Music and Music Education in People's Lives: An Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Volume 1 9780190674434, 9780190674540, 0190674431

Citation preview

MUSIC AND MUSIC E D U C AT I O N IN PEOPLE’S LIVES

MUSIC AND MUSIC E D U C AT I O N IN PEOPLE’S LIVES AN OXFORD HANDBOOK OF MUSIC EDUCATION VOLUME 1

Edited by Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: McPherson, Gary E. | Welch, Graham (Graham F.) Title: Music & music education in people’s lives : An Oxford handbook of music education, Volume 1 / edited by Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch. Other titles: Music and music education in people’s lives Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017031711 | ISBN 9780190674434 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780190674540 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Music—Instruction and study. Classification: LCC MT1 .O93 2018 | DDC 780.71—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017031711 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada

Contents Contributors  ix Introduction to Volume 1  xxiii Part 1







Music education and the role of music in people’s lives Part Editor: Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch 1. Commentary: Music Education and the Role of Music in People’s Lives  3 Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson 2. Music’s Place in Education  19 Wayne D. Bowman 3. International Perspectives  38 Marie McCarthy 4. Music Education Philosophy  61 David J. Elliott 5. Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”  85 Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell 6. Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology  104 Bruno Nettl 7. Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development  124 David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell 8. Supporting Motivation in Music Education  143 James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve 9. Becoming a Music Learner: Toward a Theory of Transformative Music Engagement  163 Susan A. O’Neill 10. Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts: In Search of a Democratic Music Education  187 Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo 11. Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research for Music Teaching and Learning  206 Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

viContents Part 2













Critical reflections and future action Part Editor: Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch 12. Commentary: Critical Reflections and Future Action  227 Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch 13. Politics, Policy, and Music Education  233 Harold F. Abeles 14. Instrumental Teachers and Their Students: Who’s in the Driver’s Seat?  237 Nick Beach 15. University Professors and the Entrepreneurial Spirit  241 Liora Bresler 16. Pride and Professionalism in Music Education  247 Richard Colwell 17. Pondering the Grand Experiment in Public Music Education  252 Robert A. Cutietta 18. Music Education and Some of Its Subfields: Thoughts About Future Priorities  255 Lucy Green 19. Music Education: An Unanswered Question  261 Wilfried Gruhn 20. Improving Primary Teaching: Minding the Gap  265 Sarah Hennessy 21. International Music Education: Setting up a Global Information System  270 Liane Hentschke 22. The Responsibility of Research in Defining the Profession of Music Education  275 Christopher M. Johnson 23. Constructing Communities of Scholarship in Music Education  278 Estelle R. Jorgensen 24. Internationalizing Music Education  282 Andreas C. Lehmann 25. Emotion in Music Education  285 Richard Letts 26. Music Education from a Slightly Outside Perspective  292 Håkan Lundström 27. Research Issues in Personal Music Identification  298 Clifford K. Madsen

Contents













vii 28. Preparation, Perseverance, and Performance in Music: Views from a Program of Educational Psychology Research  302 Andrew J. Martin 29. Music Therapy in Schools: An Expansion of Traditional Practice  308 Katrina McFerran 30. Embracing New Digital Technologies: Now and into the Future  312 Bradley Merrick 31. Challenges for Research and Practices of Music Education  315 Bengt Olsson 32. All Theoried Up and Nowhere to Go  319 Bennett Reimer 33. Make Research, Not War: Methodologies and Music Education Research  323 Wendy L. Sims 34. The Preparation of Music Teacher Educators: A Critical Link  326 David J. Teachout 35. Music and the Arts: As Ubiquitous and Fundamental as the Air We Breathe  330 Rena B. Upitis 36. There Is Nothing Complex About a Correlation Coefficient  335 Peter R. Webster 37. Dewey’s Bastards: Music, Meaning, and Politics  339 Paul Woodford Index 343

Contributors Harold F. Abeles  received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music education from the University of Connecticut and his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland. He is professor of music and music education and co-​director of the Center for Arts Education Research at Teachers College, Columbia University. His scholarly interests include assessment in arts pedagogy, assessment of arts partnership programs, gender associations in instrumental music and the development and assessment of creativity. He has contributed more than 75 articles, chapters and books to the field of music education. He is the co-​editor of Critical Issues in Music Education. His co-​ authored article on Learning in and through the arts won the Manuel Barkin Award from the National Art Education Association. He has been the program evaluator for numerous arts partnerships, including Carnegie Hall, The Cleveland Orchestra, The Baltimore Symphony, and the Lincoln Center Institute. Nick Beach studied at Dartington College of Arts, the National Centre for Orchestral Studies and Middlesex Polytechnic, UK. He worked for several years as a peripatetic/​itinerant violin teacher, where he pioneered early approaches to whole class instrumental teaching in primary schools. He has held several management posts with UK music services, most recently as Head of Education with Berkshire Young Musicians Trust. He currently holds the post of Academic Director at Trinity College London. He was closely involved with the development of the national training program for teachers engaged with whole class instrumental teaching in the UK. He was also instrumental in the development of the Arts Award qualifications and currently leads on the development of Trinity’s qualifications and teacher development programs worldwide. As a practicing musician he is a violinist and conductor. Wayne D. Bowman’s  primary research interests involve philosophy of music and the philosophical exploration of issues in music education. His work is extensively informed by pragmatism, critical theory, and conceptions of music and music education as social practices. His publications include Philosophical Perspectives on Music (Oxford, 1998), the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy in Music Education (Oxford, 2012), Artistic Citizenship: Artistry, Social Responsibility, and Ethical Praxis (Oxford, 2016), and numerous book chapters, and articles in prominent journals. His Educating Musically in a Changing World was published in Chinese by Suzhou University Press in 2014. A  former editor of the journal Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, he is also an accomplished trombonist and jazz educator. Dr. Bowman’s academic career included positions at Mars Hill University

xContributors (North Carolina), Brandon University (Manitoba), University of Toronto, and New York University. Liora Bresler  has a B.A. in piano performance and philosophy and M.A. in musicology from Tel-​Aviv University, and a Ph.D. in Education from Stanford University. Bresler is a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-​Champaign. Her research and teaching focus on Arts and Aesthetic Education, Qualitative Research Methodology, and Educational/​ Artistic/​ Intellectual Entrepreneurship. Her research and teaching focus on Arts and Aesthetic Education, Qualitative Research Methodology, and Educational/​Artistic/​Intellectual Entrepreneurship. She was the co-​founder and co-​editor of the International Journal of Education and the Arts. Bresler has published 120+ papers, book chapters and books on the arts in education, including the edited International Handbook of Research in Arts Education (2007), and Knowing Bodies, Moving Minds (2004) and the co-​edited International Handbook of the Arts in Education (2015). Her work has been translated to German, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Hebrew and Chinese. She has given keynote speeches and presented invited talks, seminars and short courses in thirty-​some countries and forty-​some universities in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas. Patricia Shehan Campbell is Donald E.  Peterson Professor of Music at the University of Washington, where she teaches courses at the interface of education and ethnomusicology. She lectures widely on the pedagogy of world music, children’s musical cultures, and school-​community intersections. She is the author of Lessons from the World (1991), Music in Cultural Context (1996), Songs in Their Heads (1998, 2010), Teaching Music Globally (2004), Musician and Teacher (2008), co-​author of Music in Childhood (2013) and Redefining Music Studies in an Age of Change (2017), co-​editor of the Oxford Handbook on Children’s Musical Cultures (2013), the Global Music Series (Oxford University Press), and is editing the forthcoming series on World Music Pedagogy (Routledge). Campbell was designated the Senior Researcher in Music Education in 2002, and is a recent recipient of the Taiji Award for the preservation of traditional music. Richard Colwell  holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts and Master of Music from the University of South Dakota and Ed.D. from the University of Illinois. He was the founder and editor of the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education and The Quarterly. He was chair of music education at the University of Illinois, Boston University, and the New England Conservatory of Music. He is a recipient of the MENC-​National Association of Music Education hall of fame award, was recognized for his life-​time contribution to music education by the largest music association—​the Federated Music Clubs. He received an honorary doctorate of humane letters from the University of South Dakota, was the recipient of a John Simon Guggenheim fellowship, the Horace Porter Award for distinguished scholarship and was the first honorary member of the Chopin Academy’s Institute for Research. He is the editor of the Handbook of Research in Music Education and co-​editor, with Carol Richardson of the New Handbook of Research in Music Education. He edited

Contributors

xi

with Patrick Schmidt a handbook of policy and political life and two handbooks with Peter Wester on music learning. Robert A. Cutietta  received his doctorate in music education from Pennsylvania State University after completing a master and bachelor of music education at Cleveland State University. He is currently the dean of the Thornton School of Music at the University of Southern California after completing professorships at the University of Arizona, Kent State University, and Montana State University. His research interests revolve around the cognitive processing in music that leads to musical memory especially in the adolescent mind. He has published research and professional articles in a wide variety of publications in music education and is the author, co-​author, or editor of five books. Most importantly he thanks you, the reader, for caring about the importance of educating future generations of youngster in our art form. David J. Elliott  is professor of music and music education at New York University. From 1977 to 2002 he was professor of music education at the University of Toronto. He has held visiting professorships at Indiana University, the University of North Texas, Northwestern University, the University of Limerick, and the Puerto Rico Conservatory of Music. His research interests include the philosophy of music and music education, music and emotion, community music, jazz, music composition, and multicultural music education. He is the author of Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (Oxford University Press, 1995), co-​author of Music Matters:  A Philosophy of Music Education, 2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2015), editor of Praxial Music Education: Reflections and Dialogues (Oxford University Press, 2005/​2009), co-​editor of Artistic Citizenship: Artistry, Social Responsibility, and Ethical Praxis (Oxford University Press, 2016), co-​editor of Community Music Today (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), and founder and editor emeritus of the International Journal of Community Music. His publications are in English, Spanish, Swedish, Finnish, Greek, German, and Chinese, and he is an award-​winning composer/​arranger with many works published by Boosey & Hawkes. Sergio Figueiredo  (Conductor; Master in music education–​Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; PhD, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology—​RMIT University, Australia; Pos-​doc Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal) is associate professor at the Music Department of the State University of Santa Catarina, UDESC, Brazil. His research interests are in school music education, foundations of music education, initial and continuing teacher education (specialists and generalists), assessment in music education and choral music education. He was a member of Music Evaluation Commission at the Brazilian Ministry of Education and member of the National Commission for Cultural Incentive (Brazilian Ministry of Culture). He was president of the Brazilian Association of Music Education—​ABEM (2005-​ 2009); member of the Directory of ANPPOM—​The Brazilian Association for Research in Music (2011–​2015); co-​chair of the ISME Research Commission (2012—​ 2014) and a member of the ISME Board (2012–​2016).

xiiContributors Lucy Green  is Professor of Music Education at the UCL Institute of Education, London UK. Her research interests are in the sociology of music education, specializing in meaning, ideology, gender, popular music, inclusion, equality, informal learning, new pedagogies, and most recently, the lives and learning of visually impaired musicians. Lucy led the research and development project “Informal Learning in the Music Classroom” within the British movement “Musical Futures”, and this work is now being implemented in schools across the UK and in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and parts of the USA, Brazil, Cyprus and other countries. Her more recent research took that work forward into instrumental tuition, . She has written five books and edited two books on music education. Her next book, co-​authored with her colleague Dr. David Baker will be published early in 2017, entitled Insights in Sound: The Lives and Learning of Visually Impaired Musicians. Wilfried Gruhn  is a professor emeritus of music education at the University of Music, Freiburg, Germany. He has taught at high schools and became a professor of music education at the Universities of Music in Essen and Freiburg, Germany. His research areas encompass historical and systematic musicology as well as music education with a special focus on learning theory and the neurobiology of music learning. He has served as president of the Research Alliance of Institutes for Music Education (RAIME) and of the International Leo Kestenberg Society. He has also served as a Board Member of the International Society for Music Education (ISME). He is a member of several international research societies and was a visiting professor at Eastman, Rochester NY and at UiTM, Kuala Lumpur. He has founded the Freiburg Institute for Early Childhood Music Learning. David Hargreaves is Professor of Education at the University of Roehampton, and Adjunct Professor at Curtin University, Perth, Australia. He is a Chartered Psychologist and Fellow of the British Psychological Society. He was Editor of Psychology of Music 1989-​96, Chair of the Research Commission of the International Society for Music Education (ISME) 1994-​6, and is currently on the editorial boards of 10 journals in psychology, music and education. In recent years he has spoken about his research at conferences and meetings in various countries on all 5 continents. His books, in psychology, education, and music have been translated into 15 languages: the most recent is The Psychology of Musical Development, with Alexandra Lamont (Cambridge University Press, 2017). David has appeared on BBC TV and radio as a jazz pianist and composer, and is organist in his local village church circuit. Sarah Hennessy is a graduate of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and holds a P.G.C.E.  in music teaching from the Institute of Education, London University. From 1990 to 2015 she was a senior lecturer in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. She was president of the European Association for Music in Schools 2009-​11, an elected board member of ISME,a past chair of the National Association of Music Educators and current

Contributors

xiii

chair of the Orff Society (UK). She is a teacher educator, working with generalist and specialist primary music teachers and has also taught in masters and doctoral programs. Her teaching and research investigates the factors and implements strategies that support effective teacher education for primary music education, the role of professional musicians in education, and the creative development of young people. She was founding editor in chief of the international refereed journal, Music Education Research (1990–​2016) and founding director of the international biennial research conference, RIME. Sarah is now a Fellow of the university and continues to work as a consultant, researcher and teacher in the field of music education. Liane Hentschke  holds a master’s and Ph.D. in music education from the University of London. She is a Professor of Music Education at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul–​UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil. She was the Director of Institutional and International Cooperation of CNPq (National Research Agency) 2013–​2014 and Vice-​Rector of International Affairs of UFRGS (2008–​2013). She was President-​ Elect-​President-​Past-​President of the International Society for Music Education—​ ISME (2004–​2010), and Vice-​President of the International Music Council–​IMC (2009–​2013). Her publications include books, book chapters, prefaces and refereed articles published in Brazil, England, Australia, Argentina, Hong Kong, Germany, and Spain. Donald A. Hodges served as Covington Distinguished Professor of Music Education and Director of the Music Research Institute (2003–​2013) and is currently Professor of Music Education at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Hodges is the author of A Concise Survey of Music Philosophy (2017), co-​author of Music in the Human Experience:  An Introduction to Music Psychology (2011), contributing editor of the Handbook of Music Psychology and the accompanying Multimedia Companion (1980, 1996), and author of numerous papers in music psychology and music education. Recent research efforts have included a series of brain imaging studies of pianists, conductors, and singers using PET and fMRI. Hodges has served on the editorial committees of the Journal of Research in Music Education, Music Educators Journal, Reviews of Research in Human Learning and Music, and Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, and has presented widely across the US and internationally. His biographical sketch is in the New Grove Dictionary of American Music. A current vita and copies of many of his papers can be accessed at http://​http://​sites.google.com/​site/​donaldahodges/​. Christopher M. Johnson  is a Professor and Director of Music Education and Music Therapy, and Director of the Music Research Institute at the University of Kansas. His research interests include applied research in music education, and basic research in the psychology of music. His most noteworthy project has been the study of rubato in musical performance, and how that element enhances musical expression. Also significant is his work considering music engagement/​education and general academic success. He has served as chair of the MENC Executive Committee of the Society for Research in Music Education, and chair of the International Society of

xivContributors Music Education Research Commission, and editor of the International Journal of Music Education: Research. Johnson received a university teaching award–​the Ned N. Fleming Award for Excellence in Teaching. Johnson was also awarded a lecturing & research award as a J. William Fulbright Scholar and recently received the Ella Scoble Opperman Citation for Distinguished Achievement from the Florida State University College of Music. Estelle R. Jorgensen  is professor emerita of music (music education) at the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music and contributing faculty at the Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership, Walden University, USA where she serves as research methodologist and university research reviewer for the Ph.D program in the School of Higher Education, Leadership, and Policy. She serves as editor for the Philosophy of Music Education Review and general editor for Counterpoints: Music and Education published by Indiana University Press, and is the founding chair of the Philosophy Special Research Interest Group of the National Association for Music Education and the founding cochair of the International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education. She is the author of In Search of Music Education (University of Illinois Press, 1997), Transforming Music Education (Indiana University Press, 2003), The Art of Teaching Music (Indiana University Press, 2008), Pictures of Music Education (Indiana University Press, 2011), and has contributed to leading research journals in music education internationally. Her research interests currently focus on ethics and music education and distance learning in music. Andreas C. Lehmann  holds a master’s degree in music education and a Ph.D. in musicology from the Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hannover (Germany). He conducted postdoctoral research in psychology at the Florida State University, Tallahassee. He is currently professor of Systematic Musicology at the Hochschule für Musik Würzburg (Germany). He is associate editor of Musicae Scientiae, on the editorial board of JRME, and vice-​president of the German society for music psychology. He teaches in the area of music psychology and related topics. His research interests concern the structure and acquisition of high levels of instrumental music performance skill (sight-​reading, practice, generative processes), they include historical studies on the development of expertise, and they cover a broad range of topics in music education (e.g., competency modelling, amateur music making and participation). Richard Letts, AB., Ph.D. (University of California at Berkeley), is Executive Director, Music Council of Australia. After leaving university, he was Director of the East Bay Center for the Performing Arts, San Francisco East Bay, and of the University of Minnesota’s MacPhail Center for the Arts, Minneapolis. In 1982, he returned to Australia as the Director of the Music Board of the Australia Council, then was Director of the Australian Music Centre, and in 1994, founded the national Music Council of Australia. From 2005 to 2009, he was President of the International Music Council. He is a journal editor, and author of books, hundreds of articles, and research reports including The Protection and Promotion of Cultural

