexibility and originality. According to Abeles et al. (1995), who summarize J. P. Guilford’s ideas, “Fluency is the ease with which people can make associations of words or ideas. Flexibility involves changing procedures to solve a problem…. Originality is a trait involving the ability to think in unusual ways, to see relationships that others have not seen, and to think of new and different uses for ideas and objects” (pp. 172-173). Originality is often referred to as divergent thinking, and many psychologists and educators focus more on this factor of creativity than on the other traits. John Gardner describes creativity differently by citing the four traits of openness, independence, flexibility, and “the capacity to find order in experience” (p. 174). Many other psychologists offer overlapping views of the creative process and creative behaviors. Abeles et al. suggest that hard work, an artist’s place in history, and technological or cultural developments are factors that also contribute to perceived creativity.
There are two contrasting views on the best way to foster creativity in schools, and there is evidence to support each view: either imposing strict structures, or not imposing any structure. Proponents of structure/restrictions cite how overwhelming it could be for children to compose with no guidelines and that beginning with limited pitches and rhythms is an effective way to gradually become more creative. Similarly, it is important for improvisers of any genre to stay within a rhythmic and tonal structure that is appropriate for the style of music. However, some studies have shown that encouragement and freedom are the best approach to creativity, as further evidenced by creative “flowerings” within certain societies at specific periods in history in various artistic disciplines (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 179). Looking to the histories of different famous composers doesn’t offer much help in determining the best approach to creativity: some composers were discouraged and restricted by their family members, while others were highly encouraged.
Regardless of the approach music educators take, it is important for all students to make attempts at creative efforts. There are three reasons for this: one, students trying out musical ideas are learning ways of expressing themselves. Two, students are much more motivated by personal creative efforts. And three, students will learn music better through active engagement in the creative process (Abeles et al., 1995, pp. 177-178). Although it is difficult to pinpoint specific procedures that music educators can use to encourage creativity in the classroom, a general rule of thumb is to foster a positive atmosphere through student praise of creative efforts.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Creativity can be divided into three traits: fluency, flexibility and originality. According to Abeles et al. (1995), who summarize J. P. Guilford’s ideas, “Fluency is the ease with which people can make associations of words or ideas. Flexibility involves changing procedures to solve a problem…. Originality is a trait involving the ability to think in unusual ways, to see relationships that others have not seen, and to think of new and different uses for ideas and objects” (pp. 172-173). Originality is often referred to as divergent thinking, and many psychologists and educators focus more on this factor of creativity than on the other traits. John Gardner describes creativity differently by citing the four traits of openness, independence, flexibility, and “the capacity to find order in experience” (p. 174). Many other psychologists offer overlapping views of the creative process and creative behaviors. Abeles et al. suggest that hard work, an artist’s place in history, and technological or cultural developments are factors that also contribute to perceived creativity.
There are two contrasting views on the best way to foster creativity in schools, and there is evidence to support each view: either imposing strict structures, or not imposing any structure. Proponents of structure/restrictions cite how overwhelming it could be for children to compose with no guidelines and that beginning with limited pitches and rhythms is an effective way to gradually become more creative. Similarly, it is important for improvisers of any genre to stay within a rhythmic and tonal structure that is appropriate for the style of music. However, some studies have shown that encouragement and freedom are the best approach to creativity, as further evidenced by creative “flowerings” within certain societies at specific periods in history in various artistic disciplines (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 179). Looking to the histories of different famous composers doesn’t offer much help in determining the best approach to creativity: some composers were discouraged and restricted by their family members, while others were highly encouraged.
Regardless of the approach music educators take, it is important for all students to make attempts at creative efforts. There are three reasons for this: one, students trying out musical ideas are learning ways of expressing themselves. Two, students are much more motivated by personal creative efforts. And three, students will learn music better through active engagement in the creative process (Abeles et al., 1995, pp. 177-178). Although it is difficult to pinpoint specific procedures that music educators can use to encourage creativity in the classroom, a general rule of thumb is to foster a positive atmosphere through student praise of creative efforts.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Pop Music
Social psychologists have repeatedly shown that adolescents need to feel self-confident and competent in their ability to operate in the adult world in order to develop a positive self-image. The implication of teenagers wanting their own music separate from adults can have an impact on the inclusion of “pop” music in music education.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) offer three guidelines for the treatment of pop music in the music classroom. First, the authors recommend that teachers do not tread on teenagers’ “turf” by using pop music as the main basis for performing or general music classes. Second, the teacher needs to keep his or her role in perspective and understand that he/she probably wouldn’t be able to teach pop music to the students’ standards, not to mention that authentic performances in the school setting seem unlikely. And third, teachers shouldn’t “trash talk” popular music to students: even though it wasn’t created for an aesthetic purpose, students appreciate teacher tolerance to pop as much as teachers appreciate student tolerance to art music (pp. 168-169).
Some teachers have tried to meet halfway with students by analyzing pop music in the classroom in the same way art music would be analyzed. However, Abeles et al. (1995) point out that some students fear this would “ruin” the piece for them. Instead, the authors suggest finding a balance by pointing out features of pop music that compare to elements of art music, thereby making art music more familiar and accessible to students and increasing the chances of preference. Or, teachers can play the role of social psychologist by showing students how pop music has a role in the larger scheme of society.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) offer three guidelines for the treatment of pop music in the music classroom. First, the authors recommend that teachers do not tread on teenagers’ “turf” by using pop music as the main basis for performing or general music classes. Second, the teacher needs to keep his or her role in perspective and understand that he/she probably wouldn’t be able to teach pop music to the students’ standards, not to mention that authentic performances in the school setting seem unlikely. And third, teachers shouldn’t “trash talk” popular music to students: even though it wasn’t created for an aesthetic purpose, students appreciate teacher tolerance to pop as much as teachers appreciate student tolerance to art music (pp. 168-169).
Some teachers have tried to meet halfway with students by analyzing pop music in the classroom in the same way art music would be analyzed. However, Abeles et al. (1995) point out that some students fear this would “ruin” the piece for them. Instead, the authors suggest finding a balance by pointing out features of pop music that compare to elements of art music, thereby making art music more familiar and accessible to students and increasing the chances of preference. Or, teachers can play the role of social psychologist by showing students how pop music has a role in the larger scheme of society.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Socio-Economic Status
In American culture, individuals and groups are stratified into social statuses generally based upon wealth, occupation and education. This socio-economic status (SES) is relevant to music educators because it affects the kinds of music people know and like.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) describe three reasons for differences in musical preferences based upon SES. First, people with higher SES display a “deferred gratification pattern” in their music tastes, whereas peoples with lower social status do not (p. 128). This suggests that upper-SES people would be more interested in art music and that lower-SES people would want music that is “simple and direct.” A second reason cited is cultural reinforcement within the SES group. Regular exposure to certain types of music is positively correlated to musical preference; children grow up hearing music that their parents and friends usually from the same SES prefer, thus perpetuating a preference cycle within a social stratus. Thirdly, the authors point out the “comfort factor,” in which people not only like what they’re familiar with but also feel “more comfortable and confident with it” (pp. 129-130). Folkways associated with musical performances often play a large role in this third factor.
The implications of social stratification affecting musical preferences are immense for music educators. Abeles et al. (1995) cite four considerations. One, music educators should be understanding of differences in SES when schools are made up almost entirely of one SES group. Two, music educators should understand their obligation to include art music in the curriculum since school is the only place many children will ever experience it. Three, music educators can make students comfortable with art music, hopefully negating the SES “comfort factor” musical taste predictor (p. 129). Fourth, music educators should try to teach students to value music that doesn’t supply instant gratification, therefore eliminating another SES factor in influencing musical preferences.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) describe three reasons for differences in musical preferences based upon SES. First, people with higher SES display a “deferred gratification pattern” in their music tastes, whereas peoples with lower social status do not (p. 128). This suggests that upper-SES people would be more interested in art music and that lower-SES people would want music that is “simple and direct.” A second reason cited is cultural reinforcement within the SES group. Regular exposure to certain types of music is positively correlated to musical preference; children grow up hearing music that their parents and friends usually from the same SES prefer, thus perpetuating a preference cycle within a social stratus. Thirdly, the authors point out the “comfort factor,” in which people not only like what they’re familiar with but also feel “more comfortable and confident with it” (pp. 129-130). Folkways associated with musical performances often play a large role in this third factor.
