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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