Contributors

xv

Diversity for UNESCO. Current activity is focused on policy formation and advocacy in a broad range of music issues, including music education at all levels. He is a Member of the Order of Australia. Håkan Lundström has a long teaching experience at the Malmö Academy of Music, Sweden, particularly folk music, world music, and popular music in the music teacher program. As head of the institution and as a dean of the Malmö Faculty of Fine and Performing Arts, he has played an active role in starting research in music education and more recently artistic research. He has also served as president of the International Society for Music Education. Specializing in ethnomusicology his thesis was on the music of the ethnic minority Kammu in Laos. On-​going research projects also include Japanese festival and popular music and native music in Alaska. He has co-​edited school song books and led a project on intercultural music education including field studies abroad (Gambia) and work with immigrant musicians. Another long-​term project concerns conservatory education and revitalization of minority music in Vietnam. Raymond MacDonald  is Professor of Music Psychology and Improvisation at The University of Edinburgh. His ongoing research focuses on issues relating to improvisation, musical communication, music health and wellbeing, music education and musical identities. His work is informed by a view of improvisation as a social, collaborative and uniquely creative process that provides opportunities to develop new ways of working musically. He runs music workshops and lectures internationally and has published over 70 peer reviewed papers and book chapters. He has co-​edited five texts, Musical Identities (2002) and Musical Communication (2005), Musical Imaginations (2012) and Music Health & Wellbeing (2012), The Handbook of Musical Identities (2016) and was editor of the journal Psychology of Music between 2006 and 2012. As a saxophonist and composer he has released over 60 CDs and toured and broadcast worldwide. He has written music for film, television, theatre, radio and art installations and much of his work explores the boundaries and ambiguities between what is conventionally seen as improvisation and composition. Clifford K. Madsen, Ph.D., is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor in the Center for Music Research in the College of Music at the Florida State University, where he completed his doctorate and has been serving as a faculty member since 1961. His expertise is in experimental research in music and systematic observation and analysis concerning teacher effectiveness. His research interests are in perception and cognition having done a good deal of research in intonation and teacher effectiveness. Additionally he pioneered the use of the Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI) to investigate aesthetic and emotional response to music. He is widely published in many scholarly journals and has authored and/​or co-​authored 13 books. The 5th Edition of his Teaching/​Discipline: Behavioral Principles Toward a Positive Approach was recently released in 2016. Andrew J. Martin is Professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. He is also President

xviContributors of the International Association of Applied Psychology—​Division 5 Educational, Instructional, and School Psychology. He is a Registered Psychologist recognized for psychological and educational research in motivation and for the quantitative methods he brings to the study of applied phenomena. Although the bulk of his research focuses on motivation, engagement, and achievement, he is also published in cognate areas such as academic resilience and academic buoyancy, personal bests, and pedagogy. His research also bridges other disciplines through assessing motivation and engagement in sport, music, and work. He is Associate Editor of the British Journal of Educational Psychology and on six Editorial Boards, including four international journals (Journal of Educational Psychology; Educational Psychologist; Contemporary Educational Psychology; Educational Psychology). Marie McCarthy  studied music and education at University College, Dublin, before completing graduate studies in music education at the University of Michigan in 1990. She was on the faculty of the University of Maryland until 2006 when she returned to the University of Michigan as professor and department chair. She teaches courses on general music, music cultures in the classroom, and research methods in music education. In her research, she studies the intersections of social and cultural foundations in the historical development of music education internationally. Her publications include two books, Passing it on: The transmission of music in Irish culture, and Toward a global community: The International Society for Music Education, 1953–​2003. She served as National Chair of the NAfME History Special Research Interest Group, member of the NAfME Executive Committee of the Society for Research in Music Education, Chair of the ISME History Standing Committee, and is currently serving as Editor of the Journal of Historical Research in Music Education. Katrina McFerran  is Professor and Head of Music Therapy at the University of Melbourne in Australia. She has investigated the role of music for wellbeing in the lives of young people since 2001 and has published more than 70 articles and 30 book chapters on this topic, along with two books titled “Adolescents, Music and Music Therapy” (2010), and “Creating Music Cultures in the Schools” (2014). Her research and writings focus on the ways that young people use music, emphasising their agency and the ways choices may vary depending on young people’s mental health, unconscious associations, and contextual factors. This has led to the development of a tool for understanding “Healthy-​unhealthy Uses of Music” (HUMS) which supports adults to ask questions and solicit perspectives about adolescent’s music use. Katrina continues to focus her work with young people in schools, with an emphasis on using music to prevent mental health problems. Gary E. McPherson  studied music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, before completing a master of music education at Indiana University, a doctorate of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a Licentiate and Fellowship in trumpet performance through Trinity College, London. He is the Ormond Professor and Director of the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music at the University

Contributors

xvii

of Melbourne, and has served as National President of the Australian Society for Music Education and President of the International Society for Music Education. His research interests are broad and his approach interdisciplinary. His most important research examines the acquisition and development of musical competence, and motivation to engage and participate in music from novice to expert levels. With a particular interest in the acquisition of visual, aural and creative performance skills he has attempted to understand more precisely how music students become sufficiently motivated and self-​regulated to achieve at the highest level. Bradley Merrick  completed a master of education at the University of Western Sydney, followed by a doctorate of philosophy in music education at the University of New South Wales, after completing his undergraduate study. He is an experienced musician and educator, having taught in state, Catholic, and independent schools in New South Wales, while also having performed professionally for many years. He is Director of Research in Learning and the Barker Institute at Barker College, where he teaches secondary music and oversees research and professional learning. He has written several music textbooks for secondary students and specialises in the use of new technology in music education, having presented nationally and internationally in this field. His research interests include classroom teaching practice and emerging pedagogies, combined with the investigation of new technologies and their use amongst students. He has a particular interest in student motivation and self-​regulation, combined with different learning styles and their influence upon understanding. He is currently National President of the Australian Society for Music Education. Dorothy Miell,  BSc., PhD., CPsychol., is professor of psychology and vice principal of the University of Edinburgh, UK. Her key interests are in the social and communicative aspects of collaborative working, particularly in creative contexts such as music making and when examining how individuals work together in multidisciplinary teams. Her work has included investigations of children’s collaborations in formal and non-​formal educational settings as well as studies of both amateur and professional musicians. She has co-​authored and co-​edited a number of articles and books in these areas, notably Collaborative Creativity (Free Association books, 2004, with Prof Karen Littleton), Musical Identities (OUP 2002, with Profs Raymond MacDonald and David J.  Hargreaves), Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn (Nova Science 2004 with Prof Karen Littleton and Dr Dorothy Faulkner) and Musical Communication (OUP 2005 with Profs Raymond MacDonald and David J. Hargreaves). Graça Mota  received her masters in music education from Boston University and her PhD in music psychology from the University of Keele. She is Director of the CIPEM/​INET-​md (Research Center in Psychology of Music and Music Education, Porto Polytechnic Branch of the Institute of Ethnomusicology—​studies in music and dance). Her research interests are concerned with innovation in music education, music curriculum development and assessment, music teacher education,

xviiiContributors musical identities, musical narratives, and musical practice and social inclusion. This research has been funded through grants from the Gulbenkian Foundation and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, and been published in Portugal, Spain, Brazil, US, UK, and Latvia. She was Chair of the Research Commission of the International Society for Music Education for the biennium 2008–​2010 and elected member of the Board of directors of the same society for the biennium 2014–​2016. She plays regularly in a Piano duet. Bruno Nettl  received his Ph.D.  at Indiana University, and spent most of his career teaching at the University of Illinois, where he is now professor emeritus of music and anthropology. His main research interests have been ethnomusicological theory and method, music of Native American cultures, and classical music of Iran. He has recently been concerned with the study of improvisatory musics, and with intellectual history of ethnomusicology. The following publications are representative:  Blackfoot Musical Thought:  Comparative Perspectives (1989), Heartland Excursions:  Ethnomusicological Reflections on Schools of Music (1995), The Study of Ethnomusicology (rev. ed. 2005), and Nettl’s Elephant:  On the History of Ethnomusicology (2010). He has served as president of the Society for Ethnomusicology and editor of its journal, Ethnomusicology. He has been active in the American Musicological Society and the International Society for Music Education, and he is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Susan A. O’Neill  has an interdisciplinary background, with graduate degrees from England in music performance studies (M.A., City University), psychology (Ph.D., Keele University), and education (M.A., Open University). She is Professor in Arts and Music Education at Simon Fraser University and Director of MODAL Research Group (Multimodal Opportunities, Diversity and Learning) and Research for Youth, Music and Education (RYME). She has held visiting fellowships at the University of Michigan, USA (2001–​2003), University of Melbourne (2012), and Trinity College Dublin (2015). In 2016, she became President-​Elect of the International Society for Music Education. Her international collaborative projects explore young people’s musical and artistic engagement in ways that contribute to expansive learning opportunities, positive values, self-​ identities, motivation, well-​ being, learning relationships, and cultural understandings. She has published widely in the fields of music psychology and music education, including contributions to 15 books published by Oxford University Press. Bengt Olsson  is professor em. in Research on Music Education at the Academy of Music and Drama, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He holds an MA in music and history and a Ph. D. in musicology. He is a former dean of the Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts and the Faculty of Teacher Education. He has been involved in national and international research projects about Scandinavian musical knowledge and aesthetic discourses, the connection between digital knowledge and music teaching and learning processes and, assessment of musical performances.

Contributors

xix

His articles about the social psychology and the sociology of music education as well as music teaching and learning in Scandinavia appear in international journals and books. Johnmarshall Reeve received his PhD from Texas Christian University and completed postdoctoral work at the University of Rochester. He is a WCU Professor in the Department of Education at Korea University, Seoul, South Korea. His research interests center on the empirical study of all aspects of human motivation and emotion, though he has a particular emphasis on teachers’ motivating styles toward students. He has published numerous journal articles and book chapters in outlets such as the Journal of Educational Psychology, Motivation and Emotion, and Educational Psychologist. For his work, he received the Thomas N. Urban Research Award from the FINE Foundation for the outstanding paper of the year that shows how research can be used to enhance educational practice. He has published three books, including Understanding Motivation and Emotion. He has served on a number of prestigious editorial boards and as the associate editor for Motivation and Emotion. Bennett Reimer  now deceased, served as the John W. Beattie Professor of Music Emeritus at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Education and the Musical Experience, he was author and editor of two dozen books, including Seeking the Significance of Music Education, (2009). He published over 150 essays on philosophy of music education, curriculum theory, research theory, multicultural issues, musical intelligences, interdisciplinary arts principles, teacher education, international music education issues, and applications of cognitive psychology to music learning. He received the rare “Legends of Teaching” award from the Northwestern University School of Music and an honorary doctorate from DePaul University, Chicago. A  special double issue of The Journal of Aesthetic Education, “Musings: Essays in Honor of Bennett Reimer,” was published in Winter, 1999. He was a recipient of the MENC Senior Researcher Award and an inductee into the Music Educators Hall of Fame. James Renwick has served as a lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music (SCM), University of Sydney, and is currently a primary school teacher in Sydney, Australia. He studied clarinet performance at the SCM and musicology at the University of Sydney, and taught woodwind instruments for many years in a one-​to-​one context. He completed a doctorate of philosophy at the University of New South Wales in 2008, working with Gary E. McPherson and John McCormick on a multifaceted study of young people’s motivation to learn and practice an instrument. This thesis brought together self-​determination theory and the notion of self-​regulated learning. His recent research focuses on broadening the scope of psychological investigations of musical skill acquisition to explore the motivation to engage in classical and non-​classical genres at high levels of commitment. Huib Schippers is Director and Curator of Smithsonian Folkways Recordings. Having been trained as a sitar player for over twenty years, his research interests

xxContributors include world music, cultural diversity in music education, arts policy and musical ecosystems. After numerous positions in education in The Netherlands, he founded and led the Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia (2003–​2015). He is the author of numerous articles on arts education, cultural policy and music sustainability, including a book with Oxford University Press on learning and teaching music in culturally diverse environments “Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective” (2010), which critically re-​examines preconceptions about music education across the board, and has been hailed as “ground-​breaking work”; “masterful, well-​ organized and carefully thought out”; and offering “a framework for sustainable musical futures.” Wendy L. Sims  completed bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Kent State University and the doctor of philosophy degree in music education at Florida State University. She taught elementary music in public schools in Ohio, and since 1985 has been on the faculty of the University of Missouri, Columbia. An expert on early childhood music education and research, she regularly presents research and workshop sessions at national and international conferences. Her publications include articles in national and international journals and two edited books about music in prekindergarten. She served as a member and chair of the Music Education Research Council of MENC-​The National Association for Music Education (NAfME), on the Board of Directors of the International Society for Music Education (ISME), and as the ISME Publications Standing Committee chair. From 2006 to 2014, she served as editor of the Journal of Research in Music Education. In 2016, Sims received the NAfME Senior Researcher Award and was named an ISME Honorary Life Member. David J. Teachout  completed a bachelor of music education degree from West Virginia University, a master of music education degree at the University of Oklahoma, and a doctorate of philosophy degree at Kent State University. He is Professor of Music Education and former Chair of the Music Education Department at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) and is currently Director of the University Teaching and Learning Commons at UNCG. His research interest is in pre-​service music teacher development and his work has been presented at national and international conferences and published in numerous journals. He was co-​principle investigator for a $374,000 US National Science Foundation grant funded to develop interdisciplinary teaching modules for grades 2–​5 that explore natural intersections between science and music. He is a past Chair of the Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE) and served as Symposium Chair for SMTE’s Symposium on Music Teacher Education from 2005 until 2015. Rena Upitis  (Ed.D., Harvard) is a Professor of Education at Queen’s University. She also has degrees in Psychology and Law, and advanced diplomas in piano and vocal performance, as well as a diploma in Architectural Technology (2006). Rena began teaching piano privately over 40 years ago, and also teachers advanced theoretical subjects. Rena is a former Dean of Education at Queen’s University (1995–​2000).