The implications of social stratification affecting musical preferences are immense for music educators. Abeles et al. (1995) cite four considerations. One, music educators should be understanding of differences in SES when schools are made up almost entirely of one SES group. Two, music educators should understand their obligation to include art music in the curriculum since school is the only place many children will ever experience it. Three, music educators can make students comfortable with art music, hopefully negating the SES “comfort factor” musical taste predictor (p. 129). Fourth, music educators should try to teach students to value music that doesn’t supply instant gratification, therefore eliminating another SES factor in influencing musical preferences.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Social Functions of Music
Although musicians and music educators are often aware of the aesthetic functions of music, attention should also be paid to social functions. The social functions of music span a wide variety of activities and contexts but are still clearly separated from artistic functions.
Sociologists offer many explanations for the social purposes of music. The anthropologist Allan Merriam lists ten: emotional expression, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representations, physical response, enforcing conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions and religious rituals, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, pp. 123-124). Max Kaplan, a writer on music education and sociology, cites eight social functions: as a form of knowledge, collective possession, personal experience, therapy, moral and symbolic force, incidental commodity, symbolic indicators of change, and as a link with the past (p. 124). Music sociologist Paul Honigsheim names ceremonial, entertainment, accompaniment for work, use in the home, concerts, and oratorios as social functions of music (p. 124). And finally, psychologist E. Thayer Gaston identifies the need for aesthetic experience, the enhancement of religion, communication, emotional response, gratification, and the potency of music in the group situation (p. 124). Abeles et al. (1995) point out that in American society, music is often a “sonic background” for non-musical activities; this trend seems to have grown exponentially since the authors’ 1995 publication with the advent and extreme popularity of personal mp3 players in the early 21st century (p. 124). Although each of these theories presents itself differently, there is much overlap, allowing musicians and music educators to have a general grasp of the social functions of music.
The artistic, aesthetic functions of music differ from the social functions, despite mention by each theorist of the aesthetic purpose. According to Abeles et al. (1995), the aesthetic view of musical purpose is that “art music functions to meet a desire that human beings have to represent certain ideas in sound, or to symbolize states of feeling, or to transcend everyday life…. Any effects on the listener in terms of promoting actions or beliefs are largely incidental and irrelevant to the main purpose of the music” (p. 125). Clearly, this is a much more lofty and philosophical but much more narrow view of musical function, as sociologists, psychologists and social psychologists would be quick to point out.
It is important for music educators to bear in mind these social functions for several reasons. One, the social function of a piece of music should affect the way it is presented to students because of necessarily different pedagogical approaches. Two, students should recognize different social functions of music in order to adjust their listening approaches. Finally, nonmusical associations in music are relevant to understanding the musical context and therefore should be taught to students as well (Abeles et al., 1995).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Sociologists offer many explanations for the social purposes of music. The anthropologist Allan Merriam lists ten: emotional expression, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representations, physical response, enforcing conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions and religious rituals, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, pp. 123-124). Max Kaplan, a writer on music education and sociology, cites eight social functions: as a form of knowledge, collective possession, personal experience, therapy, moral and symbolic force, incidental commodity, symbolic indicators of change, and as a link with the past (p. 124). Music sociologist Paul Honigsheim names ceremonial, entertainment, accompaniment for work, use in the home, concerts, and oratorios as social functions of music (p. 124). And finally, psychologist E. Thayer Gaston identifies the need for aesthetic experience, the enhancement of religion, communication, emotional response, gratification, and the potency of music in the group situation (p. 124). Abeles et al. (1995) point out that in American society, music is often a “sonic background” for non-musical activities; this trend seems to have grown exponentially since the authors’ 1995 publication with the advent and extreme popularity of personal mp3 players in the early 21st century (p. 124). Although each of these theories presents itself differently, there is much overlap, allowing musicians and music educators to have a general grasp of the social functions of music.
The artistic, aesthetic functions of music differ from the social functions, despite mention by each theorist of the aesthetic purpose. According to Abeles et al. (1995), the aesthetic view of musical purpose is that “art music functions to meet a desire that human beings have to represent certain ideas in sound, or to symbolize states of feeling, or to transcend everyday life…. Any effects on the listener in terms of promoting actions or beliefs are largely incidental and irrelevant to the main purpose of the music” (p. 125). Clearly, this is a much more lofty and philosophical but much more narrow view of musical function, as sociologists, psychologists and social psychologists would be quick to point out.
It is important for music educators to bear in mind these social functions for several reasons. One, the social function of a piece of music should affect the way it is presented to students because of necessarily different pedagogical approaches. Two, students should recognize different social functions of music in order to adjust their listening approaches. Finally, nonmusical associations in music are relevant to understanding the musical context and therefore should be taught to students as well (Abeles et al., 1995).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Monday, February 16, 2009
John Dewey Presentation
I'm disappointed Google Docs adjusts all the fonts and such.... The original formatting was much prettier :(
Monday, February 9, 2009
Non-Musical Values of Music
Music education in schools is often times justified by nonmusical values. Pragmatic philosophers such as John Dewey tend to embrace the idea of any learning product being worthwhile so long as the process is of a high quality, and just as Dewey’s progressivist educational beliefs still permeate American education, so do beliefs in the benefit nonmusical values. These nonmusical values cover a wide spectrum, and music educators can gain some benefit from these beliefs.
Research has shown that “musical sounds in and of themselves do not cause greater mental powers, improved work habits, or more harmonious interpersonal relationships;” however, music instruction seems to show an improvement in language arts skills due to the similarities between the subjects in processing sound (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 87). Although there is often a correlation between high test scores and music involvement, this does not necessarily imply a causal relationship and could be due to either: 1) “able” students gravitating toward music, or 2) students experiencing success in music realizing they are “able” and beginning a cycle of success (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 88-89). Cross-curricular musical studies, especially with social sciences, can contribute greatly to student understanding of the nonmusical subject matter. Academics aside, music is sometimes associated with improved attitudes toward school, be it because students appreciate a change in activity during the school day or because students find satisfaction in belonging to a group (though that particular argument could be made for any student organization). There is also an avocational value for music once students have completed their formal education.
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) stress that music education can be supported as a subject in and of itself as well as through nonmusical values: “The place of music in the schools does not depend on its nonmusical contributions, but its position may be stronger because of them” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 90). However, music educators should be careful to not divert attention from the fact that music without nonmusical benefits is still worth studying. A strong foundation and understanding of philosophy and aesthetics can help music educators support this view.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Research has shown that “musical sounds in and of themselves do not cause greater mental powers, improved work habits, or more harmonious interpersonal relationships;” however, music instruction seems to show an improvement in language arts skills due to the similarities between the subjects in processing sound (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 87). Although there is often a correlation between high test scores and music involvement, this does not necessarily imply a causal relationship and could be due to either: 1) “able” students gravitating toward music, or 2) students experiencing success in music realizing they are “able” and beginning a cycle of success (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 88-89). Cross-curricular musical studies, especially with social sciences, can contribute greatly to student understanding of the nonmusical subject matter. Academics aside, music is sometimes associated with improved attitudes toward school, be it because students appreciate a change in activity during the school day or because students find satisfaction in belonging to a group (though that particular argument could be made for any student organization). There is also an avocational value for music once students have completed their formal education.
