Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