Contributors

xxi

Many of Rena’s research and curriculum projects have explored teacher, artist, and student transformation through the arts. She has a small design practice specializing in ecologically sensitive designs and materials. She has secured over $8 million dollars in research funding, and currently serves as Principal Investigator for the project called Transforming Music Education with Digital Tools. In 2012 she was awarded the Prize for Research Excellence from Queen’s University. She has authored or co-​authored seven books and has published over 70 papers in peer-​ reviewed journals. Her most recent book, Raising a School (2010) is published with Wintergreen Studios Press, the publishing arm of Wintergreen Studios, an off-​grid educational retreat centre for which she is a Founding Director. Peter R. Webster is currently Scholar-​in-​Residence at the Thornton School of Music at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and is a Professor Emeritus of Music Education at the Bienen School of Music, Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. He holds degrees in music education from the University of Southern Maine (BS) and the Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester (MM, PhD). His current position at USC includes work in the Department of Music Teaching and Learning and as Vice Dean for the Division of Scholarly and Professional Studies. He offers online courses for the graduate programs at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and the University of Florida at Gainesville. He assists with the music education doctoral program at Boston University. Webster was the 2014 recipient of the Senior Researcher Award from the Society of Research in Music Education of the National Association for Music Education. He is co-​author of Experiencing Music Technology, 3rd edition Updated (Cengage, 2008), a standard textbook used in introductory college courses in music technology. He is the author of Measures of Creative Thinking in Music, an exploratory tool for assessing music thinking using quasi-​improvisational tasks. He has presented at many state, national, and international meetings and is a frequent keynote speaker. His published work includes over 80 articles and book chapters on technology, music education practice, and creative thinking in music which have appeared in journals and handbooks in and outside of music. Graham F. Welch holds the University College London (UCL) Institute of Education Established Chair of Music Education. He is elected Chair of the internationally based Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research (SEMPRE), a former President of the International Society for Music Education (ISME), and past co-​chair of the Research Commission of ISME. Current Visiting Professorships include the Universities of Queensland (Australia), Guildhall School of Music and Drama, and Liverpool (UK). He is an ex-​member of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council’s (AHRC) Review College for music and has been a specialist consultant for Government departments and agencies in the UK, Italy, Sweden, USA, Ukraine, UAE, South Africa and Argentina. Publications number over three hundred and fifty and embrace musical development and music education, teacher education, the psychology of music, singing and voice science, and music in special

xxiiContributors education and disability. Publications are in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Swedish, Greek, Japanese and Chinese. Paul Woodford is Professor and former Chair of the Department of Music Education at the Don Wright Faculty of Music, the University of Western Ontario. His interests in philosophical, historical, sociological, and political issues affecting the profession have led to many publications, including four books on the history of music in Newfoundland and Labrador, a fifth book, entitled Democracy and Music Education: Liberalism, Ethics, and the Politics of Practice (Indiana University Press, 2005), contributions to The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada (1992), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (2002), The Oxford Handbook of Music Education (2012), The 111th National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (2012), The Child as Musician (Oxford, 2016), and co-​editorship of The Oxford Handbook of Social Justice in Music Education (2015). Formerly Co-​ Chair of the Executive Committee of the International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education from 2005 to 2007, Dr. Woodford is a member of the advisory boards of the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, the British Journal of Music Education, and the Philosophy of Music Education Review.

Introduction to Volume 1 Music and Music Education in People’s Lives: An Oxford Handbook of Music Education Since 2012, when the Oxford Handbook of Music Education (OHME) was first published, it has offered a comprehensive overview of many facets of musical experience in relation to behavior and development within educational or educative contexts, broadly conceived. These contexts may be formal (such as in schools, music studios), non-​formal (such as in structured community settings), or informal (such as making music with friends and family), or somewhat incidental to another activity (such as travelling in a car, walking through a shopping mall, watching a television advert, or playing with a toy). Nevertheless, despite this contextual diversity, they are educational in the sense that our myriad sonic experiences accumulate from the earliest months of life to foster our facility for making sense of the sound worlds in which we live. Music and Music Education in People’s Lives includes the first part of the original OHME Volume 1 and the final part of OHME Volume 2. Importantly, all chapters have been updated and refined to fit the context of this new specialist volume title. The 11 chapters that comprise the first part of this volume (Music Education and the Role of Music in People’s Lives) provide a framework for understanding the content and context of music education through an examination of philosophical, psychological, cultural, international, and contextual issues that underpin a wide variety of teaching environments or individual attributes. The second part of this volume (Critical Reflections and Future Action) contains 25 commentaries from established scholars and music educators who were invited to provide a personal, critical insight on a topic or issue that they cared deeply about and which they believed deserved to be aired within an international setting. Emergent themes provide insights for all music educators to consider and a framework for future action within the profession. Although there are many ways in which the content of this section could be organized, our reading suggests that each relate to how the discipline of music education can achieve even greater political, theoretical and professional strength. As Music and Music Education in People’s Lives shows, music is a characteristic of our humanity. Across the world, individuals are enjoying music, with many

xxiv

Introduction to Volume 1

striving to learn and to share the power and uniqueness of music with others. Music education has the power to allow us all to reach our musical potential and maximize our birthright. We therefore encourage readers to draw on the extraordinary evidence base that characterizes the content of this specialist volume from the original OHME. We take this opportunity to thank the various representatives of Oxford University Press. In particular, we are especially grateful to the OUP Commissioning Editor, Suzanne Ryan, for her enthusiasm about updating all chapters and publishing the OHME in five new specialist volumes. Now that all of the authors can see their contributions in the context of this new volume, we hope that they will agree that our journey together continues to be worthwhile. We hope, also, that our readers enjoy the fruits of our labor. Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch Chief Editors March 2017

MUSIC AND MUSIC E D U C AT I O N IN PEOPLE’S LIVES

Part 1

MUSIC EDUCATION AND THE ROLE OF MUSIC IN PEOPLE’S LIVES Part Editor GARY E. MCPHERSON AND GRAHAM F. WELCH

Chapter 1

COMMENTARY: MUSIC EDUCATION AND THE ROLE OF MUSIC IN PEOPLE’S LIVES Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson

The first part of this volume on Music Education and Music in People’s Lives has been designed to offer a broad overview of music education and the role of music in people’s lives. For this reason, the topics covered provide a framework for understanding the content and context of all subsequent chapters in this and the other linked volumes of this handbook. These embrace philosophical perspectives about music’s place in education (see Bowman, ­chapter 2; Elliott, ­chapter 4); psychological issues concerning musical development and supporting motivation in music education (see Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell, c­ hapter 7; Renwick & Reeve, c­ hapter 8); broader contexts involved with understanding cultural diversity and the possible contribution of ethnomusicology to a broader conception of music education (see Schippers & Shehan Campbell, c­ hapter 5; Nettl, c­ hapter 6); international perspectives and views on how to initiate music programs in new contexts and understand the musical world of the twenty-​first-​century music learner (see McCarthy, ­chapter 3; O’Neill, ­chapter 9; Mota & Figueiredo, ­chapter 10); and the implications of neuroscience and brain research for music education (see Hodges & Gruhn, c­ hapter 11). At the simplest level, to be musically educated implies some form of understanding of the nature of music, expressed either through musical behavior (being able to make meaningful musical gestures), or in being able to “make sense” of the

4

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson

auditory stimuli that are customarily available to the individual within a particular musical culture. Such behaviors may be conscious or other-​than-​conscious, as well as being open to interpretation in spoken/​written language, or not, depending on the tacit basis of the musical understanding. To expand on this conception, and to frame the views expressed in the first part of this volume, this chapter is organized around four broad issues dealing with musical development, musical identity, music education, and the desire to engage with music across the lifespan.

Musical Development and Human Design An individual’s musical capabilities deepen and develop over time, particularly when they are exposed to an appropriately nurturing environment, not least because of core characteristics in our human neuropsychobiological design, such as those related to the brain’s neuroplasticity—​the property by which new neural connections are formed in response to experience (Kraus et al., 2014; Schlaug, 2015; also Hodges & Gruhn, ­chapter 11). Musical behavior embraces many different brain functions, such as perception, action, cognition, emotion, learning, and memory (Pantev, 2009). Although the brain’s underlying neural architecture is conceived as being modular—​in the sense that different parts of the brain have relatively specialized functions—​musical behaviors (as in musical performance) customarily involve many different areas (modules) of the brain networked together (e.g., Peretz & Coltheart, 2003; Stewart & Williamon, 2008; Callan et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2006; Kleber & Zarate, 2014; Schlaug, 2015). Thus the enculturated accumulation of sonic experience and our ability to detect patterns in this experience combine over time to allow us to fulfill our musical birthright; that is, to be musical and to be able to communicate and interact musically with others. This is vividly portrayed in the following example of the musical enculturation of a child in her first year of life: Having been brought up in a home where both parents are musicians, Nelli had a fair exposure to different kinds of music, even before she was born. . . . But, from this somewhat extensive musical palette, Nelli had isolated just one tune as her absolute favorite, even though she was eight months old; this was War’s “Low Rider”! She’s had a fair exposure to this song, being the opening theme for the “George Lopez” show, a breakfast time sitcom broadcast in the U.S., where Nelli spent the first winter of her life. At that time, Nelli could not even sit without being supported by pillows, but as soon as the opening cow-​bell and bass-​line were heard, she would first turn and look at you as if she was seeking assurance that “this is really ‘it,’ ” the time of joy,” and would then start bouncing at full steam, and in admirable synchronization. Was it TV’s Lopez family’s happy faces and colorful clothes? Was it Nelli’s “gestalt” to identify with a song that someone

Commentary

5

would expect to enjoy over a cold cerveza in a beach bar in Acapulco? It is impossible to know. But if you wanted to see Nelli bouncing on cue, you didn’t even have to play the song after a while, you could simply hum the opening bass-​ line from “Low Rider.” (E. Himonides, personal communication, April 4, 2011)

Nelli’s example reminds us that musical experience and development are socially located and shaped by the world around us because music is experienced in different social, cultural, and environmental settings, as in the following illustration that is drawn from a qualitative study involving a group of nine musicians who were providing a sustained program of 45 hours of music each week in an Italian pediatric hospital. Antonio, 14 years, loved an Italian pop group called “883” and, whenever I walked into the room, the first thing that he used to do was to ask for their songs. Most of the nurses got to know some of the refrains very well, as Antonio used to play the songs endlessly on CD. Nurses and doctors used to make fun of his musical “obsession,” but whenever I was in his room, his enthusiasm attracted other children and they often moved into his room with their parents to sing with us. I remember these moments as extremely enjoyable and liberating for children, parents and myself. We were all singing together, sometimes changing the words to make the lyrics sound ridiculous; Antonio played along with us, always smiling and giving space to other children’s musical choices as well. I have often left his room with a feeling that the mood in the ward had changed and that something positive had happened. (Preti, 2009, p. 15)

Thus the opportunity for music learning can present itself in many different aspects of our daily lives, whether or not the experience has been designed as “educational.” Because these processes are integral to thinking within the profession they form an important key message that is embedded in various contributions within this volume and especially ­chapters 7 (Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell) and 9 (O’Neill).

The Impact of Education on Musical Development, Biography, and Identity Although being musical is integral to human design—​believed to be because of our evolutionary past in which communication in sound was critical to survival and reproduction (Mithen, 2009)—​what counts as salient in our experience of music is framed and shaped by sonic interactions within particular sociocultural contexts, as well as being flavored by individual subjectivity, maturation, and biography. Early experience of music in childhood can be a powerful formative influence for subsequent engagement as an adult, not least because of an interweaving of emotion in such experience. The following extended example offers an illustration of how diverse experiences came together to shape one professional musician’s early biography in a particular direction. Q. “Could you tell me a little bit about your background and how you got into music in the first place?”

6

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson A. “If you go far enough back, you get to when I was about 7, I guess. I went to a State primary school from the age of 7. We had a music teacher there called Miss Last, who we all called Miss First, because we liked her so much. She was just a class teacher, but she happened to be very into music, very keen on music, so she ran the school choir, and a sort of recorder group, so I got involved in that. Very quickly she decided I  was very musical, and I  had never had any encounter with music, except that my dad played mandolin, hence the mandolin [for me] eventually . . . but he didn’t read music, he didn’t play structured music—​he played along to records, and he was a businessman so sometimes he wouldn’t touch it for two weeks on end, and he’d pick it up one evening . . . so I did have the experience of music in my house. But he mainly played folk and Greek and that sort of thing. . . . Neither of my parents listened to Classical music at home, I didn’t really even know what it was. And then at school, we just did kind of Primary school recorder group type stuff. . . . And at a similar period my mom had enrolled me in the Church choir, because I drove her totally bananas walking around the house singing out-​of-​tune. But constantly singing; I wouldn’t stop, constantly singing. But she could never work out what the tune was I was singing! So it drove her bananas, so she decided to try and enroll me in the choir, the Church choir, to see if they might be able to actually train me to sing in-​tune. Which they did, and so at almost the same time that Miss Last said I was actually very musical, which was quite astonishing to Mom I think, but anyway, that I should learn an instrument. So, she asked me what instrument I’d like to play—​I was about seven or eight—​and I said mandolin. So she ignored me, because it’s not really a very practical instrument. So she just said “Do you not want to play the clarinet or the piano . . . ?” No, I wanted to play the mandolin. End of conversation. So I carried on with recorder at school, and I carried on singing in Church choir, and every time she asked me, I answered the same thing—​mandolin. And, in the meantime, I’d got hold of a record of the person who was to become my teacher, although obviously I didn’t know it then, and I used to play it in my bedroom, like 700 times round and round and round, and I used to—​my dad’s old mandolin by this time had no strings on it, and I used to sit there pretending to play, and I did that for three or four years before my mom finally decided that perhaps I was quite serious about the mandolin! So, eventually when I was 11, by this time I was doing more music at school, but still just singing basically, she said that she’d try and find me a teacher . . . ” Q. “I suppose the obvious connection is that it was there in the house, and your dad played?” A. “And I’d heard it played, and I suppose. . . . And my dad died when I was very young, so I suppose—​well, around the same time everyone said I was musical. I suppose my instinct was to try and re-​create something that had been lost.” (unpublished interview; see http://​www.tlrp.org/​proj/​Welch.html for more detail)

The power of episodic memories of childhood musical experience in the formation of musical identity is also evidenced in an interview with a professional jazz saxophonist who described why he chose his particular instrument.