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) stress that music education can be supported as a subject in and of itself as well as through nonmusical values: “The place of music in the schools does not depend on its nonmusical contributions, but its position may be stronger because of them” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 90). However, music educators should be careful to not divert attention from the fact that music without nonmusical benefits is still worth studying. A strong foundation and understanding of philosophy and aesthetics can help music educators support this view.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Aesthetic Mode of Thinking
Education in the arts differs from other fields of education in the way students are taught to think. Most aspects of education require logical, objective reasoning. Arts education, on the other hand, requires an “aesthetic mode of thinking” (Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman 1995, 77). The delayed gratification of musical expectations in quality music can evoke this kind of thinking.
The aesthetic mode of thinking has to do with considering more than just immediate experiences and particular artistic properties. The aesthetic thinker contemplates the relationships between artistic properties: students of the arts should “acquire an inclination, desire, and ability to consider objects for the qualities they possess and to react with feeling to those qualities. Logic, proof, and correctness are not required to perceive qualities or to react with feeling. What is needed is an imaginative, sensitive, and perceiving way of beholding visual objects and listening to aural objects” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 77). However, all humans should be adept at both rational and aesthetic thinking.
Leonard Meyer believes there are four qualities of music that evoke aesthetic thinking and can be used to evaluate musical works. First, listeners detect syntax and therefore have certain expectations for what they will hear. Second, composers of quality music employ “temporary deviations before fulfilling the syntactical expectations,” which the listener perceives (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 81). Third, these expected tendencies are not fulfilled immediately, and fourth, humans derive enjoyment from this delayed gratification and find the experience more meaningful (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 79-81). Although these four steps are a guideline for determining quality music, the listener must use an aesthetic mode of thinking to determine its relative value.
“The need for a balance between unity and variety” in music and “the requirement for both the predictable and the novel in music” are requirements of music that listeners will only expect if they are engaged in aesthetic thinking, and they must engage in aesthetic thinking to find enjoyment in this tension and release (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 82-83).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
The aesthetic mode of thinking has to do with considering more than just immediate experiences and particular artistic properties. The aesthetic thinker contemplates the relationships between artistic properties: students of the arts should “acquire an inclination, desire, and ability to consider objects for the qualities they possess and to react with feeling to those qualities. Logic, proof, and correctness are not required to perceive qualities or to react with feeling. What is needed is an imaginative, sensitive, and perceiving way of beholding visual objects and listening to aural objects” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 77). However, all humans should be adept at both rational and aesthetic thinking.
Leonard Meyer believes there are four qualities of music that evoke aesthetic thinking and can be used to evaluate musical works. First, listeners detect syntax and therefore have certain expectations for what they will hear. Second, composers of quality music employ “temporary deviations before fulfilling the syntactical expectations,” which the listener perceives (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 81). Third, these expected tendencies are not fulfilled immediately, and fourth, humans derive enjoyment from this delayed gratification and find the experience more meaningful (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 79-81). Although these four steps are a guideline for determining quality music, the listener must use an aesthetic mode of thinking to determine its relative value.
“The need for a balance between unity and variety” in music and “the requirement for both the predictable and the novel in music” are requirements of music that listeners will only expect if they are engaged in aesthetic thinking, and they must engage in aesthetic thinking to find enjoyment in this tension and release (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 82-83).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Aesthetics
The philosophic branch of aesthetics deals with the value of sensory experiences. While the term “aesthetics” may be difficult to define, “aesthetic experience” is a slightly more concrete term with definable elements.
According to Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995, 74-76), there are six aspects of an aesthetic experience. First, it has no practical purpose; it is an end, not a means. Second, it involves feeling because there is a reaction. Third, it involves intellect: thought and awareness are necessary. Fourth, an aesthetic experience requires attention. Fifth, an aesthetic experience must actually be experienced, not described second-hand. And finally, aesthetic experiences result in “a richer and more meaningful life.”
Furthermore, the authors give reasons for aesthetic experiences occurring in “varying degrees of intensity” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 76). Aesthetic experiences do not have to be limited to just art work; the experience depends on the relationship between the object and the perceiver; different levels of education and interest will affect the aesthetic experience; and different cultural bias will also produce a different result.
Philosophers are in disagreement over why humans value aesthetic experiences. There are three pervading schools of thought: referentialism, expressionism and formalism/absolutism (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). Referentialists believe artwork is valued when it refers to things outside of the piece of art itself. For example, programmatic musical compositions can refer to text such as poetry or stories, and vocal music is particularly suited to telling a story outside of the music. However, this theory doesn’t transfer well to non-programmatic instrumental music.
The American philosopher and educator John Dewey (1859-1952) took an expressionist view of aesthetics in his 1934 publication Art and Experience, stating, “If all meanings could be adequately expressed by words, the arts of painting and music would not exist” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 71). Dewey believed the roots of aesthetic experiences are in commonplace experience: in “an experience” (defined separately from just “experience”), meanings and values drawn from previous experience and present circumstances join to form something immediately enjoyable (Field 2007). Dewey and other expressionists emphasize that although the artist may use emotion as a tool to “concentrate, clarify and vivify” these meanings, the artists’ emotions are not significant to the artwork: the “work of art” (versus “art product”) is realized through the “active engagement of an astute audience” and the feelings that are aroused in these recipients (Field 2007). Also of import to expressionists is the culture-specific emotions in deriving “an experience” from artwork: a piece of music that sounds “sad” to Western listeners might not be perceived that way by non-Western listeners.
Formalists believe aesthetic experiences are of value when one considers only the formal properties of a piece of art. For example, in music one might value the development of themes in sonata-allegro form without any concern to the emotion the melodies might arouse. The nineteenth-century philosopher Edward Hanslick summarizes the formalist approach: “The ideas which a composer expresses are mainly and primarily of a purely musical nature…. Definite feelings and emotions are unsusceptible of being embodied in music” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 72). Although it is unlikely that humans are able to separate emotion from aesthetic experience, music educators can take a formalist approach in teaching elements of music to help students better understand and appreciate a musical work of art.
Regardless of the philosophical approach one takes, Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) emphasize that “aesthetic experience” does not equate to “beauty,” citing the famous idea of beauty existing in the eye of the beholder.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Field, Richard. “John Dewey.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007. http://www.iep.utm/edu/d/dewey.html (accessed February 15, 2009).
According to Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995, 74-76), there are six aspects of an aesthetic experience. First, it has no practical purpose; it is an end, not a means. Second, it involves feeling because there is a reaction. Third, it involves intellect: thought and awareness are necessary. Fourth, an aesthetic experience requires attention. Fifth, an aesthetic experience must actually be experienced, not described second-hand. And finally, aesthetic experiences result in “a richer and more meaningful life.”
Furthermore, the authors give reasons for aesthetic experiences occurring in “varying degrees of intensity” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 76). Aesthetic experiences do not have to be limited to just art work; the experience depends on the relationship between the object and the perceiver; different levels of education and interest will affect the aesthetic experience; and different cultural bias will also produce a different result.
Philosophers are in disagreement over why humans value aesthetic experiences. There are three pervading schools of thought: referentialism, expressionism and formalism/absolutism (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). Referentialists believe artwork is valued when it refers to things outside of the piece of art itself. For example, programmatic musical compositions can refer to text such as poetry or stories, and vocal music is particularly suited to telling a story outside of the music. However, this theory doesn’t transfer well to non-programmatic instrumental music.
The American philosopher and educator John Dewey (1859-1952) took an expressionist view of aesthetics in his 1934 publication Art and Experience, stating, “If all meanings could be adequately expressed by words, the arts of painting and music would not exist” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 71). Dewey believed the roots of aesthetic experiences are in commonplace experience: in “an experience” (defined separately from just “experience”), meanings and values drawn from previous experience and present circumstances join to form something immediately enjoyable (Field 2007). Dewey and other expressionists emphasize that although the artist may use emotion as a tool to “concentrate, clarify and vivify” these meanings, the artists’ emotions are not significant to the artwork: the “work of art” (versus “art product”) is realized through the “active engagement of an astute audience” and the feelings that are aroused in these recipients (Field 2007). Also of import to expressionists is the culture-specific emotions in deriving “an experience” from artwork: a piece of music that sounds “sad” to Western listeners might not be perceived that way by non-Western listeners.
Formalists believe aesthetic experiences are of value when one considers only the formal properties of a piece of art. For example, in music one might value the development of themes in sonata-allegro form without any concern to the emotion the melodies might arouse. The nineteenth-century philosopher Edward Hanslick summarizes the formalist approach: “The ideas which a composer expresses are mainly and primarily of a purely musical nature…. Definite feelings and emotions are unsusceptible of being embodied in music” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 72). Although it is unlikely that humans are able to separate emotion from aesthetic experience, music educators can take a formalist approach in teaching elements of music to help students better understand and appreciate a musical work of art.
Regardless of the philosophical approach one takes, Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) emphasize that “aesthetic experience” does not equate to “beauty,” citing the famous idea of beauty existing in the eye of the beholder.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Field, Richard. “John Dewey.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007. http://www.iep.utm/edu/d/dewey.html (accessed February 15, 2009).
Effects of Philosophy on Education
The rational, empiric and pragmatic philosophical viewpoints have each had practical effects on modern education in general and can even be applied to the more specific art of music teaching and learning.
Rationalist educators believe students should learn things of lasting value and therefore place a heavy emphasis on curricular planning. Evaluation of comprehensive understanding is important, and teachers are supposed to serve as models for students (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). In regards to teaching music, rationalists tend to select music that has stood the test of time. They focus more on the intellectual benefits of music than the technical skill of performing, and student selection, if any, is based on student’s intrinsic motivation and effort (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995).
Empiricist educators, since they rely more on what is in the physical world than the ideal, place their emphasis on students learning the subject matter and evaluating skill acquisition. The empirical reliance on expert opinion causes these educators to follow prescribed curriculums and standards. Orderly classrooms are essential. The naturalist empiricist might disagree with this as well as the emphasis on evaluation and following standards that “society” has put in place (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). When it comes to music education, empiricists care less about broad understandings and more about the “reality” of performance or other expectations. Performing groups should be limited to qualified students. However, empiricist views on teaching tend to vary according to age and ability level, with natural development favored more in the younger ages than older (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995).
Since pragmatists value the scientific method, these educators emphasize the “means” or “process” to be as important as the “ends” or “product.” However, there needs to be consistency between the two. Since pragmatists believe truth is ever changing, teachers prepare students to deal with this change; they are “agents who impart to the young the techniques for living and acquiring knowledge” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 58). In music education, pragmatists desire to educate students to become independent musicians. Students need to learn how to learn so that when they are presented with new music later in life and don’t have a teacher to guide them, they are still able to decipher, understand and perform it. Non-musical benefits of music education are also deemed worthwhile (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995).
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) recommend an empirical (non-naturalist) approach to music education. They state, “The idea of accepting what can be known and working with it as best one can seems defensible, practical, and reasonable…. Pragmatism and its reliance on scientific method is very attractive in restricted situations, but it seems inadequate for the larger questions" (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 51). In my own classroom, I believe I follow an empirical approach. I’m a strong believer in the National Standards for Music Education and try to follow a very sequenced curriculum. However, my ultimate goal is to create independent musicians (including musical listeners), so I may need to adjust my teaching to reflect more pragmatic practices.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Rationalist educators believe students should learn things of lasting value and therefore place a heavy emphasis on curricular planning. Evaluation of comprehensive understanding is important, and teachers are supposed to serve as models for students (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). In regards to teaching music, rationalists tend to select music that has stood the test of time. They focus more on the intellectual benefits of music than the technical skill of performing, and student selection, if any, is based on student’s intrinsic motivation and effort (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995).
Empiricist educators, since they rely more on what is in the physical world than the ideal, place their emphasis on students learning the subject matter and evaluating skill acquisition. The empirical reliance on expert opinion causes these educators to follow prescribed curriculums and standards. Orderly classrooms are essential. The naturalist empiricist might disagree with this as well as the emphasis on evaluation and following standards that “society” has put in place (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). When it comes to music education, empiricists care less about broad understandings and more about the “reality” of performance or other expectations. Performing groups should be limited to qualified students. However, empiricist views on teaching tend to vary according to age and ability level, with natural development favored more in the younger ages than older (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995).
Since pragmatists value the scientific method, these educators emphasize the “means” or “process” to be as important as the “ends” or “product.” However, there needs to be consistency between the two. Since pragmatists believe truth is ever changing, teachers prepare students to deal with this change; they are “agents who impart to the young the techniques for living and acquiring knowledge” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 58). In music education, pragmatists desire to educate students to become independent musicians. Students need to learn how to learn so that when they are presented with new music later in life and don’t have a teacher to guide them, they are still able to decipher, understand and perform it. Non-musical benefits of music education are also deemed worthwhile (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995).
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) recommend an empirical (non-naturalist) approach to music education. They state, “The idea of accepting what can be known and working with it as best one can seems defensible, practical, and reasonable…. Pragmatism and its reliance on scientific method is very attractive in restricted situations, but it seems inadequate for the larger questions" (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 51). In my own classroom, I believe I follow an empirical approach. I’m a strong believer in the National Standards for Music Education and try to follow a very sequenced curriculum. However, my ultimate goal is to create independent musicians (including musical listeners), so I may need to adjust my teaching to reflect more pragmatic practices.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Philosophical Perspectives
Philosophical discourse can be described and categorized in many different ways, but a beginning way to approach the field is to look at rationalism, empiricism and pragmatism as different categories of perspectives. Each of these viewpoints has had its share of renowned philosophic supporters with different epistemological beliefs.
Rationalism is sometimes referred to as idealism and dates back to the ancient Greek times of Socrates and Plato. Idealists believe that ultimate truths are everlasting and are discovered through profound thinking and logical arguments. Physical objects do not represent ultimate truths, only imperfect manifestations of perfect ideas. In relation to the arts, rationalists believe that “one can sense, even if for a short period of time, the eternal and lasting Platonic ideas—the realities beyond the physical objects we see and touch. When this happens, the observer or listener loses his or her preoccupation with personal feelings and mundane matters and becomes part of something far greater, more lasting, and more satisfying” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 44). While this approach has its strength in its systematic way of seeking answers, its other strength of stability (something that’s true now will always be true) also serves as its greatest weakness: “why in over 2,000 years has it been so difficult to arrive at some agreement about what those truths are?” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 48).
One well-known rationalist philosopher besides Socrates or Plato is René Descartes, who lived mostly in France 1596-1650. His Discourse on Method and Meditations are philosophy “classics” (as is Plato’s Republic). Descartes’ famous maxim, “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) sums up the rationalist view of thought as the ultimate reality. To reach this and other conclusions, Descartes used a method of doubt: he assumed everything he previously thought to be true was false, leaving himself open to an unprejudiced approach to epistemology. After this, the first thing he found impossible to doubt was his own existence, giving him a basis point to move forward. Descartes used this one undoubted claim as the first building block to re-establish previously discarded beliefs, such as God’s existence and that the mind and body are distinct from each other (Descartes 2003). Descartes is often referred to as the “Father of Modern Philosophy.”