Commentary

7

Q: “Why the saxophone?” A:  “Well the sax because I  heard music on the radio that I  liked. In fact, it wasn’t the radio, it was an eight-​track tape in my grandfather’s Rolls Royce . . . Silver Shadow 2! [laughs]. See, I wasn’t exposed to music when I was younger—​ you know my parents didn’t play instruments and didn’t really listen at all. So we had my grandfather’s Rolls Royce for a few weeks . . . we had some long journeys in it to the Isle of Wight, and he had some 8 track tapes in it—​he had Chicago (which I  didn’t listen to much) and he had Sinatra and it was [the] first record with [the] Billy May Orchestra on the reprise record (that was his own record label) and it was ‘Songs for Swinging Lovers,’ or ‘Swing Along with Me’—​something like that—​and it has ‘Have You Met Miss Jones?,’ ‘Moonlight on the Ganges,’ ‘Granada’ . . . but it was the first time I really listened to music—​ and I would wait for this tape to go round, you know, to get to particular songs, or I’d try and find ‘Have You Met Miss Jones?’ and when we’d get [in] the car again . . . the first thing I’d do is try and get . . . or where’s ‘Have You Met Miss Jones’? I’m sure its after this one. . . . So I wasn’t really listening to music, but I just thought somehow that I wanted to play that music, because it made me feel so good.” ​(interview with RG, saxophonist who began learning at age 19; G. Owen, personal communication, June 30, 2008) These biographical examples are commonplace in the narratives of professional musicians (see Manturzewska, 1990; McPherson, Davidson, & Faulkner, 2012; Creech, et  al., 2008; Cleaver, 2009). Yet childhood experiences can also be powerfully negative. A study in Newfoundland (Knight, 2010), for example, reported on how a lifelong musical identity as a “nonsinger” was often the product of receiving inappropriate comments in childhood from others (peers or adults) at a time when individuals were still developing their singing skills. In a survey of 197 Newfoundland adults, three-​quarters of participants (72%) reported that their early musical experience (whether positive or negative) had had a long-​term effect on their musical self-​concept (p. 228). The author’s own mother provided a poignant illustration of the longevity of a negative experience. This journey began for me when I asked my dying mother one afternoon if she had any regrets in life. . . . She did, and the answer that she gave was a disclosure on her part and a revelation on mine. Mommy was 78, and quite weak, as she was in the final stages of terminal cancer. When I posed this query about regrets, she replied that she had led a charmed life, and had precious few regrets. The only real regret was that she had been “a musical mute in a house full of birds.” My father and all five of her children sang well. Mom revealed that she had been silenced by a music teacher at school when she was seven and, ever since, she felt that she could not sing. Newfoundland—​Mom’s home from birth and her family’s for several generations prior—​has enjoyed a long, strong singing tradition amongst its general population. From this common and expected cultural practice, she had felt excluded and ashamed, virtually her whole life. (p. 2)

8

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson

The outcome of this disclosure was that the daughter (an accomplished choral director) and her mother agreed that the mother should be taught to sing. This was received with much hilarity, but as I persisted with gentle humor, she actually acceded. Our treasured time together around her singing comprised two main elements; I began to teach my mother to sing “in-​tune,” and she began to share with me the memories, feelings and thoughts of her “nonsinging” life. Within several days, my mother did learn to sing in-​tune, to her amazement and joy. (Knight, 2010, p. 2)

One paradox of this example is that it arose within a culture with a strong oral music tradition, reported as being “one of the richest repositories of traditional music in the Western world” (Diamond & Colton, 2007, p. 1). Such richness is unlikely to be sufficient, however, to ensure that the culture encourages singing inclusively, if a particular characteristic of the culture is a persistent belief that some people are intrinsically musical and some are not. As you know, all the Catholic schools in particular had big choirs. And every second class went to the [music] festival. We [certain fellow students] were told we couldn’t sing, so at least the last row, if not the last two rows—​because after I got to junior high and they said you couldn’t sing, that was the end of it, then I didn’t have to go to these classes [after that]. I stayed back and did other things. But I can remember, at least a full row, if not two, in the classroom choirs or the singing choir, that you were told to “pantomime.” You had to go to music, and you had to listen to all the words and be able to mouth it or lip-​sync it like everybody else, but you were not allowed to sing and you weren’t allowed to turn it down. (interview with “Carla,” in Knight, 2010, p. 108)

Unfortunately, such examples remind us that because of an inappropriate human agency, not all music education is as positive and enabling as it should be (see further, O’Neill, ­chapter 9).

Musical Development and Education Notwithstanding the persistence of an erroneous bipolar conception in many cultures of humanity as “musical”/​ ”not-​ musical,” unless something negative occurs to hinder progress, empirical evidence indicates that musical skills normally develop with age and experience and particularly so in a nurturing educational environment. An example is provided by a longitudinal study of children’s singing from birth to age six years in Italy. The benefits of participation in an extended program of musical activities for pregnant mothers and, subsequently, the same mothers with their new babies, were evidenced in musical behaviors appearing earlier than reported elsewhere in the literature, in terms of both the children’s learning of song repertoire and their inventing of their own songs (Tafuri, 2009).

Commentary

9

Similarly, but on a larger scale, the potential for education to nurture development is demonstrated in analyses of the individual singing behaviors of approximately 11,000 children (drawn from 184 schools) as part of an evaluation of the UK government’s National Singing Programme, Sing Up, for primary school–​aged children in England. When children’s assessed singing development ratings were plotted against their chronological age, a clear difference emerged between children with experience of Sing Up and those without (fig. 1.1). Sing Up–​experienced children tended to be on average two years in advance in their singing development (upper trend line) in comparison to their non–​Sing Up peers (lower trend line) (Welch et  al., forthcoming). Assessed developmental differences between these two groups range from approximately three years for the youngest children to one year for the oldest, suggesting that early educational experience may be even more beneficial. Furthermore, longitudinal data (for 900 children) confirmed these group differences. Although all these children tended to become more skilled at singing with age, Sing Up–​experienced children tended to progress significantly more quickly than those without such experience across the 12-​month period between assessments.

100 R2 = 0.82189

Normalized singing score (NSS)

90

80

R2 = 0.60288

70

60

50

40

30 4

5

6

Non-SingUp

7

8 9 Mean decimalized age

SingUp

10

Linear (Non-SingUp)

11

12

13

Linear (SingUp)

Figure 1.1  Comparative data on singing development ability by mean age and experience of 11,258 children in England for 13,096 assessments (as some children were assessed more than once across successive years). (Note: a score of 100 on the x-​axis singing development rating denotes competent singing ability.) (Welch et al., forthcoming).

10

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson

Subsequently, visits to twenty primary schools were undertaken to observe and extrapolate the characteristics of high-​quality teaching of singing with children. Analyses of the observational data revealed that learning was most likely where • Pupils were actively engaged for a high percentage of time across the session • The pupils’ voice was dominant within the session, either being expressed in song or used to question, reflect and review their own progress • The criteria for success were made explicit and reinforced throughout the session • Pupil performance was monitored and assessed, and musically informed feedback instantly provided, with clear indications of how to improve • Achievement was celebrated and valued and related to the criteria for success • A suitably paced session was evidenced—​such as a fast paced session that built to a crescendo or a more intermittent pace that allowed space for discussion • Learning was placed within a wider context of pupils’ lives, such as through detailed discussion of the song’s lyrics (Saunders et al., 2011).

As another key message embedded in all sections of this volume, such research data reminds us that, notwithstanding our individual idiosyncrasies as educators, common features are evidenced when we are at our most effective in promoting musical learning in others.

Disability in Music, Disability and Music The impact of education on musical development can be seen in various studies of particular groups outside the expectations of normal musical development. One such group has been the subject of considerable research interest in recent years by neuroscientists because of evidence that a small proportion of the population (believed to be approximately 4%)1 have little or no ability to make sense of music, at least consciously. These so-​called congenital amusics are often observed to have great difficulty with specially designed tests of musical ability, currently because their difficulties are believed to be related to observed anatomical differences in “amusic” brains relative to “musically intact” brains (Peretz et al., 2009). Nevertheless, a small-​scale study with a group of formally assessed amusic adults (Anderson et  al., 2012)  revealed that (1)  the musical ability profile of so-​called amusics is not homogeneous, and (2) a short intervention study can have a beneficial music behavior impact on selected components of the profile. Participants (five participants) attended a series of seven weekly workshops designed to explore their singing voices with a professional singing teacher. The program included the use of visual feedback software, Sing and See, to experience

Commentary

11

visual metaphors of their attempts at vocal pitch matching in singing (http://​www. singandsee.com/​). Comparative data with a control group revealed that while there were no differences with the amusic participants on the musical perception test items of “in-​ tuneness”—​indicating that amusics were able to detect small pitch differences on test items—​there were significant differences between the groups in vocal accuracy. Overall, this study confirmed other findings (e.g., Pfordresher & Brown, 2007) that the relationship between perceptual and production abilities in music is not linear. In terms of perception, amusics were more affected by the length of the gaps between pairs of notes to be judged, being more accurate when there were one-​second gaps between notes, compared to no gap or much longer gaps. One inference from both studies is that the underlying development of musical (pitch) memory is of prime importance in this kind of musical behavior. In terms of production, all the participants in Anderson et al. (2012) improved in their assessed song-​singing accuracy, some much more than others. Although this was a small-​scale study, the heterogeneity and change demonstrated across individuals concerning aspects of their perceptual and production abilities—​despite all being assessed as “amusic” on a standard test battery—​indicates that different forms of targeted musical intervention might generate improvements over a longer timeframe on particular aspects of their individual musical ability profile, not least perhaps because three of the five amusics reported having no remembered experience of music in childhood. Such an inference of the potential benefit of music education in a context of musical disability is supported by studies of “tone-​deafness” (Wise, 2015; Dalla Bella, 2016; Welch, 2017). The current evidence suggests that adults who regard themselves as “tone-​deaf ” are likely to be in a minority in any given population. This was estimated by Cuddy et al. (2005) at 17% of adults in Western culture, but the proportion is highly dependent on the method and criteria for singing assessment, with reported variations from 60% (Hutchins & Peretz, 2012) to 2%–​8% (Berkowska & Dalla Bella, 2013). One recent investigation, focused on understanding the nature of “tone-​deafness” (TD) in groups of undergraduates (Wise, 2015), demonstrated that this label represents a multifaceted categorization with different characteristics from “congenital amusia.” Singing performance for self-​reported TD was found to be influenced by context, with singing being more accurate when (1) accompanied than when unaccompanied, and (2) when synchronized with a stimulus rather than when echoed. Data from this and other studies suggest that self-​labeled “tone deaf ” adults do not appear to have basic perceptual problems. They sing as accurately as controls on shorter stimuli, especially when accompanied. Where pitching accuracy errors occur, these are believed to derive from a somewhat consistent “mismapping” between pitch targets and phonatory responses (Pfordresher & Brown, 2007, but also see Dalla Bella, 2016). Whatever the etiology, intervention studies with both adults (see Knight, 2010) and children (see Welch et al., 1989) indicate that “tone deafness” is a relative term and likely to be susceptible to remediation, particularly through appropriate educational experience. Arguably, if the TD concept is

12

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson

constructed as having some difficulty in singing “in-​tune” and this interpretation is applied to a general population, then one way of understanding the evidence for normal singing competency increasing with age in childhood (as demonstrated in fig. 1.1) is to consider TD to be a phase of normal development on a continuum toward competency. Where children experience an appropriately nurturing development (as with Sing Up), then development accelerates. If experience is not supportive, then progress may be slower or even disrupted entirely (as suggested by the Newfoundland study of Knight, 2010). Another group that we might expect to be located at the least developed part of a musical ability spectrum are those with complex needs, that is, those with severe learning difficulties (SLD) or profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD). These equate to approximately 41,000 children in special schools in England (0.5% of the total school population), with a ratio of 3:1 SLD to PMLD. Almost irrespective of age, it is believed that the two groups function, in global terms, as if they are in the first 12 to 30  months of “typical” development. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the significant general degree of disability, more than a decade of linked studies have revealed that it is possible to apply the concept of musical development to this group (cf. Ockelford & Welch, 2012; Welch & Ockelford, 2015; Welch et al., 2016). Children and young people with complex needs are able to exhibit musical behaviors and to have these extended in an appropriately nurturing environment. Indeed, in some cases—​such as musical savants—​the degree of musical expertise that is exhibited is highly skilled and at an expert professional level (for example, see http://​www.sonustech.com/​paravicini/​). A common challenge, therefore, irrespective of perceived or actual ability/​disability, is for those of us involved in music education to use our communal, research-​ and evidence-​based knowledge to ensure that we match our provision to individual needs, even in cases where evidence of incremental change may be small in the short term.

Developing a Desire to Engage with Music Across the Lifespan Running parallel with studies on the issues above is a host of research on playing a musical instrument or singing; something that countless millions of children and adults around the world undertake formally or informally in various contexts every day of each year. The evidence on formal learning of Western instruments shows some interesting connections with other childhood leisure and recreational pursuits, such as participation in a team sport, where playing for the “love of it” has consistently been found to be a key ingredient for long-​term participation and success. By this we mean that successful musicians are often those whose musical

Commentary

13

environment has exposed them to diverse opportunities and positive learning experiences very early in their learning, where they have developed an intellectual curiosity and emotional engagement with music and are then able to move to more advanced stages of musical engagement (McPherson, Davidson, & Faulkner, 2012). Sports psychology literature demonstrates the importance of deliberate play during the very early stages of learning, involving loosely structured activities aimed at increasing enjoyment and motivation rather than developing technical skill (Abbott & Collins, 2004). Such experiences are thought to provide the foundation from which a learner can progress through more demanding levels that distinguish deliberate practice. These emphasize, and are designed for, improving performance through repetition, concentration, and analysis of progress (Ericsson, 1997; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-​Römer, 1993). The same basic developmental process has been found also to hold true in learning traditional Western instruments. For example, McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012) have shown in their 14-​year longitudinal study of children who learned an instrument in eight different school programs in Sydney that learners who went on to have the most interesting and rich musical outcomes were often those for whom loosely structured activities, such as improvisation and free activity, played a key role in their early development. In this study, enjoyment and having fun were found to be key predictors of ongoing engagement, particularly in contexts where the learners developed an intrapersonal relationship with music that allowed them to unlock music’s expressive, communicative, and affective powers. It is self-​evident also that growth and musical development will depend on many negotiated interactions between the learner and others. Some of these transactions can help promote musical engagement, while others can leave a lasting negative effect, as we have seen in the case of the 78-​year-​old mother cited earlier. While music educators may not be able to exert much or any impact on the extraordinary range of hobbies and interests (including musical interests) that children experience in their daily lives in and outside schools, they can have a powerful influence on the musical engagement of learners. In their study of children learning to play an instrument, McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012) show how certain types of transactions between a learner and others can result in long-​term positive or negative motivational effects on participation and learning. For example, among the many examples of highly motivational incidents that they report in their extensive data was one learner, who reflected as an adult on his learning in a school band program: I went busking with a neighbour and we made like $60 in an hour, because people thought we were cute I think, playing along and people just threw money at us. And um, one guy was—​like the first time we went busking—​my friend went off to get a drink and this guy invited us to [play this song], and he actually just stopped and listened. Cause no one does, they just kind of throw their coins and keep walking. And I think he was in the symphony orchestra, I remember him saying something like, you know, “keep up music” or something “it’s a good expression of yourself.” I remember him saying that to me and I can see him in the corner of

14

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson where I was in a [tracksuit], and something about what he said, I was like “yeah, this would be cool” . . . I felt the energy of the music. Not just to sound corny, but I really did enjoy being in a band . . . I couldn’t play by myself in my room or anything but as soon as I, like, if there was a concert or something. Yeah. And then I went in year 11 to Montreal Jazz Festival with our band. We went all around Canada and America in jazz festivals on a jazz tour, and one of the stops was at the Montreal Jazz Festival and that was amazing. And that was in year 11 and got me—​I was going to stop at the end of that and just focus on studies for year 12—​ but it kept in me for another year. And it got me a lot more, doing a lot of musical things with friends and stuff. (p. 147)

This example can be compared to another of their participants, one who had been assigned an instrument rather than allowed to choose one himself. According to this participant’s mother, learning became a stressful experience for her child because he was the sole player of the instrument in the ensemble and felt isolated socially: Lewis came to the school in Grade 3 and he had not established friends, he didn’t seem to cope, perhaps, with all the changes in his life, but didn’t know how to explain. Perhaps it was unfortunate timing. They (the school) could have been more aware of a child who is feeling apprehensive but still would like to learn how! (p. 61)

Throughout their book, McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012) organize the many varied transactions that they catalogue according to how learners can come to feel competent or incompetent, connected or disconnected with others, and autonomous in terms of being able to make personal choices and take responsibility for their own learning or alternatively come to feel left out or under the control of others.