Rationalism differs from empiricism in that empiricists place more value in their physical senses when seeking truth. Sometimes referred to as realists, these philosophers also have their roots linked to ancient Greek times. Aristotle (the “Father of Logic”) taught that things are, in fact, what they appear to be, and that certain things are clear to everyone. Truth is learned through observation and collection of evidence (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). One sect of realists support staying close to nature and rejecting large societies/governments. These naturalists do not appreciate complexity in art. Empiricists in general believe that aesthetics in art are related to what a person is able to perceive. If a person does not appreciate a piece of art (such as a musical composition) that everyone “knows” is great, then “the problem is…with the listener, who is not perceiving adequately” (p. 45). Empiricism’s greatest strength is its practical nature: these philosophers “take whatever information they have and work with it as best they can” (p. 48). However, its high reliance on “experts” (whose opinions may differ) can be a drawback.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a French naturalist who lived during the Enlightenment. At the beginning of his Social Contract, Rousseau states, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 2001a, 831). His earlier work, Discourse on Inequality, explains how mankind was initially very similar to animals, but the quality of perfectibility evident in humans caused inequalities to form in conjunction with the early formation of societies. The creation of property and labor division caused class domination, which lead to conflict, which further lead to the laws of a political society into which poorer classes have been “tricked” by the more affluent (Rousseau 2001a). Rousseau’s Social Contract offers a solution to this dilemma, suggesting ways to form a civil community without compromising freedom. Laws should only be enacted if they can be agreed upon by all citizens for their mutual preservation. Citizens should not have elected representatives but should represent themselves and should vote according to the general will of the people (Rousseau 2001b). Rousseau’s beliefs on political and moral philosophy influenced the French Revolution.
Pragmatists reject the conclusions of logic (rationalism) and experts (empiricism) and instead believe in scientifically testing ideas. These philosophers believe nothing lasts forever; there is no “ultimate reality.” Instead, the scientific method needs to be employed to arrive at current truths (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). Pragmatists believe humans find the arts valuable because they “express human experience, and they make life richer because they make us more conscious of its qualities” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 47). Humans would not know to appreciate beauty in life if life were always stable and the same: the lack of contrast would not allow any comparisons. While pragmatism’s greatest strength is its strong focus on the process of uncovering truth, its weakness is that it only allows one such process and often ignores values (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 50).
The American philosopher and educator John Dewey (1859-1952) is often cited in relation to pragmatism. He was born the same year that Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published and was greatly affected by it, going so far as to sign the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 (“Humanist Manifesto I” 2009). Dewey was a proponent of the progressive education movement. He believed that “Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself” (“John Dewey: Pragmatist Philosopher” 2005). Progressivists believed students should be involved in real-life tasks and challenges. Education should begin with a psychological insight into a child’s capacities, interests and habits, and learning should be active and related to the social situations in which a child finds himself. A teacher’s role, Dewey believed, was not to impose certain ideas on a child but to select influences that would affect the child and to then help guide him in properly responding to these influences (“John Dewey: Pragmatist Philosopher” 2005). John Dewey’s philosophical impact on American education is still felt today.
The rational, empiric and pragmatic approaches to philosophy each offer different means by which to achieve “truth.” Each viewpoint has its share of strengths and weaknesses as well as famous proponents. Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) suggest that an eclectic philosophical approach might seem tempting. However, “While one may consider points from various philosophical schools, in the end people must make decisions that reveal a tendency to subscribe principally to one of these schools” (p. 51).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method and Meditations. Translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross. New York: Dover Publications, 2003.
“Humanist Manifesto I.” American Humanist Association. 2009. http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/manifesto1.php (accessed February 8, 2009).
“John Dewey: Pragmatist Philosopher.” Notes from EDN 475, History and Philosophy of Education, Instructor Phyllis O’Connell. North Central College, Naperville, IL. Winter 2005.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001, 777-830.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “On the Social Contract.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001, 831-890.
Rationalism is sometimes referred to as idealism and dates back to the ancient Greek times of Socrates and Plato. Idealists believe that ultimate truths are everlasting and are discovered through profound thinking and logical arguments. Physical objects do not represent ultimate truths, only imperfect manifestations of perfect ideas. In relation to the arts, rationalists believe that “one can sense, even if for a short period of time, the eternal and lasting Platonic ideas—the realities beyond the physical objects we see and touch. When this happens, the observer or listener loses his or her preoccupation with personal feelings and mundane matters and becomes part of something far greater, more lasting, and more satisfying” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 44). While this approach has its strength in its systematic way of seeking answers, its other strength of stability (something that’s true now will always be true) also serves as its greatest weakness: “why in over 2,000 years has it been so difficult to arrive at some agreement about what those truths are?” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 48).
One well-known rationalist philosopher besides Socrates or Plato is René Descartes, who lived mostly in France 1596-1650. His Discourse on Method and Meditations are philosophy “classics” (as is Plato’s Republic). Descartes’ famous maxim, “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) sums up the rationalist view of thought as the ultimate reality. To reach this and other conclusions, Descartes used a method of doubt: he assumed everything he previously thought to be true was false, leaving himself open to an unprejudiced approach to epistemology. After this, the first thing he found impossible to doubt was his own existence, giving him a basis point to move forward. Descartes used this one undoubted claim as the first building block to re-establish previously discarded beliefs, such as God’s existence and that the mind and body are distinct from each other (Descartes 2003). Descartes is often referred to as the “Father of Modern Philosophy.”
Rationalism differs from empiricism in that empiricists place more value in their physical senses when seeking truth. Sometimes referred to as realists, these philosophers also have their roots linked to ancient Greek times. Aristotle (the “Father of Logic”) taught that things are, in fact, what they appear to be, and that certain things are clear to everyone. Truth is learned through observation and collection of evidence (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). One sect of realists support staying close to nature and rejecting large societies/governments. These naturalists do not appreciate complexity in art. Empiricists in general believe that aesthetics in art are related to what a person is able to perceive. If a person does not appreciate a piece of art (such as a musical composition) that everyone “knows” is great, then “the problem is…with the listener, who is not perceiving adequately” (p. 45). Empiricism’s greatest strength is its practical nature: these philosophers “take whatever information they have and work with it as best they can” (p. 48). However, its high reliance on “experts” (whose opinions may differ) can be a drawback.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a French naturalist who lived during the Enlightenment. At the beginning of his Social Contract, Rousseau states, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 2001a, 831). His earlier work, Discourse on Inequality, explains how mankind was initially very similar to animals, but the quality of perfectibility evident in humans caused inequalities to form in conjunction with the early formation of societies. The creation of property and labor division caused class domination, which lead to conflict, which further lead to the laws of a political society into which poorer classes have been “tricked” by the more affluent (Rousseau 2001a). Rousseau’s Social Contract offers a solution to this dilemma, suggesting ways to form a civil community without compromising freedom. Laws should only be enacted if they can be agreed upon by all citizens for their mutual preservation. Citizens should not have elected representatives but should represent themselves and should vote according to the general will of the people (Rousseau 2001b). Rousseau’s beliefs on political and moral philosophy influenced the French Revolution.
Pragmatists reject the conclusions of logic (rationalism) and experts (empiricism) and instead believe in scientifically testing ideas. These philosophers believe nothing lasts forever; there is no “ultimate reality.” Instead, the scientific method needs to be employed to arrive at current truths (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995). Pragmatists believe humans find the arts valuable because they “express human experience, and they make life richer because they make us more conscious of its qualities” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 47). Humans would not know to appreciate beauty in life if life were always stable and the same: the lack of contrast would not allow any comparisons. While pragmatism’s greatest strength is its strong focus on the process of uncovering truth, its weakness is that it only allows one such process and often ignores values (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 50).
The American philosopher and educator John Dewey (1859-1952) is often cited in relation to pragmatism. He was born the same year that Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published and was greatly affected by it, going so far as to sign the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 (“Humanist Manifesto I” 2009). Dewey was a proponent of the progressive education movement. He believed that “Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself” (“John Dewey: Pragmatist Philosopher” 2005). Progressivists believed students should be involved in real-life tasks and challenges. Education should begin with a psychological insight into a child’s capacities, interests and habits, and learning should be active and related to the social situations in which a child finds himself. A teacher’s role, Dewey believed, was not to impose certain ideas on a child but to select influences that would affect the child and to then help guide him in properly responding to these influences (“John Dewey: Pragmatist Philosopher” 2005). John Dewey’s philosophical impact on American education is still felt today.
The rational, empiric and pragmatic approaches to philosophy each offer different means by which to achieve “truth.” Each viewpoint has its share of strengths and weaknesses as well as famous proponents. Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) suggest that an eclectic philosophical approach might seem tempting. However, “While one may consider points from various philosophical schools, in the end people must make decisions that reveal a tendency to subscribe principally to one of these schools” (p. 51).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method and Meditations. Translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross. New York: Dover Publications, 2003.
“Humanist Manifesto I.” American Humanist Association. 2009. http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/manifesto1.php (accessed February 8, 2009).
“John Dewey: Pragmatist Philosopher.” Notes from EDN 475, History and Philosophy of Education, Instructor Phyllis O’Connell. North Central College, Naperville, IL. Winter 2005.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001, 777-830.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “On the Social Contract.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001, 831-890.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Tangelwood Symposium
The Tanglewood Symposium was a convening of music educators in the 1960s to discuss “Music in American Society.” The results of this symposium provided the music education profession with philosophical guidance that is still useful today.
A declining economy in the early 1960s caused the American public to support a “back to basics” educational movement. In response to attacks being made on music education, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) and important music educators met in Tanglewood, the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s summer home, to discuss this issue and other pressing matters regarding the arts. The symposium’s focus was “Music education as an integral part of life and living, not only within the individual but as it extend[s] to society” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23).
At the symposium’s conclusion, the Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium stated, “Educators must accept the responsibility for developing opportunities which meet man’s individual needs and the needs of a society plagued by the consequences of changing values, alienation, hostility between generations, racial and international tensions, and the challenges of the new leisure” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23). With such a rapid cultural shift occurring in the 1960s, the symposium was able to keep up with educational trends and set a precedent for future music educators to adapt to similar changes.
Many of the issues becoming relevant to American society in the 1960s are still factors in music education today. The Tanglewood Symposium brought up issues related to special education, electronic music, youth music and jazz, music education in urban settings, and music as related to other arts (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23). The MENC National Standards, written in 1994 and still highly advocated by music educators today, promote an awareness of music’s relation to cultural factors (The National Association for Music Education 2008). Many U.S. laws, most recently the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind,” require equal educational opportunities, and therefore music education opportunities, for children with special needs. With the dawning of a new administration, educators can depend on more changes in educational policy, and with an even greater economic slump than in the 1960s, music educators in particular will need to draw on historical support such as the Tanglewood Symposium to ensure arts education is not forfeited for the sake of another “back to basics” movement.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
The National Association for Music Education. “National Standards for Music Education.” 2008. http://www.menc.org/resources/view/national-standards-for-music-education (accessed January 25, 2009).
A declining economy in the early 1960s caused the American public to support a “back to basics” educational movement. In response to attacks being made on music education, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) and important music educators met in Tanglewood, the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s summer home, to discuss this issue and other pressing matters regarding the arts. The symposium’s focus was “Music education as an integral part of life and living, not only within the individual but as it extend[s] to society” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23).
At the symposium’s conclusion, the Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium stated, “Educators must accept the responsibility for developing opportunities which meet man’s individual needs and the needs of a society plagued by the consequences of changing values, alienation, hostility between generations, racial and international tensions, and the challenges of the new leisure” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23). With such a rapid cultural shift occurring in the 1960s, the symposium was able to keep up with educational trends and set a precedent for future music educators to adapt to similar changes.
Many of the issues becoming relevant to American society in the 1960s are still factors in music education today. The Tanglewood Symposium brought up issues related to special education, electronic music, youth music and jazz, music education in urban settings, and music as related to other arts (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 23). The MENC National Standards, written in 1994 and still highly advocated by music educators today, promote an awareness of music’s relation to cultural factors (The National Association for Music Education 2008). Many U.S. laws, most recently the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind,” require equal educational opportunities, and therefore music education opportunities, for children with special needs. With the dawning of a new administration, educators can depend on more changes in educational policy, and with an even greater economic slump than in the 1960s, music educators in particular will need to draw on historical support such as the Tanglewood Symposium to ensure arts education is not forfeited for the sake of another “back to basics” movement.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
The National Association for Music Education. “National Standards for Music Education.” 2008. http://www.menc.org/resources/view/national-standards-for-music-education (accessed January 25, 2009).
Early 20th Century Expansion
The first part of the 20th century showed an expansion of music education in public schools, particularly secondary schools. There were many factors that led to this expansion, including shifts in educational philosophy, World War I, the changing role of high schools and the Depression. This expansion primarily took the form of group instrumental instruction.
As John Dewey’s philosophy of educating the “whole child” gained popularity in the early 1900s, educators came to believe that the arts should be part of this “total school experience” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 16-17). Class instrumental instruction expanded partially due to Albert F. Mitchell (a music supervisor in the Boston public schools) publishing Mitchell Class Method for violin; other educators followed his lead and published books for orchestra, band and piano group instruction (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 17).
After World War I, the American public had an increased interest in band music, and men returning from the army who had played in military bands were employed by schools to start up instrumental programs. Patrons such as George Eastman (founder of Eastman Kodak) purchased large amounts of instruments for public schools, which in turn were able to hire instrumental teachers (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 17).
Between 1910 and 1940, the chances of children in the United States attending high school increased from 10 percent to 75 percent (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 18). As secondary schools expanded, so did their curricular emphasis: a higher percentage of students did not plan to attend college, so an increase in technical emphasis led to increased numbers of students graduating high school with professional-level musical skills. This rapid expansion resulted in a shortage of qualified teachers, leading schools to employ professional musicians who taught in a rehearsal-style.
The Great Depression also led to secondary school music being taught by professional musicians rather than trained school music teachers. Communities did not feel they could afford to support local orchestras, and “talking pictures” began to use recorded accompaniments rather than live musicians. Though this could be seen as positive for the expansion of instrumental music education in the secondary schools, the government helped further by forming the Works Progress Administration. The WPA supplied funds necessary to employ performing artists, offer low-cost or free performances to the public, and employ teachers (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 19).
Though changes in the middle and late 20th century continued to alter the landscape of American music education, the advances in the early 20th century account for much of the country’s heavy emphasis on instrumental programs in the secondary schools today.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
As John Dewey’s philosophy of educating the “whole child” gained popularity in the early 1900s, educators came to believe that the arts should be part of this “total school experience” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 16-17). Class instrumental instruction expanded partially due to Albert F. Mitchell (a music supervisor in the Boston public schools) publishing Mitchell Class Method for violin; other educators followed his lead and published books for orchestra, band and piano group instruction (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 17).
After World War I, the American public had an increased interest in band music, and men returning from the army who had played in military bands were employed by schools to start up instrumental programs. Patrons such as George Eastman (founder of Eastman Kodak) purchased large amounts of instruments for public schools, which in turn were able to hire instrumental teachers (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 17).
Between 1910 and 1940, the chances of children in the United States attending high school increased from 10 percent to 75 percent (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 18). As secondary schools expanded, so did their curricular emphasis: a higher percentage of students did not plan to attend college, so an increase in technical emphasis led to increased numbers of students graduating high school with professional-level musical skills. This rapid expansion resulted in a shortage of qualified teachers, leading schools to employ professional musicians who taught in a rehearsal-style.
The Great Depression also led to secondary school music being taught by professional musicians rather than trained school music teachers. Communities did not feel they could afford to support local orchestras, and “talking pictures” began to use recorded accompaniments rather than live musicians. Though this could be seen as positive for the expansion of instrumental music education in the secondary schools, the government helped further by forming the Works Progress Administration. The WPA supplied funds necessary to employ performing artists, offer low-cost or free performances to the public, and employ teachers (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 19).