Concluding Thoughts To summarize, this chapter has discussed several key themes. First, individual musical abilities deepen and develop over time when humans are exposed to an appropriate nurturing environment. These experiences can be the result of formal/​ nonformal learning environments, or various kinds of informal exposure to music. In our daily lives, opportunities to learn music, to develop musically and to appreciate music can present themselves in many varied ways. Second, we have explained that music is basic to human design. Even so, musical experiences of any kind are shaped not only by sonic interactions within particular sociocultural contexts, but also by individual subjectivity, maturation, and individual life-​events. Third, we have seen that not all music education is positive or enabling, and that some people report negative experiences that live with them throughout their lives. General conceptions within the community that a person is musical or “nonmusical” are

Commentary

15

also often at the center of problems that can result in widespread misconceptions that individuals are born with a “gift” that makes them special and particularly able in the domain. This is in contrast to the range of studies now available showing that individuals who are labeled “congenital amusics” have potentials and abilities in music, while those who call themselves “tone-​deaf ” are often able to elevate their musical skills with adequate support and training. Most important, as our explanation of the Sing Up project in England shows, children who are exposed to a quality music education benefit in many numerous ways. Finally, and given the context that millions of individuals around the world sing or perform on an instrument in various contexts every day of the year, we explained how individuals come to feel competent or incompetent musically, connected or disconnected with others when engaged with music, and empowered or otherwise to take responsibility for their own decisions concerning music and the place it will have in their daily lives. With the above as our context, we are in accord with McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012), who assert that a developmental theory of music in human lives should aim to account for the diversity of outcomes and explain “what music is in people’s lives” (cf. Quinoñes, Kassabian, & Bochi, 2013) and “the relationship they have with it, rather than what music is in people’s lives by virtue of the technical skills they may have acquired for it” (p. 221). For the discipline of music education, such a view implies being able to move from the endless pursuit of new technical, instrumental, and literacy skills to a conception focused on expressive, communicative, and affective musical interactions that allows learners to take control of their own musical lives and to experience music’s expressive and self-​regulative power (see Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell, c­hapter  7; Renwick & Reeve, ­chapter  8; O’Neill, ­chapter 9; Mota & Figueiredo, ­chapter 10). This wider conception is based on the view that ongoing musical development occurs most meaningfully and effectively when it is valued as deeply significant by the musical participants themselves.

Reflective Questions



1. Broadly speaking, being musically educated was defined in this chapter as implying some form of understanding of the nature of music, expressed either through musical behavior (being able to make meaningful musical gestures), or in being able to “make sense” of the auditory stimuli that are customarily available to the individual within a particular musical culture. Do you agree? Is this adequate? 2. What does such a broad definition imply for how we might define music education? 3. Think of your own life-​story in music. Can you remember any specific experiences that very positively or very negatively impacted your

16





Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson motivation to continue learning music? Ask some close friends or family members to reflect on the same question and discuss with your colleagues. 4. Did your own musical abilities develop consistently across your time learning music? Were there any stages when your progress seemed to stall or your motivation falter? How and in what ways did this impact your musical development? 5. To what degree do you think that musical abilities are innate or acquired? Examine chapters in this volume to determine if there is a prevailing view among authors.

KEY SOURCES McPherson, G. E. (ed.). (2016). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development. 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking musical ability, development, and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welch, G. F., Howard, D. M., & Nix, J. (eds.). (2017). Oxford handbook of singing. New York: Oxford University Press.

NOTE 1. The 4% figure derives from an earlier paper by Kalmus and Fry (1980) on the phenomenon of “tune deafness” or “dysmelodia.” However, it is open to question whether such a proportion can be applied to “congenital amusia,” given that this is a relatively new concept to appear in the literature and likely to be a smaller subset of those assessed as “tone-​deaf ” in any categorization of current musical “disability.”

REFERENCES Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: Considering the role of psychology. Journal of Sports Science, 22(5), 395–​408. Anderson, S., Himonides, E., Wise, K., Welch, G., & Stewart, L. (2012). Congenital amusia: is there potential for learning? A study of the effects of singing interventions on pitch production and perception of those with congenital amusia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1252, 345–​353. Berkowska, M., & Dalla Bella, S. (2013). Uncovering phenotypes of poor pitch singing: The Sung Performance Battery (SPB). Frontiers in Psychology, 4:  Article 714. doi:10.3389/​ fpsyg.2013.00714.

Commentary

17

Brown, S., Martinez, M. J., & Parsons, L. M. (2006). Music and language side by side in the brain: A PET study of the generation of melodies and sentences. European Journal of Neuroscience, 23(10), 2791–​2803. Callan, D., Kawato, M., Parsons, L., & Turner, R. (2007). Speech and song: The role of the cerebellum. Cerebellum, 6(4), 321–​327. Cleaver, D. (2009). Storying the musical lifeworld:  Illumination through narrative case study. In M. Barrett & S. Stauffer (eds.), Narrative enquiry in music education: Troubling certainty (pp. 35–​56). New York: Springer. Creech, A., Papageorgi, I., Duffy, C., Morton, F., Haddon, E., Potter, J., de Bezenac, C., Whyton, T., Himonides, E., & Welch, G. F. (2008). Investigating musical performance: Commonality and diversity amongst classical and nonclassical musicians. Music Education Research, 10(2), 215–​234. Cuddy, L. L., Balkwill, L., Peretz, I., & Holden, R. R. (2005). Musical difficulties are rare: A study of “tone deafness” among university students. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 311–​324. Dalla Bella, S. (2016). Vocal performance in occasional singers. In G. F. Welch, D. M. Howard, & J. Nix (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199660773.013.66. Diamond, B., & Colton, G. (2007). Music in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador Studies, 22(1), 1719–​1726. Ericsson, K. A. (1997). Deliberate practice and the acquisition of expert performance: An overview. In H. Jørgensen & A. C. Lehmann (eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 9–​51). Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-​Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–​406. Hutchins, S., & Peretz, I. (2012). A frog in your throat or in your ear: Searching for the causes of poor singing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1): 76–​97. doi: 10.1037/​ a0025064. Kalmus, H., & Fry, D. B. (1980). On tune deafness (dysmelodia): Frequency, development, genetics and musical background. Annals of Human Genetics, 43, 369–​382. Kleber, B., & Zarate, J. M. (2014). The neuroscience of singing. In G. F. Welch, D. M. Howard, & J. Nix (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199660773.013.015. Knight, S. (2010). A study of adult “non-​singers” in Newfoundland. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Institute of Education, University of London. Kraus, N., Hornickel, J., Strait, D. L., Slater, J., & Thompson, E. (2014). Engagement in community music classes sparks neuroplasticity and language development in children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1403. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2014.01403. Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life-​span development of professional musicians. Psychology of Music, 18(2), 112–​139. McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking musical ability, development and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mithen, S. (2009). The music instinct: The evolutionary basis of musicality. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 3–​12. Ockelford, A., & Welch, G. F. (2012). Mapping musical development in learners with the most complex needs: The Sounds of Intent project. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (Vol 2, pp. 11–​30). New York: Oxford University Press. Pantev, C. (2009). Musical training and induced cortical plasticity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 131–​132.

18

Graham F. Welch and Gary E. McPherson

Peretz, I., Brattico, E., Järvenpää, & Tervaniemi, M. (2009). The amusic brain: In tune, out of key, and unaware. Brain, 132(5), 1277–​1286. Peretz, I., & Coltheart, M. (2003). Modularity of music processing. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7), 688–​691. Pfordresher, P. Q., & Brown, S. (2007). Poor-​pitch singing in the absence of “tone deafness.” Music Perception, 25(2), 95–​115. Preti, C. (2009). Music in hospitals: Anatomy of a process. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Institute of Education, University of London. Quinoñes, M. C., Kassabian, A., & Bochi, E. (2013). Ubiquitous musics. London: Routledge. Saunders, J., Papageorgi, I., Himonides, E., Rinta, T., & Welch, G. (2011). Researching the impact of the national singing programme “Sing Up” in England:  Diverse approaches to successful singing in primary settings. London: imerc. Schlaug, G. (2015). Musicians and music making as a model for the study of brain plasticity. Progress in Brain Research, 217, 37–​55. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​bs.pbr.2014.11.020. Stewart, L., & Williamon, A. (2008). What are the implications of neuroscience for musical education? Educational Research, 50(2), 177–​186. Tafuri, J. (2009). Infant musicality. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Welch, G. F. (2017). Singer identities and educational environments. In R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Oxford handbook of musical identities (pp. 543–​565). New York: Oxford University Press. Welch, G. F., Himonides, E., Saunders, J., Papageorgi, I., Preti, C., Rinta, T., . . ., Hill, J. (forthcoming). Children’s singing behaviour and development in the context of Sing Up, a national programme in England. (ms under preparation). Welch, G. F., Howard, D. M., & Rush, C. (1989). Real-​time visual feedback in the development of vocal pitch accuracy in singing. Psychology of Music, 17(2), 146–​157. Welch, G. F., & Ockelford, A. (2015). The importance of music in supporting the development of children with learning disabilities. International Journal of Birth and Parent Education, 2(3), 21–​23. Welch, G. F., Ockelford, A., Zimmermann, S.-​A., & Wilde, E. (2016). The Provision of Music in Special Education (PROMISE) 2015. In G. Boal-​Palheiros (ed.), International perspectives on research in music education (pp. 292–​303). London: ISME/​SEMPRE/​iMerc. Wise, K. (2015). Defining and explaining singing difficulties in adults. In G. F. Welch, D. M. Howard, & J. Nix (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199660773.013.38.

Chapter 2

MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION Wayne D. Bowman

This chapter examines four questions, each concerned with a different facet of the issue of music’s perceived role in the process of education.1 The first seeks a basis for the claim that music should be a universal component of education. The second asks about music’s special contributions to personal development. The third inquires about the distinction between educating “in” and “through” music. And the fourth asks how music educators can help others understand the need for music education. I hope to approach these rather familiar questions and concerns in ways that may help us frame them somewhat differently and thus to pursue answers that may diverge from those to which we are accustomed.

Why Should Music be Part of the Education of All Children? This is, for many, “the” big question in music education—​a burning issue in need of an answer that establishes a compelling place for music at the heart of all educational processes. I shall begin consideration of this question in the time-​honored philosophical tradition of questioning the question and the assumptions on which it appears to be based. I do this in order to tease out other questions and assumptions that may ultimately be more useful and informative.

20

Wayne D. Bowman

Although it is not uncommon to see the question posed this way, note that it tends to narrow rather significantly the range of appropriate answers: what is anticipated or desired are responses that are unequivocal and definitive—​“knock-​them-​dead” accounts that are irrefutable, universal, and largely unqualified. The question takes as given that music should be a part of the education of all children, and seeks help in defending that position. Because it does not ask whether music should be a part of the education of all children or under what circumstances, it precludes answers that are negative or provisional or contingent:  answers to the effect that perhaps music shouldn’t be a part, or that it should be a part only if certain conditions are met. Since qualified answers like these are the kind I favor (for reasons I will explain shortly), I suggest that a more useful way of posing the question might be to ask something more along the lines of “Under what circumstances might music warrant a place in the education of all children?” In other words, When should it be a universal part of education? Or perhaps, more directly and simply still, Should music be part of the education of all children? This question invites philosophical inquiry rather than advocacy, an important distinction that I will address in due course. Another troubling feature of the question posed is its unelaborated reference to education. It is probably a safe to assume that “education” here is intended to mean something like “formal, compulsory schooling.” However, since the two are not synonymous and since much that goes on within the context of formal schooling is not particularly “educational” in the sense I understand that term, I am a little uncomfortable with the apparent implication that music should invariably and necessarily be a part of it. Formal schooling is generally reserved for things that are deemed essential to becoming full participants in a culture or society, or to things that we have good reason to believe will enable people to live their lives to the fullest. We turn to formal and required instruction, in other words, when there is reason to think that without such instruction people will be seriously disadvantaged, or their human potentials will be stunted in ways we as societies are not prepared to accept. To argue the importance of music education is not quite the same as arguing that musical instruction be a required part of schooling. It is also rather important to note that the question posed is not asking why (or, as I  have suggested, how or if) musical experience is humanly important or valuable. Instead, it is asking us to indicate how music’s value rises to the level of something that must be addressed through compulsory instruction. The question is not why we love music, then, or why we think music is important. There are many, many things that are crucial to human life and living that are not taken up in formal compulsory schooling, either because of the difficulty of teaching them effectively in such settings or because they are learned quite effectively informally—​through processes of enculturation and socialization. Since almost all children learn to speak their mother tongue by being immersed in a culture where it is spoken, for instance, schools do not typically devote precious resources to teaching children to speak and converse. The question about music, then, is this:  of the many, many things that make it an important and potent force in individual and social life, which of these require formal instruction in order to flourish? If people can be shown to develop

Music’s Place in Education

21

passable or functional musical abilities without benefit of formal compulsory instruction, the case for universally required music education is weakened considerably. This isn’t to say that learning music is unimportant, obviously: just that there may be reasons to believe it does adequately what we need it to do without resorting to formal intervention. There exist societies in which this is arguably the case—​in which growing up as a normal, functioning member of that society involves the development of relatively sophisticated musical abilities, without necessary recourse to formal instruction. The argument for making music part of the education of every child, then, applies primarily to aspects of musical learning that cannot be entrusted to informal processes of socialization. Or perhaps we might say that in societies where musical participation is not a ubiquitous expectation, we ask formal schooling to play something of a compensatory role. In any case, the argument for making music a part of the education of every child appears to rest on the twin assumptions that (1) music contributes something unique and essential to human life, and (2) this “something” cannot be achieved without formal instruction. Again, this is an argument about the provision of musical instruction (and, it might be added, musical instruction of certain kinds), not simply about exposure to or experience of “music.” If music were somehow capable of delivering its putative benefits unassisted, mere exposure might suffice. But the argument does not appear to be just that music should be part of education: it is, rather, an argument in favor of musical instruction devoted to developing skills and capacities that do not take root unassisted, casually, informally, or through processes of socialization. What are those skills and capacities, and in what ways might they be considered properly educational? These are questions that warrant careful attention. Before we address the question about “education,” however, let us consider a related matter. If formal compulsory instruction is reserved for those areas deemed essential to becoming full participants in society—​or, perhaps more concretely, active participants in musical culture—​what might that mean? In which or whose musical cultures do we aspire to make our educational charges full participants? And indeed, given the rapidity and ubiquity of social change, what will the future of these musical cultures or societies—​the fields in which we hope to prepare our students to engage—​look like? Things like culture, society, and music are fluid phenomena whose futures will, there is every reason to believe, differ strikingly from their present states. What kind of instruction prepares students to be full participants in cultures whose future identities are unknowable and unforeseeable? Instruction, I submit, that is specifically and avowedly educational. This last claim involves a distinctive understanding of “education” that requires careful explanation if I  am to make myself understood in the remainder of this chapter. I have suggested that education is not a synonym for schooling; nor is it a synonym for instruction. Schooling and instruction are but means, and whether the ends they serve are ultimately educational depends on how they are pursued or enacted. Instruction may or may not (and indeed, often it does not) serve ends that are educational. I want to reserve “education” for processes of teaching and learning

22

Wayne D. Bowman

that prepare people for futures that are, strictly speaking, unknowable. If music is to be taught in ways that prepare students to be full participants in musical cultures that are still in the process of being created, we very much need instruction that is educational in nature: instruction that imparts to students the capacity to reshape themselves, to create for themselves modes of musical engagement that may bear little resemblance to those that typify present and past practices. Education is, in short, a process that prepares people for unknowable, unpredictable futures. The chief goal of education, as John Dewey (1983, p. 402) insisted, is “to protect, sustain, and direct growth”: and growth is, by its very nature, fundamentally unpredictable. If education has this distinctive meaning and seeks to fulfill this particular role, what shall we call instructional processes that are devoted to developing highly specific, predictable outcomes—​the familiar kind of music teaching whose means are specifically designed to enable success in existing musical practices? I suggest the term “training.” In short, teaching that seeks to develop habits, attitudes, and dispositions that support the open-​ended process of growth is educational in nature; teaching directed to concrete aims and objectives is training. It may be objected that this makes of education a very fuzzy concept. To that I can only respond that such “fuzziness” appears to be crucial to endeavors that are creative or educational, and seeking criteria that are utterly clear risks reducing education to training. Designating criteria for growth, as Richard Rorty (1989) once argued, “cut[s]‌the future down to the size of the present” (p. 201). It’s not unlike, he continued “asking a dinosaur to specify what would make for a good mammal or asking a fourth-​century Athenian to propose forms of life for the citizens of a twentieth-​century industrial democracy.” My intent is not to declare “education” the sole legitimate aim of musical instruction, or to suggest that training is utterly antithetical to (and invariably inferior to) education. Both are essential, if for different reasons; they serve complementary ends, neither of which is dispensable. Difficulties arise, however, when we neglect the distinction I am trying to draw here and wrongly assume that all music teaching is cut from the same cloth—​that all music teaching is by definition educational. There is an etymological basis for this unfortunate conflation of education with training, as Craft (1984) and others have pointed out. The English word “education” actually has two different Latin roots: educare, to train or to mold; educere, to lead out or draw out. Educare involves the preservation of knowledge and tradition, prepares the young to fit into existing circumstances, and sees learners as recipients or consumers of knowledge. Educere involves preparing new generations for the inevitability of change, prepares the young to create solutions to problems yet unknown, and sees learners as creators or producers of knowledge.2 Thus we find associated in a single term two remarkably divergent understand­ings of “education” that involve two very different kinds of teaching and two very different kinds of learning outcome. As Bass and Good (2004) point out—​and although they refer to schooling in general, their comments apply with remarkable precision to school-​based music education—​“education that ignores educare dooms its ­students to starting over each generation. Omitting educere produces citizens who are incapable of solving new

Music’s Place in Education

23

problems. Thus, any system of education that supplies its students with only one of these has failed miserably” (p. 4). In proposing that we call one of these functions “education” and the other “training,” I am simply urging that we keep the two distinct in our minds and our practices, and that we avoid the misguided assumption that all acts and instances of teaching music are inherently educational—​that all music teaching is music education. Applied to the question we began to explore earlier, this distinction enables us to say that whether music should be part of the education of all children depends in fundamental ways on what we understand education to involve. Assuring that music is part of children’s school experience does not assure that educational ends will be pursued or nurtured or attained. The provision of musical instruction does not necessarily assure educational outcomes. Before we dismiss those who are reluctant to endorse musical instruction as a required part of formal schooling—​assuming that they simply fail to grasp what we find convenient to call music’s inherent value—​we might do well to consider at least the possibility that their reservations may be grounded in accurate perceptions of the kinds of musical instruction that are currently prevalent, and in reasonable assumptions about the broader aims of education.