Though changes in the middle and late 20th century continued to alter the landscape of American music education, the advances in the early 20th century account for much of the country’s heavy emphasis on instrumental programs in the secondary schools today.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Lowell Mason
Lowell Mason is known to many educators to be the “father” of music education in the United States because of his role in propagating elementary music in Boston public schools in the early 19th century. As the United States’ first public school music teacher, his efforts were limited to vocal music for various reasons.
Mason grew up learning several different instruments, singing, conducting and composing. He became president of the Handel & Haydn Society of Boston in 1827. In order to improve the society’s performance quality, he established a vocal instruction studio. During this time, he learned of the Pestalozzian music education philosophy (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 11-12). Because of Mason’s experiencing in teaching vocal music and because of Pestalozzi’s emphasis on first teaching children to sing before they read or write music, his initial petition to the Boston school board to include music instruction in elementary school was limited to vocal music.
Mason and the committee that approved his petition advocated including music instruction in elementary schools based on three standards: intellectually, morally and physically. Their explanation harped back to the Greek doctrine of ethos, which suggests music could be “directed and arranged as to produce those habits of feeling of which these sounds are the type,” as well as the Greek belief in the importance of physical education (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 12). They also justified their belief based on the medieval idea of the seven liberal arts, with music being part of the quadrivium including arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Philosophically, they believed that “Through vocal music you set in motion a mighty power which silently, but surely, in the end, will humanize, refine and elevate a whole community” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 13).
After Mason visited Europe to learn more about the Pestalozzian approach, he returned to the United States to use the method in his own classrooms, eventually leading to his employment as the country’s first public school music teacher. The belief that vocal music is of the utmost importance in elementary music instruction is still advocated in today’s classrooms by followers of the Kodály philosophy of music education (Organization of American Kodály Educators 2004). Furthermore, the importance of music instruction in enriching the quality of life, as the Boston committee pointed out, is still touted by modern music education philosophers such as Bennett Reimer (2003). To Mason, “music contributed to the well-being of the individual…. It created better homes, better citizens, and happier human beings” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 13). Vocal music education was the means by which these goals could be achieved.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Organization of American Kodály Educators. “Kodály Philosophy.” 2004. http://oake.org/php/kodalyphilosophy.php (accessed January 25, 2009).
Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Mason grew up learning several different instruments, singing, conducting and composing. He became president of the Handel & Haydn Society of Boston in 1827. In order to improve the society’s performance quality, he established a vocal instruction studio. During this time, he learned of the Pestalozzian music education philosophy (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 11-12). Because of Mason’s experiencing in teaching vocal music and because of Pestalozzi’s emphasis on first teaching children to sing before they read or write music, his initial petition to the Boston school board to include music instruction in elementary school was limited to vocal music.
Mason and the committee that approved his petition advocated including music instruction in elementary schools based on three standards: intellectually, morally and physically. Their explanation harped back to the Greek doctrine of ethos, which suggests music could be “directed and arranged as to produce those habits of feeling of which these sounds are the type,” as well as the Greek belief in the importance of physical education (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 12). They also justified their belief based on the medieval idea of the seven liberal arts, with music being part of the quadrivium including arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Philosophically, they believed that “Through vocal music you set in motion a mighty power which silently, but surely, in the end, will humanize, refine and elevate a whole community” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 13).
After Mason visited Europe to learn more about the Pestalozzian approach, he returned to the United States to use the method in his own classrooms, eventually leading to his employment as the country’s first public school music teacher. The belief that vocal music is of the utmost importance in elementary music instruction is still advocated in today’s classrooms by followers of the Kodály philosophy of music education (Organization of American Kodály Educators 2004). Furthermore, the importance of music instruction in enriching the quality of life, as the Boston committee pointed out, is still touted by modern music education philosophers such as Bennett Reimer (2003). To Mason, “music contributed to the well-being of the individual…. It created better homes, better citizens, and happier human beings” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 13). Vocal music education was the means by which these goals could be achieved.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Organization of American Kodály Educators. “Kodály Philosophy.” 2004. http://oake.org/php/kodalyphilosophy.php (accessed January 25, 2009).
Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Pestalozzi
The Swiss educator Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi had a strong influence on the development of education in the United States. However, fewer educators might know that his work also had an impact on the inclusion of vocal music instruction in elementary schools.
Pestalozzi believed that active participation and engagement of the senses was the best way to educate children. As a result, he urged educators to include music instruction in their teaching. American proponents of the Pestalozzian method therefore had a philosophical basis for including music in basic instruction (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 10).
Joseph H. Naef, an immigrant to the United States and an early proponent of the Pestalozzian method in the U.S., presented the “Principles of the Pestalozzian System of Music” at an 1830 meeting of the American Institute of Instruction in Boston. The seven points outlining the method were:
Some of the basic principles Naef presented are still relevant to elementary music education in the United States today. The Orff Schulwerk method of music and movement education, developed in the 20th century by German composer Carl Orff, advocates that students should create music before learning to write it, similar to the way language is learned: “When the children want to write down what they have composed, reading and writing find their moment” (American Orff-Schulwerk Association 2009). Today, over 10,000 music educators in the United States adhere to an Orff Schulwerk philosophy in their classroom. Additionally, the Kodály philosophy of music education, the collection of ideas advocated by Hungarian composer Zoltán Kodály, advocates singing as the “essence” of the concept and that vocal music instruction should precede instrumental. There is a strong Kodály following in the United States today by elementary and other music educators (Organization of American Kodály Educators 2004).
Although Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995, 10) point out that Pestalozzi cannot be directly credited for incorporating music instruction in any schools but his own, his work in education laid the groundwork for elementary (and other) music education as we know it today.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
American Orff-Schulwerk Association. “What is Orff Schulwerk?” 2009. http://aosa.org/orff.html (accessed January 25, 2009).
Organization of American Kodály Educators. “Kodály Philosophy.” 2004. http://oake.org/php/kodalyphilosophy.php (accessed January 25, 2009).
Pestalozzi believed that active participation and engagement of the senses was the best way to educate children. As a result, he urged educators to include music instruction in their teaching. American proponents of the Pestalozzian method therefore had a philosophical basis for including music in basic instruction (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 10).
Joseph H. Naef, an immigrant to the United States and an early proponent of the Pestalozzian method in the U.S., presented the “Principles of the Pestalozzian System of Music” at an 1830 meeting of the American Institute of Instruction in Boston. The seven points outlining the method were:
1. To teach sounds before signs and to make the child learn to sing before he learns the written notes or their names;
2. To lead him to observe by hearing and imitating sounds, their resemblances and differences, their agreeable and disagreeable effect, instead of explaining these things to him—in a word, to make active instead of passive in learning;
3. To teach but one thing at a time—rhythm, melody, and expression, which are to be taught and practiced separately, before the child is called to the difficult task of attending to all at once;
4. To make him practice each step of these divisions, until he is master of it, before passing to the next;
5. To give the principles and theory after the practice, and as induction from it;
6. To analyze and practice the elements of articulate sound in order to apply them to music, and
7. To have the names of the notes correspond to those used in instrumental music. (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 11).
Some of the basic principles Naef presented are still relevant to elementary music education in the United States today. The Orff Schulwerk method of music and movement education, developed in the 20th century by German composer Carl Orff, advocates that students should create music before learning to write it, similar to the way language is learned: “When the children want to write down what they have composed, reading and writing find their moment” (American Orff-Schulwerk Association 2009). Today, over 10,000 music educators in the United States adhere to an Orff Schulwerk philosophy in their classroom. Additionally, the Kodály philosophy of music education, the collection of ideas advocated by Hungarian composer Zoltán Kodály, advocates singing as the “essence” of the concept and that vocal music instruction should precede instrumental. There is a strong Kodály following in the United States today by elementary and other music educators (Organization of American Kodály Educators 2004).