Reconsidering the Question Those who believe the point in posing questions like this is to generate ironclad answers for purposes of advocacy will likely find my philosophical approach evasive and frustrating. From the advocate’s perspective it is a foregone conclusion that music should be part of every child’s education, and what is urgently needed are irrefutable arguments to support that conviction. I believe, however, that this question is more fruitfully approached seeking carefully considered answers that offer to refine and modify instructional practice in light of changing sociocultural realities. Political persuasion will be more effective if it follows such inquiry, acknowledging the various and complex ways musical instruction may relate to the aims and purposes of music education. Philosophical inquiry is essential, I submit, to keeping music education vital and relevant to a rapidly changing world; and it is indispensable if we are to create conditions within which music instruction warrants a place of prominence in the education of all. Instead of responding to this why-​question in way apparently intended, I propose we consider a deliberately provocative and unsettling response, one that may jar us from our complacency and force critical examination of some of the things we take for granted. Perhaps musical instruction as currently practiced should not be part of the education of all children.3 Perhaps the fact that it is not currently a part of every child’s education stems at least in part from valid perceptions of what music instruction all too typically entails, and from justified suspicions that,

24

Wayne D. Bowman

despite its undeniable pleasures and many desirable attributes, it just doesn’t rise to the level of an educational necessity. Perhaps what it currently seeks to deliver, despite its obvious pleasures and attractions, is not really essential to becoming a fully functioning participant in modern social life. Or perhaps music’s exclusion from the so-​called educational core stems at least in part from legitimate perceptions that music taught as educare is not particularly compatible with the broad aims of education—​and that it is therefore not something everyone requires, but rather an enjoyable option some may wish to pursue. Perhaps it is felt that the technical training typical of middle and senior years instruction does not serve the ambitious aims of education. Perhaps what we should be pursuing is not so much universally required musical experience, then, as experience and instruction of a particular kind—​a kind more fully and more discernibly congruent with genuinely educational ends. Perhaps, then, the most defensible answer to this why-​question is a qualified “That depends.” The reasons music should be part of every child’s education depend fundamentally on one’s understandings of education, of music, of the ways these come together in “music education,” and how the success or failure of this union is to be gauged. Before we can argue persuasively that musical instruction is something that should be required of everyone, we must carefully address the nature and value of music, of education, of music education, and of the kind of instruction congruent with such fundamental considerations. Perhaps it is mistaken, then, to think that we can affect large-​scale changes in educational policy until we have examined more thoroughly and critically what we are advocating. Disturbing assertions like these will be greeted impatiently by those who believe that music education’s most urgent need is to “get on” with the formulation of “policy.” However, I believe such lines of inquiry are responsible; and if you’ll bear with me I hope to show you why. I believe that musical instruction of certain kinds, musical instruction that meets carefully considered musical and educational ends, is something to which every child indeed has a right, something that comprises a vital part of any education worthy of the name. However, the provision of instruction in, exposure to, or experience with music—​regardless of the ends to which they demonstrably contribute—​are not educational necessities. Within the context of education, music and instruction are vehicles: they are means to ends that may be helpful, constructive, educative, and therefore highly desirable; but they may also be harmful, destructive, and miseducative.4 To suggest that music is a vehicle whose educational value is a function of its contribution to certain ends is to call into question an article of faith among many musicians and music educators:  the comforting notion that music’s value is “intrinsic” or “inherent.” Music has no “inherent” value,5 I submit: no value of a kind that assures worthwhile educational outcomes regardless of the ways it is taught or experienced or learned. Thus, if music education seeks a secure and prominent place within general compulsory education it must earn it by demonstrating the delivery of the expected educational goods, showing (not just asserting) that it makes educationally desirable and durable differences in people’s lives. In other words,

Music’s Place in Education

25

musical instruction should lead to the development of habits that are lifelong and life-​wide: habits that are demonstrably useful. Children have a fundamental right to musical experience and instruction that is educationally valuable—​that demonstrably enhances their abilities to lead richer, more meaningful lives, and that makes their worlds better places in which to live. But music alone does not accomplish these ends; nor does all musical instruction. Music and musical instruction that do not contribute discernibly to educational ends simply do not warrant a universal presence in education. The realm of education is rightly reserved for endeavors capable of delivering educational goods. Musical instruction can enhance or trivialize the imagination; it can nurture creativity or quash it; it can empower people or it can reinforce blind conformity; it can nurture confidence and it can destroy it. Music is a power that can be used for good or ill—​a tremendously powerful tool that can be used in ways appropriate or inimical to educational ends.6 The same is true of musical instruction: it is no more inherently good or bad than music. Instruction may indoctrinate or coerce, imposing choices and decisions on students;7 it may train, preparing students for preordained, clearly prescribed roles and equipping them with skills tailored precisely to fulfilling them; it may also educate, imparting and nurturing skills, understandings, and attitudes that are pliable enough to meet the diverse and multiple requirements of a future that is knowable only in retrospect.8 All three of these—​indoctrinating, training, educating—​are instructional potentials: none follows automatically from the act of teaching music. It follows, I think, that a sound, responsible answer to the why-​question posed above requires careful consideration of how-​questions and to-​what-​ends questions. If music instruction is to be deemed sufficiently educational to warrant requiring it of all children regardless of background, disposition, or interest, then questions about what kind of teaching (and by whom), what kind of music (or whose), and the ends these must serve (and for what reasons)—​are unavoidable. Another pair of crucial questions follows directly from these: Who is a music educator? What kinds of expertise are required to deliver the educational goods? It is often assumed—​indeed, it may be another of those fundamental articles of faith—​that to be a music educator is to be a music specialist. I am not convinced that is the case: in fact, I am pretty sure it is not. Music specialists may be reasonably expert in transmitting the kinds of skills required of people like themselves, but it remains to be shown that these skills are educational in nature. A music educator, on the other hand, is one who is critically conversant in both the means and the ends of musical instruction, and who recognizes and responds to the plurality and diversity of students’ needs and those of an ever-​changing society. Specialized training for a “talented” few, which passes for music education in many parts of the “developed” world, is hardly the kind of instruction that benefits all—​the general student, or society at large. Music specialists often have considerable expertise in educare; but that, I have argued, is not all there is to education—​and in particular, to the kind of instruction societies are inclined to require of every school-​aged child.

26

Wayne D. Bowman

If there is one unequivocal conclusion to which all this complicated why talk and how talk leads, I believe it is that valid claims to musical education must be equivocal. They “depend” on circumstances and systems and values and assumptions and practices that are highly various and complex. It is therefore imperative, I submit, that music educators themselves be educated:  technical training will not suffice, even if supplemented by copious amounts of propositional knowledge (knowledge of facts, history, and so-​called music theory). A course of study devoted predominantly to educare is insufficient for preparing music educators to design and deliver the kind of musical instruction required of every child. Musical skill and knowledge are insufficient to professional knowledge in music education, an assertion that calls into question still another article of faith embraced by many who argue that music should be part of the education of all children: the conviction that the best musicians invariably make the best educators. Musicianship is clearly essential; but it is insufficient to instruction that aspires to be educational. Should music be a part of the education of all children, then? If this means simply that music instruction of some sort be required of all, and that any sort will do, then probably not: for neither musical instruction nor musical experience are automatically educational in the sense I have sought to establish. Where their contribution extends no further than the provision of pleasant diversions or necessary relief from the intellectual rigors of formal instruction, any number of alternative, more affordable endeavors will do.9 And where music is presumed to be just another “subject” for study, different from others only in its subject matter, there is no particularly compelling reason it should be taught to and learned by everyone. Again, any of a number of alternatives (including, note, any of the “other arts”) will do. Only if we can show that musical instruction contributes substantially and distinctively to desired educational ends, and how (and under what circumstances), can the case be sustained that music should be a required part of every child’s education. That involves close attention to issues like the one to which we turn next.

What Is Music’s Role in Personal/​Educational Development? Because neither music nor education are monolithic entities with single natures or values, I doubt very much that a case can be made convincingly that music has a single specifiable role, either in education or in personal development. However, that puts negatively a point that is better stated positively: rich musical experience may contribute to a broad range of important educational aims; it is replete with potentials for personal development. It is sometimes argued that we should avoid claims like this because they sound too desperate, or because other endeavors can be shown to address them more effectively and reliably than music. Leaving aside

Music’s Place in Education

27

the possibility that musical engagement might address many diverse educational concerns at once,10 let us ask how music contributes distinctively to personal development. How might expertly guided musical engagements and experience contribute to personal and educational aims in ways that are distinctly musical? From ancient times wise people have observed that we are or become what we do repeatedly. This idea becomes axiomatic in philosophical pragmatism, where it is maintained that habits are constitutive both of human knowledge and identity—​ and that actions, rather than ideas, are foundational in the human world. People are, in William James’s memorable words, walking bundles of habits (James 1899, p. 77). Human action is the basis for all knowledge. Indeed, knowing is itself action. Accordingly, to know the meaning or value of anything requires that we attend to what people do with it, how people use it; we need to determine the “differences it makes,” its consequences for human action. These powerful convictions suggest a distinctive understanding of and approach to education, one that is more friendly to performative undertakings like music than the idea-​centric notions that dominate many (perhaps most?) schooling practices and systems. Where habitual action is our concern, an important educational aim is to help people learn to act intentionally, with a view to the potential consequences of their actions, thereby giving them fuller control over their lives. On this view, education empowers people by developing capacities on which they can rely for choosing responsible courses of action—​for using habits that are appropriate to the circumstances at hand. However, since we cannot possibly anticipate the full range of these circumstances, education must be future-​oriented and open-​ended. If action is our focus—​what people are able and inclined to do as a result of instruction—​then conventional worries about music’s precarious cognitive status should be replaced by concern for the development of habits, dispositions, and capacities to act intelligently and responsibly in circumstances foreseen and unforeseeable. Concern about what we know can be replaced by concern about the kind of people we become by engaging in musical action. The latter concerns are not new: they have roots that extend deeply into ancient Greek and Chinese civilizations. However, contemporary fascination with technical instructional systems—​with “methods” whose worth is gauged by cognitively circumscribed outcomes and by clearly delineated executive skills—​diverts attention from music’s power to shape habits, personality, character, and in turn, social and cultural orders.11 If we take action rather than knowledge or feeling12 as foundational, then the aims of musical instruction shift in rather interesting ways, ways that are more friendly to music-​making. The question becomes not so much what we know or feel as result of instruction, or what specific executive skills instruction may have imparted, but what kind of people we become through engaging in musical action. These considerations require that we ask about the kind of societies and world to which we want musically educational processes to contribute. What unique roles might music play in the important work of habit-​making, people-​making, and world-​making?

28

Wayne D. Bowman

The case for music’s people-​and world-​making power has been obscured by the (largely Western) notion of music as an “autonomous” entity, music as a “thing” or collection of things with value all its (their) own. On this view, music’s connections with things outside “itself ”—​things like people’s habits, or dispositions, or inclinations to act—​are largely utilitarian, extramusical concerns. The focus of genuinely musical study, on the autonomist view, is music “itself,” or music “alone,” and things like music’s role in the formation of personality and society are more appropriately addressed in disciplines like psychology and sociology. However, this marginalizes what may be educationally most distinctive about music: its remarkable power to engage the unified human body-​mind; its power to create collectivity and intersubjectivity through what Keil (Keil & Feld, 1994) calls participatory consciousness; its capacity to develop action habits and character that are personally and culturally beneficial. Music’s most promising educational contribution from the perspective I  am proposing here is not what we know or feel about it, and not the facility with which we are able to execute particular musical tasks, but who we become (both personally and collectively) through musical engagements. Making music together involves highly refined ethical sensibilities—​concern to act rightly, appropriately, and responsibly in circumstances that are fluid, never wholly predictable, and ever subject to change. An important part of what musical action offers to develop is the habit of changing habits when circumstances warrant, and the ability to discern when and where such changes are necessary. These crucial capacities are not so much things people know or possess as they are dispositions to act—​responsibly, responsively, in light of what John Dewey (1916, p. 373) called ends-​in-​view. While these capacities do not consist of knowledge that is logically or technically deployed, they are highly rational, highly valuable, and essential to living well in a human world. They stem not from what one knows or feels so much as from the kind of person one is. This kind of know-​how is practical in nature:  not practical in the sense of being “workable” or convenient or easily incorporated into endeavors in which one may be engaged, but rather in its concern for the kinds of action that constitute successful engagement in the practice at hand. Practical know-​how asks how “rightness” is best understood in circumstances that are action-​embedded, and whose full meaning, because it is ever emerging, can only be known retrospectively. Educationally oriented musical engagement is deeply concerned with acting rightly in light of situational variables that are intricately intertwined, variable, and related to one another in many complex ways. Musical engagements in which such features are salient develop the kind of habits and character capable of thriving in uncertain circumstances. These are, I submit, tremendously valuable educational assets. To become musically educated, on this view, is to develop capacities for the kind of judgment that is deployed in vivo, on the fly, in response to the demands of uniquely emerging circumstances. This is know-​how that cannot be separated from one’s character, that cannot be encapsulated in a code or formula, that cannot be dispensed in prescribed ways, yet is essential to navigating the ever-​shifting

Music’s Place in Education

29

waters of the human social world. If we are what we do and do repeatedly—​if we are the habits we have acquired and refined—​then educationally oriented instruction requires that students’ habitual doings not be reduced to impersonal rule-​following or painting-​by-​numbers. Education is concerned to nurture and develop the habits of acting responsively and responsibly in a human world that is complex and ever changing. What then is music’s role in personal development? Although again I caution that “music’s” role is conditional—​crucially dependent on things like the kind of music and the way it is taught—​its potential role in personal development is considerable. The distinctive educational and developmental potential of music lies, I  submit, in its dynamic, bodily, and social natures, and in the distinctly ethical, responsive, and responsible kind of know-​how these afford. Practical knowledge is action-​embedded knowledge, quite distinct from theoretical knowledge and from technical know-​how. It is the kind of character-​based sense of how best to proceed in situations where best courses of action cannot be determined by previous ones. This ability to discern the right course of action in novel, dynamic situations is precisely the kind of human asset required in today’s rapidly changing world. And musical engagements may, under the right circumstances, nurture this capacity in ways unmatched by any other human endeavor. The worth of music and of musical instruction and of musical experience are, in the view we have been exploring here, functions of the consequences to which they lead: their value lies in the differences they make (or, in the case of negative value, the differences they fail to make) for human life and living. Such value arises not so much from what we know about music or from the proficiency with which we learn to execute musical tasks as from the kind of people and the kinds of societies we create through musical action.