Although Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995, 10) point out that Pestalozzi cannot be directly credited for incorporating music instruction in any schools but his own, his work in education laid the groundwork for elementary (and other) music education as we know it today.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
American Orff-Schulwerk Association. “What is Orff Schulwerk?” 2009. http://aosa.org/orff.html (accessed January 25, 2009).
Organization of American Kodály Educators. “Kodály Philosophy.” 2004. http://oake.org/php/kodalyphilosophy.php (accessed January 25, 2009).
Early Music Notation
As music education became more prevalent in the Middle Ages and necessary to the propagation of the Church, a system of music notation began to develop. This system ensured that churches throughout most of Europe would use the same music in liturgical services.
Medieval churches used a style of singing now referred to as chant as part of their worship. There were many different local chant dialects, such as Celtic, Gallican, Mozarabic, Ambrosian and Gregorian, but when Charlemagne was crowned king of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he and his successors succeeded in perpetuating the Gregorian repertory and almost completely suppressing all other forms (Grout 2001, 24). Charlemagne achieved this by sending musical missionaries throughout Europe, and these missionaries claimed that the source of the chants was St. Gregory himself (Grout 2001, 37).
Most early transmission of chant was achieved orally. In order for standardized chant to succeed, a method of music notation needed to develop. Initially, signs called neumes were written over the text to indicated ascending or descending patterns. At some critical point in music history around the tenth century, a scribe drew a red horizontal line to indicate the pitch F, and the neumes were placed in relation above or below it. Later, a second yellow line was added to indicate C. Guido of Arezzo described a staff in the eleventh century with lines for F, C and G, which eventually became the modern clefs (Grout 2001, 56). The modern plainsong notation that most people would recognize has a four-line staff with neumes sung with the same rhythmic duration (Grout 2001, 36).
The development of music notation assured that chants could be sung nearly the same everywhere, “Thus notation was both a result of the striving for uniformity and a means of perpetuating that uniformity” (Grout 2001, 38). This brought about a need for more formal music instruction, causing music education to expand even further in the Middle Ages (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 6).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Medieval churches used a style of singing now referred to as chant as part of their worship. There were many different local chant dialects, such as Celtic, Gallican, Mozarabic, Ambrosian and Gregorian, but when Charlemagne was crowned king of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he and his successors succeeded in perpetuating the Gregorian repertory and almost completely suppressing all other forms (Grout 2001, 24). Charlemagne achieved this by sending musical missionaries throughout Europe, and these missionaries claimed that the source of the chants was St. Gregory himself (Grout 2001, 37).
Most early transmission of chant was achieved orally. In order for standardized chant to succeed, a method of music notation needed to develop. Initially, signs called neumes were written over the text to indicated ascending or descending patterns. At some critical point in music history around the tenth century, a scribe drew a red horizontal line to indicate the pitch F, and the neumes were placed in relation above or below it. Later, a second yellow line was added to indicate C. Guido of Arezzo described a staff in the eleventh century with lines for F, C and G, which eventually became the modern clefs (Grout 2001, 56). The modern plainsong notation that most people would recognize has a four-line staff with neumes sung with the same rhythmic duration (Grout 2001, 36).
The development of music notation assured that chants could be sung nearly the same everywhere, “Thus notation was both a result of the striving for uniformity and a means of perpetuating that uniformity” (Grout 2001, 38). This brought about a need for more formal music instruction, causing music education to expand even further in the Middle Ages (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 6).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
The Doctrine of Ethos
Ancient Greek philosophers had a much broader understanding of the word “music” than modern thinkers, leading to beliefs about music education that are still debated today. Music was inseparable from numbers and poetry, and the mathematical connections in particular lead Greek writers to believe music could affect the soul.
The mathematician Pythagoras discovered the numerical ratios necessary to create different consonances. He and his followers believed numbers were “the key to the entire spiritual and physical universe.” As such, musical pitches and rhythms “exemplified the harmony of the cosmos and corresponded to it” (Grout 2001, 5). This also led Greek thinkers such as Ptolemy to associate music and astronomy, since both were believed to be ordered by numbers. Separately but also of great importance to ancient Greek society, poetry was so inextricably tied to music that the Greeks did not have a word for “artful speech” without music (Grout 2001, 6).
Because the ancient Greeks believed that numbers controlled the seen and unseen world, including the human soul, they believed music could affect a person’s morals. This doctrine of ethos promoted by both Aristotle and Plato meant that the type of music people listened to would directly affect their character, since music “imitates the passions or states of the soul” (Grout 2001, 6). Therefore, censorship of certain modes would be necessary to encourage citizens to become the “right” kind of people (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 4-5). Greek mythology bears many examples of heroes being able to perform great feats through music, such as Orpheus retrieving his wife (albeit briefly) from the underworld (Morford 2003, 356).
Because of the broad range of uses and effects the Greeks believed music encompassed, it played a large role in education. While gymnastics was deemed necessary to educate the body, music’s purpose was to educate the soul. However, Plato stressed that the two elements should be balanced, because “too much music makes a man effeminate or neurotic while too much gymnastics makes him uncivilized, violent, and ignorant;” only the proper balance could produce a “true musician” (Grout 2001, 6). This early emphasis on music education did not go unnoticed by medieval scholars, leading music to be included in the quadrivium, four number-related liberal arts. Of a lower order was the trivium, three verbal-related liberal arts (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 5-6).
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995, 4) note that many issues debated among ancient Greeks over the use of music in education and society are still in contention thousands of years later. Music educators still must justify the merit of studying music as more than just entertainment. With the advent of new genres of music, modern music educators must also wonder whether the Greek doctrine of ethos holds true and if they and other musicians are responsible for the positive or negative characteristics of their students.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Morford, Mark P. O., and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical Mythology, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
The mathematician Pythagoras discovered the numerical ratios necessary to create different consonances. He and his followers believed numbers were “the key to the entire spiritual and physical universe.” As such, musical pitches and rhythms “exemplified the harmony of the cosmos and corresponded to it” (Grout 2001, 5). This also led Greek thinkers such as Ptolemy to associate music and astronomy, since both were believed to be ordered by numbers. Separately but also of great importance to ancient Greek society, poetry was so inextricably tied to music that the Greeks did not have a word for “artful speech” without music (Grout 2001, 6).
Because the ancient Greeks believed that numbers controlled the seen and unseen world, including the human soul, they believed music could affect a person’s morals. This doctrine of ethos promoted by both Aristotle and Plato meant that the type of music people listened to would directly affect their character, since music “imitates the passions or states of the soul” (Grout 2001, 6). Therefore, censorship of certain modes would be necessary to encourage citizens to become the “right” kind of people (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 4-5). Greek mythology bears many examples of heroes being able to perform great feats through music, such as Orpheus retrieving his wife (albeit briefly) from the underworld (Morford 2003, 356).
Because of the broad range of uses and effects the Greeks believed music encompassed, it played a large role in education. While gymnastics was deemed necessary to educate the body, music’s purpose was to educate the soul. However, Plato stressed that the two elements should be balanced, because “too much music makes a man effeminate or neurotic while too much gymnastics makes him uncivilized, violent, and ignorant;” only the proper balance could produce a “true musician” (Grout 2001, 6). This early emphasis on music education did not go unnoticed by medieval scholars, leading music to be included in the quadrivium, four number-related liberal arts. Of a lower order was the trivium, three verbal-related liberal arts (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 5-6).
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995, 4) note that many issues debated among ancient Greeks over the use of music in education and society are still in contention thousands of years later. Music educators still must justify the merit of studying music as more than just entertainment. With the advent of new genres of music, modern music educators must also wonder whether the Greek doctrine of ethos holds true and if they and other musicians are responsible for the positive or negative characteristics of their students.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Morford, Mark P. O., and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical Mythology, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