Educating in Music and Educating Through Music There is a tremendous difference between educating in and educating through music, and understanding this difference is crucial to our claim for a place of prominence in general education—​education for all students. Educating in music, or what I earlier called educare, has become more or less the default setting for institutionalized musical instruction, while educating through music, educere, is generally presumed to follow. However, there is not much evidence that educating-​through follows automatically as a result of having educated-​in, and there are sound reasons to doubt that it does. If it is granted that both are essential to music education and that educating-​through music is particularly critical to substantiating a role for music in the general education, then our claims need to be based on something

30

Wayne D. Bowman

more substantial than presumptions. To distinguish more clearly between these two complementary functions, I suggest we call instruction within music “training” and that we reserve the term “educating” for musical instruction’s broader and more essential life-​serving functions. In training, one develops and refines the skills and understandings necessary to achieve clearly specified outcomes. We train fighter pilots, welders, X-​ray technicians, and the like. We may also train animals, but we do not tend to consider them educated as a result of such processes. Training involves preparation for specific tasks, and because it lends itself to systematicity and precise repetition we are generally very good at it. On the other hand, educating—​conceived as the kind of teaching and learning that have growth as their ultimate aim—​involve capacities that are less easily prescribed, dispensed, or measured: capacities like creativity, and the ability to make appropriate choices in unanticipated or novel circumstances. What distinguishes training from education is not the intelligence or the sophistication of the skills and knowledge involved. Rather, in training we know the way and the circumstances in which the skills at hand will need to be deployed: the outcomes of instruction and their use are predictable and relatively stable. Therefore, we can focus primarily on developing and refining capacities of a particular, relatively standardized kind. We need not worry inordinately about the consequences of training, because the ends it exists to serve are “given.” Training is a crucial instructional function: the process of developing appropriate action habits. No one, I  assume, would want to be operated on by an untrained surgeon. And most of us prefer trained pets to wild ones. To suggest as I am that training differs in fundamental ways from educating is not to argue that educating in music is simple, mindless, or misguided. It is only to urge that it involves different kinds of instructional assumptions, interventions, and strategies from educating through music, and that we need to resist equating the two. Education and training are different processes serving different purposes. The circumstances they require to thrive are quite distinct from one another. Where the conditions optimal to training become our sole concern (as they frequently do, for instance, in instructional “method”) we may inadvertently create learning environments that threaten the processes and outcomes I have suggested we call “educational.” Where musical skills and knowledge exhaust the range of instructional concerns we explicitly pursue, we train rather than educate. This is not a distinction without a difference. It matters what music educators understand music education to mean, and how it differs from instruction devoted to training. It is a distinction, in other words, with practical consequences. For instance, we sometimes characterize the preparation of future music teachers as music teacher training; and training is indisputably an important component in such preparation. However, trained music teachers are not necessarily well prepared to engage in musical instruction that is educational in nature. They are well prepared to deliver instruction of specified kinds to students of certain kinds in particular situations, but they are less well prepared to modify or adapt their strategies as circumstances warrant, or in ways that go beyond an immediate skill/​training focus.

Music’s Place in Education

31

Effective training requires delimitation, specificity, and ­systematicity—​attributes that may be at odds with processes of growth and change. Effective training works primarily by habituating; education seeks to instil the capacity and inclination to change habits when circumstances warrant, as well as the ability to recognize when such change is necessary: habits of a very different order. Training is appropriate where the know-​how we seek to transmit instructionally is predominantly technical (how-​to); in fact, these are the circumstances to which it is ideally suited and in which it thrives. But the ethically oriented domain of education (educere) extends well beyond technical concerns, implicating questions like when-​to, whether-​to, to-​whom-​to, or to-​what-​extent-​to. If music is to be a required feature in everyone’s education, its contribution to nontechnical abilities like these should be the basis for its claim. Childrearing is a useful example of the distinctions I have been trying to draw here. Rearing children successfully clearly involves training them—​whether to use the bathroom or to respect the law or to engage with others in ways that are culturally appropriate. But its ultimate success is determined by the child’s eventual ability to make discerning and appropriate decisions in circumstances that cannot be foreknown or foretold—​circumstances to which training is ill suited. Successful outcomes of childrearing include the inclination and ability to modify, change, and even renounce the habits instilled by training—​if and when circumstances warrant.13 Similarly, the educated person is one who is not a slave to habits, and who is adept at gauging their adequacy or inadequacy to the demands of evolving and emerging circumstances. This concern for acting rightly in circumstances that are always in some sense unique is a practical ability to which musical experience guided by educationally oriented instruction is especially well suited. Musical training is obviously an essential instructional concern. However, the conditions required by training may be inimical to our broader commitments to educate through music, commitments on which our claim to a prominent role in general education must be based. Musical training is not synonymous with musical education, nor is it an acceptable substitute for musical instruction devoted to broadly educational aims.

How Do the Goals of Music Education Align with Those of General Education? In light of my comments about the distinctions between education and training, my response to this question should come as no surprise. The goals of music education and those of general education do not align automatically, necessarily, or invariably. Since the phrase “music education” is so often equated with “musical instruction,”

32

Wayne D. Bowman

this should give us pause: not all music instruction is educational; indeed, music instruction of certain kinds may even subvert the aims of education. However, it is equally clear that these goals may align if we take seriously the distinctions among teaching, training, educating, and learning. It all depends, and there are no guarantees; but that, too, is the nature of education. A fuller response to this question about alignment involves attention to several additional concerns, not least the question whether school-​based music instruction should seek alignment with the goals of general education as they are actualized in contemporary schooling. At issue here is whether formal schooling as typically undertaken is itself educational—​a rather heretical notion, to be sure, but one that warrants consideration. Many of the systems, priorities, and values of contemporary schooling are more conducive to training than to education as I have urged it be understood. Many of the instructional and curricular practices of schools are better suited to ends like conformity and “fitting in” than to the ethical discernment, independent thought, and creative dispositions rightly expected of education. It is all the more crucial, therefore, that music educators distinguish between the goals of schooling and those of education. Where the practices of schooling are at odds with the life-​enhancing aims of education, music education’s role might better be conceived as compensatory or corrective than supportive.14 In fact, music education’s relationship to the goals of general education needs to be both corrective (in the sense of remediating or countering educationally inappropriate instructional assumptions and practices) and supportive (in the sense that it is seen to contribute to the fundamental aims of education). Since the list of subjects claiming curricular legitimacy far exceeds available time and resources, it is necessary to show both that musical instruction is congruent with the aims of general education and that it addresses them in ways that are distinctive. There are two sets of circumstances under which music’s role in general education is compromised: in one, music fails to contribute to education’s general aims distinctively—​there is no compelling reason for music rather than, for example, another of “the arts”; in the other, its contribution is so utterly distinct that its commonality with other educational endeavors is not discernible. There are valid grounds for claiming special status for music, but “special” must not be taken to mean “utterly unique.” Claims to music’s uniqueness and intrinsic value are often accompanied by convictions that music is self-​evidently or self-​ sufficiently educational—​“educational” in ways that “just are” and require no rationalization or explanation. It is but a small additional step from such convictions to the kind of no-​holds-​barred advocacy that promises anything and everything in an effort to generate continued or increased support for musical instruction—​and an equally small step to anything-​goes practice in which any and all instructional efforts involving music are presumed worthwhile. Musical instruction must contribute distinctively to the aims of education, but its contribution must still be recognizably educational. A secure place for music in formal schooling thus depends on an intricate balance between its “special” status or distinctness and its discernible contribution

Music’s Place in Education

33

to educational goals. Absolute difference is irrelevance. Thus, music’s inclusion within the educational domain requires a clear accounting of how music education fulfills genuinely educational ends in ways only it can. A widespread traditional strategy involves claiming for music a distinctive kind of knowledge, experience, or awareness called “aesthetic.” This strategy fails to articulate substantially with many people’s understandings of education, provides relatively little by way of clear instructional guidance, and is notoriously elusive when it comes to evidence of having been attained—​of having made discernible differences in people’s lives. When our claims to educational status are based on abstract states of mind whose meaning and value are evident neither to our educational colleagues nor to those we teach, the assertion that music is educationally important for all is not particularly compelling. And where such arguments are seen to support musical instruction of any and all sorts, the sincerity of our commitment to educational aims appears dubious. Because of the delicacy of the balance between music’s claims to special status and its need to be compatible with general educational aims, it is imperative that music educators become more actively engaged with fellow-​educators in efforts to clarify shared understandings of the meaning and goals of education. Where education is unthinkingly equated to formal instruction in school settings,15 the norms and practices typical of such institutions will prevail; and where these are at odds with the goals and potentials of musical practice, music’s curricular status will remain marginal. We need therefore to engage more actively and effectively in efforts to refine and define the educational aims of schooling, while at the same time working to assure that musical instruction becomes more fully congruent with that mission.

Advocacy: How Can We Justify Music’s Role in Education in Ways Others Understand? When others are not responsive to or supportive of our aspirations as music educators, we tend to blame them: to conclude that they do not understand, and to search for better, more persuasive arguments. But the misunderstanding is at least partly our own. Where musical instruction and curricula are poor fits to the aims of general education and the institutional practices devoted to their pursuit, advocacy efforts will not improve our lot. We need to work to make instructional practices in music more congruent with truly educational aims. At the same time, we need to become more extensively engaged in efforts to assure that the understandings of education on which schooling is based are congruent with musical and instructional practices that take seriously their educational commitments.

34

Wayne D. Bowman

School-​based educational practice has become ever more “technicized,” driven by concerns for things like clarity, predictability, transparency, efficiency, and accountability. As education has given way to training (as educare has replaced educere), music instructional practices have followed suit: the life-​enhancing skills and capacities a musical education seeks to serve have been replaced by the rules, formulas, sequences, and prescriptions of instructional method. In gravitating toward these music instruction has unwittingly come to neglect the educational ends it is especially well suited to address. As the significance of music’s contributions to general education have become less and less apparent, music educators have found it increasingly necessary to resort to advocacy: arguments designed to persuade others of the importance and integrity of current practices. This strategy addresses symptoms rather than the cause of music education’s plight (Bowman 2005, 2010). Instead of critically examining and revising instructional practices, working to assure their alignment with educational goals, and rather than investing in the revision or renewal of educational goals, advocacy resorts to political persuasion: efforts to convince skeptical others, by any means possible, to support existing instructional habits. However, secure and durable advances in music’s educational status will be achieved only by reaching common understandings of the aims and processes of education; the natures and values of emerging musical practices; the intricate connections among all these; and the conditions necessary for their realization. The process is far more complicated than persuading others to accept our point of view, to support our values, or to endorse without change our customary musical practices. We must accept the limitations and the fallibility of our current habits, beliefs, and practices, and commit to making needed changes. Instead of winning support for established practices, beliefs, and resources—​instead of undertaking to show others the error of their ways—​we must accept that people’s perceptions of music education and their reluctance to support it often stem from shortcomings of our own: from failures to change with changing times. This is not to say there is no point to advocacy, but rather that advocacy efforts must be carefully linked to the contingencies of practice, and committed as deeply to making necessary adjustments as to winning greater resources and support. Advocacy claims that take the form “Music does X” seldom stand up to critical scrutiny because “music itself ”—​if it even exists—​does nothing. Because people’s responses to advocacy claims are almost invariably shaped by implicit recognition of their contingency, “speaking to others in ways they understand” requires that we accept responsibility for modifying our own actions and understandings at the same time. To proceed as if “they just don’t get it” is a strategy eventually doomed to failure. People are not stupid. Speaking to them in “ways they understand,” then, must be balanced by efforts to achieve better understandings of our own, understandings that acknowledge the evolving musical and educational needs of a twenty-​first-​century world. The missionary zeal of advocacy efforts must be balanced by fuller awareness of the enormous responsibilities that attend such claims, and must be matched by determination to modify customary practices.

Music’s Place in Education

35

The challenge, in other words, is not so much to make others understand and support us as to achieve mutual understandings and to ensure that our instructional practices continue to evolve in ways that make more fully evident the educational benefits of musical instruction and engagements. The educational ends of teaching are not inherent, automatic, or guaranteed irrespective of what we do and how we do it. The educational value of music is a function of the ways it enriches and enhances life possibilities and facilitates future growth. In a rapidly changing world this means that music education must be as concerned with changing itself as it is with winning the support of others.

Reflective Questions







1. If schooling is not generally designed to provide instruction in things that are effectively learned informally—​through processes, for instance, of socialization and enculturation—​on what grounds might music education’s recent endorsements of “informal” music education be based? 2. It might be argued that in many instances the means of music education have become its ends. Explain what this means, supporting your explanation with an example. What does this suggest about the relationship between educational means and ends? 3. Give several examples of current practices in music education that might (1) unfairly require each student to start anew, and (2) produce students who are incapable of addressing new problems. How do concerns like these translate into “conservative” or “progressive” orientations to education? 4. How does educating through music depend on educating in music? Why, then, would we not consider the latter more fundamental to music education? 5. Some would say the notion that music has “inherent” or “intrinsic” value is educationally irresponsible because it generates relativism in which any and all musical instruction is good, or “good enough.” Discuss.

NOTES 1. I have chosen to interpret and address these particular questions—​originally suggested as an organizational scheme by this volume’s editors—​rather literally here. Although I might well have taken a different approach, modifying the questions to address what one assumes was actually intended and thereby bypassing some of the criticisms I advance here (for instance, “Why should music be a part of the education of all children?” might reasonably have been taken as a shorthand version of “Should music be a part of the education of all children and, if so, why?”), I have deliberately

36

Wayne D. Bowman

posed them as they appear here, and for three reasons. First, I believe these ways of phrasing the questions are common and representative. Second, posing them this way is revealing and therefore analytically useful. And third, asking them in this particular way helps demonstrate the philosophical importance of (1) choosing words carefully, and (2) questioning questions. 2. Bass and Good (2004) point out that educere is in short supply in societies where “school has been thought of as a system to prepare well-​behaved citizens and good workers” (p. 3). In such situations, students have few meaningful opportunities to question and create: “A culture has been established that is remarkably resistant to change. When new teachers or administrators enter this culture, they are pressured from every side to conform to the cultural norm. If the culture cannot change them it attempts to drive them out. Generally, it is successful in one of the other of those endeavors” (p. 4). 3. Although I have chosen not to pursue it here, one might well ask: why restrict the question just to “children”? Why the apparent presumption that music (or education, for that matter) are here for solely or primarily the young? 4. Surely this is among the reasons for the crucial distinction between “music specialist” and “music education specialist” status. Being musical, or having been musically trained, is not sufficient to professional status in music education. This presents, I know, a major challenge to the way music education is conceived in many parts of the world, as well as the way it is most often conceived by professionally prepared musicians in North America. It is, however, a challenge that must be confronted if music is ever to reach its potential as a full partner in education. 5. Nor, I hasten to add, does anything else. In other words, this claim is not specific to music. The ideas of “intrinsic” or “inherent” value are, I submit, ideological ploys that serve to privilege certain views by exempting them from criticism and debate—​ claiming, in effect, that they are a priori rather than constructions. 6. An example of the latter, noneducative “use” of music—​and there are many—​is musical instruction that inadvertently teaches students that music is something for which they have no real talent. In such cases, music study compromises self-​worth and curtails continuing musical engagement. 7. Indeed, music instruction all too often consists of such imposition, proceeding on the belief that since music’s value is inherent, any kind of instruction will do, or is good enough. 8. I explore these distinctions in Bowman (2002). 9. If the sole or primary measure of music’s contribution to education is the pleasure it affords, there is no pressing need for professionally qualified instruction. 10. One possible answer to this question appeals precisely to music’s many valences—​its potential to educate on numerous different levels and in many various senses at once. Perhaps, on this view, one might argue that expertly guided musical experience is a multipurpose educational tool, by way of contrast to other areas of endeavor that are more single-​purpose. Although this argument has definite merit (and is potentially distinctive to music), it is not a very useful guide for instructional or curricular choices. 11. Or perhaps more accurately, concerns like these have become the domain of disciplines like sociology and therapy—​to the detriment, I would argue, of the music education profession’s understanding of music’s broadly educational potential. 12. This is not the place to pursue this issue in detail, but appeals to “feeling” are among what Alperson (1991) aptly describes as attempted “enhancements” to “aesthetic cognitivism.” Claims to “cognized feeling” or “feelingful cognition” as the basis for

Music’s Place in Education

37

music’s deepest values trouble me for many reasons, not least their gravitation toward receptive, “experiential” accounts of music’s worth—​in which the stance of the listener is wrongly (in my view) advanced as the definitive orientation to music. Things like action, participation, and productive engagements with music are, it seems to me, inadequately represented by both “feeling” and “knowing” accounts. Furthermore, the distinction between knowing and feeling on which many such accounts rest perpetuates a mind-​body dualism to which, I would like to believe, musical action offers a powerful antidote. 13. In the ever-​apt words of Mark Twain: “Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned.” 14. Again, Mark Twain’s words resonate: “Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” 15. Perhaps this is more aptly described as exposure than education?

REFERENCES Alperson, Philip. (1991). What should one expect from a philosophy of music education? Journal of Aesthetic Education 25, pp. 215–​42. Bass, Randall V., & Good, J. W. (2004). Educare and educere: Is a balance possible in the educational system? Educational Forum 68 (Winter), 161–​68. Bowman, W. (2002). Educating musically. In Richard Colwell & Carol Richardson (eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (pp.63–​84). New York: Oxford University Press. Bowman, W. (2005). To what question(s) is music advocacy the answer? International Journal of Music Education 23(August), 125–​29. Bowman, W. (2005). Music education in nihilistic times. Educational Philosophy and Theory (Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia). Special Issue. The Philosophy of Music Education: Contemporary Perspectives, 37(1) (February), 29–​46. Reprinted in David Lines (ed.), Music education for the new millennium: Theory and practice futures for music teaching and learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Bowman, W. (2010). Critical comments on music and music education advocacy. Music Forum 16(April), 31–​35. Craft, M. (1984). Education for diversity. In M. Craft (ed.), Education and cultural pluralism (pp. 5–​26). London & Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1983). The middle works of John Dewey (1921–​22). (Ed. Jo Ann Boydston) Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. James, W. (1899). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideals. Boston: George Ellis. Keil, C., & Feld, S. (1994). Music grooves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 3

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Marie McCarthy

Music educators internationally are united by a common purpose: to engage children and youth in music and to develop their artistic life and their humanity. To achieve that purpose, they advocate the values of music, develop instructional programs that are comprehensive and dynamic, and expand what is known about music teaching and learning through reflective practice and participation in research and inquiry. In these and other ways, music educators serve to build on past traditions and open the way to cultural transformation through the imaginative and creative contributions of a new generation of music-​makers. The process of music education is manifest uniquely in each national context, based on political, social, and cultural histories, geographical location, and economic circumstances. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical perspective on how music education has developed into a global community during the twentieth century, to examine trends and challenges that confront music educators at the beginning of the twenty-​first century, and to make projections about the future course of music education.

Formation of an International Community The rich international dialogue that is in place today was made possible by the valiant efforts of music educators in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who

International Perspectives

39

reached out beyond their own borders to examine music teaching and learning in other parts of the world. The formal organization of music education at the international level began in the early twentieth century during a series of meetings and conferences that took place between music educators in Europe and North America (McCarthy, 1993). These initial exchanges laid the groundwork for the international dialogue that took place after World War II in the context of the International Music Council under the aegis of UNESCO, leading to the founding of the International Society for Music Education (ISME) in 1953 (McCarthy, 1995). Early ISME leaders were motivated by a postwar climate of international cooperation and inspired by the hope that music as “an international language” of humankind could serve to unite people of differing viewpoints and perspectives. The Society launched an ambitious international agenda based on a broad vision of music and music education, defining ISME as an “interest group” with the purpose of collecting and disseminating information; facilitating the exchange of educators, music, and materials; setting up an international institute for music education; and, publishing an international journal of music education (McCarthy, 2004). Over 50 years later, developing international perspectives continues to be valued in music education. At the level of practice, such perspectives can provide a vital lens for critiquing practice and expanding philosophical viewpoints and pedagogical approaches. Comparative perspectives can also inspire music educators worldwide, knowing that what they do in their classrooms is part of a global mission to establish and maintain a presence for music in general education and to sensitize young people to the humanity of music in their lives and their cultures. Furthermore, the need for international dialogue and cooperation in music education is motivated by the realities of globalization and facilitated by communication networks. Kertz-​ Welzel (2008) writes: Comparative music education is not a luxury, but rather a necessity in the twenty-​ first century. Scholars and music teachers in many countries are struggling with similar problems such as teacher training, performance-​based or general music education, classroom management or standards in music education. (p. 439)

Studies that examine music education cross-​culturally are not new to the professional literature, but in the last two decades there has been a steady increase in the number of books that include perspectives of music educators from around the world on a topic of common interest—​for example, origins and foundations of music education, musicianship, policy, and research.1 For the purpose of this chapter, I drew on insights from these publications and related literature, as well as perspectives collected through an email questionnaire from scholars in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and Central and South America.2 I acknowledge the invaluable assistance of these scholars in providing information about the state of music education in their respective countries and regions. It would be impossible to include reference to all countries and educational contexts in this chapter, due to space limitations at one level but more significantly the lack of published information in English about music education in certain parts of the world. As

40

Marie McCarthy

one might expect, the countries whose music education systems are documented most extensively are those that belong to the Very High, High, or Medium Human Development categories on the UN Human Development Index (HDI).3 Current trends and challenges vary according to the region of the world and the developmental stage of music education in a particular country. While the implementation of technology may be a concern in a developed Western country such as the United States or Finland, the education of qualified music teachers may be of paramount importance in a Central American or African country where classroom teachers are frequently responsible for music instruction. At the same time, there are common areas of concern across countries and regions of the world that fall under these areas: (1) the status of music in education, (2) music education advocacy, (3) curriculum development and reform, (4) whose music is presented in the curriculum, (5) renewing the culture of pedagogy, and (6) professional networks and research. In advance of discussing these topics, a description of the meanings of the term “music education” cross-​culturally will provide a context for the overall structures that are in place in various countries.

Defining the Spaces of Music Education In the second decade of the twenty-​first century, the term “music education” is used in a variety of ways across countries and continents. It describes contexts in which music teaching and learning occurs, degree programs that prepare music teachers, and the professional organizations that serve to advance the cause of music in education. The term is also used in relation to the journals and magazines that promote music education and disseminate research, the conferences and events where music educators come together to share their experiences and practices, and the field of research that addresses a myriad of topics rooted in the practices of music teaching and learning. In many places, such as Finland and Italy, the term is used to refer to music in general education as part of compulsory schooling, as distinct from schools of music or music programs in the community. In others, it stands for the school subject itself. A second set of meanings revolves around “music education” as meaning that which takes place in general education, as well as in “any setting or process in which music is learned or taught” (Australia), for example: “any activity of music teaching and learning, formal or informal” (Greece), or “learning to play an instrument (e.g. pull-​out programs in the regular school day, private instruction, Local Education Authority programs), and community music” (England). The presence of music in educational systems is often hidden by the manner in which it is embedded in the formal language of curriculum. The most frequent instance of this occurring is the case of music education as arts education. Such

International Perspectives

41

practice is widespread, especially at the primary school level, where one finds music as an integral part of “arts education” in Namibia, “integrated arts” in Mexico, “artistic expression” in Spain and Panama, “arts expression” in Guatemala, or “communicative-​cultural studies” in Nicaragua. A major challenge in comparing the use of the term “music education” in various national contexts is the limitation set by translation and the lack of direct language to encompass the term. For example, in Germany, there are a number of terms specific to music education—​Musikunterricht, Schulmusik, Musikpädagogik and Musikdidaktik.4 In Lithuania, the term “education” has multiple meanings and may invoke nurturing, training, fostering, pedagogy, or didactics. In Brazil, the term can stand for a specific field of knowledge; a science (similar to the German Musikpädagogik); a social, human practice; courses in teacher education; or formal and nonformal music education, such as a school of samba. A study of the language used cross-​culturally to define “music education” would be valuable, as it reflects the historical development of music, cultural values, educational priorities, and pedagogical traditions in particular educational settings.

Status of Music in Education The status of music in public education is influenced by a wide variety of economic, political, historical, and educational factors that serve to determine its direction, quality, and sustainability. There is no one document that provides data on the status of music in public education internationally. However, a recent research project (Bamford, 2006) commissioned by UNESCO surveyed the impact of the arts within general education, gathering data from over 40 countries and organizations. Selected overall findings indicate that (1) the arts appear in the educational policy in almost every country in the world; (2) there is a gulf between lip service given to arts education and the provisions provided within schools; (3) the term “arts education” is culture and context specific; (4) economically developed countries tend to embrace new media in the curriculum; (5) in economically developing countries, greater emphasis is placed on culture specific arts; and (6) there is a need for more training for key providers at the coalface of the delivery chain (e.g. teachers, artists, and other pedagogical staff) (p. 11). In countries that are economically developed and relatively stable, music has had a historical foundation as a school subject for well over a century. The entry of music into education is usually staggered, beginning as an optional subject and eventually achieving compulsory status. This is evident in the case studies presented in The Origins and Foundations of Music Education (Cox & Stevens, 2017), in which the contributing authors make distinctions between the time when compulsory education was introduced into a country, the entry of music into compulsory education, and the introduction of music as a compulsory subject within the curriculum.

42

Marie McCarthy

Furthermore, there is a gulf between what is stated in educational policy concerning music in education and the provisions made within schools, similar to Bamford’s (2006) findings in relation to arts education. According to the survey responses I collected, music educators in countries in Africa and Central America qualify their observations of the status of music in education by pointing out that although music may be mandated in official documents, several factors act as barriers to the full implementation of the policy at the grassroots level; for example, the absence of music in the national curriculum for primary school in Panama, the quality of teacher preparation in Guatemala and Nicaragua, or a perception among parents in Namibia that musical arts do not belong to the school curriculum since they are already integrated into community life. In countries and regions where music is longer established and more developed in education, the implementation of mandatory music in the curriculum is typically strong—​for example, music is mandatory in grades 1–​9 in Greece, Nicaragua, and Lithuania. This corresponds with systems that require music for ages 5–​14 or 5–​15, as in the United Kingdom and Argentina, respectively. Compulsory music education was introduced in Brazil in 2008 when a public law established the mandatory teaching of music in the schools. Findings reported from seventeen countries5 in (Music Educators National Conference [MENC]/​National Association for Music Education [NAfME]) survey of music education policy show that compulsory music education is maintained through early to middle adolescence, after which elective music is offered (Hull, 2004).

Music Education Advocacy There is evidence of a significant increase in the number of agencies and groups participating in arts advocacy in recent years. Formal music education advocacy movements began in the United States with the Music Educators National Conference in the 1960s (Mark, 2002), and the organization has since provided advocacy models for other countries (Lindemann, 2005). For example, when ISME began its advocacy campaign in the 1990s, it drew inspiration from MENC’s advocacy initiatives. Subsequently, ISME national affiliates became active in advocacy efforts—​Società Italiana per l’Educazione Musicale (SIEM) in Italy and Associacao Brasileira de Educacao Musical (ABEM) in Brazil. In countries such as Mexico, where there is no professional organization of music educators, without such a lobbying group, advocacy is not strong. In these contexts, related organizations often serve in the role of advocates, for example the Latin American Forum for Music Education (Foro Latinoamericana de Educación Musical [FLADEM]) or general education organizations in Central America. The need for advocacy is not limited to countries that are establishing music in public education or developing a music education professional presence. In

International Perspectives

43

some contexts, curricular reform can have negative consequences for music in education. Freed-​Garrod, Kojima, and Garrod (2008) report a steady reduction of time allocated to the arts in grades 1–​9 in Japan, prompting the national arts education associations to convene a conference entitled “An Urgent Symposium on Significance of Arts (Music and Visual Art) in School Curriculum” in 2006. Jank (2009) reports a decline in music education in German schools and a lack of government support to sustain the subject in the curriculum. The German case study illustrates that although music may be long established in an educational system, its value and function in education need to be constantly advocated by all stakeholders. The advocacy campaign of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) in the United States in the 1990s, Music Makes the Difference, and The Music Manifesto, a collaborative advocacy government initiative in the United Kingdom set up in 2004, represent two national models of advocacy engaging a broad constituency of stakeholders. The goal of both campaigns was to ensure that all children and young people have access to high-​ quality music education. Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States are economically developed countries in the category of Very High on the HDI scale; yet the need to remain vigilant in national music education advocacy is clear. On what basis is music advocated? The focus changes according to the values and ideologies of the time, as well as what is known about the impact of music on human development (see Bowman, ­chapter 2, and Mota & Figueiredo, ­chapter 10). From earlier rationales that focused on religious, civic, social, aesthetic, emotional, and political values of music education, contemporary statements on the educational value of music highlight its potential to nurture creativity and stimulate innovation, contribute to the development of neuropsychological functions, provide enrichment for students of underprivileged and marginalized groups, and develop cultural values and global citizenship. Two examples of music serving in the name of social inclusion are the El Sistema movement in Venezuela, and the recent Afghan National Institute of Music (ANIM) established in 2010, an initiative of the Ministry of Education developed in conjunction with Monash University, Australia, supported by several international sponsors, and under the direction of musicologist Ahmad Sarmast. Describing the Institute, Sarmast (2010) writes: [It] has a strong commitment to support the most disadvantaged group in Afghan society—​the orphans and street working kids. ANIM gives them a vocation and helps them become professional and self-​sustaining musicians, contributing significantly to improve their social and economic status while they also benefit from the healing power of music to ease their trauma and grief.

El Sistema is a publicly financed, voluntary sector string music education program in Venezuela. Its founder, José Antonio Abreu, has been recognized internationally for his vision for music education and the success of the program that began with 11 students in 1975 and now reaches more than 250,000 children who participate in instrumental education programs in Venezuela. The majority of the children come

44

Marie McCarthy

from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, and the goal of transforming lives through musical participation has remained constant throughout the program’s 35-​year history (https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​El_​Sistema). The influence of the El Sistema model of music education abroad shows how the vision of one advocate in a Central American country can inspire musicians and administrators across several continents (see http://​elsistemausa.org; http://​ makeabignoise.org.uk/​sistema-​scotland/​; http://​www.sistemaengland.org.uk). The “new” globalization of music education6 is seen in examples such as El Sistema. It is also evident in groups such as ISME, the UNESCO-​sponsored World Conference on Arts Education held in 2006 and 2012, and the World Alliance for Arts Education (WAAE), founded in Viseu, Portugal, in 2006 (see http://​waae.edcp.educ.ubc.ca/​ wp-​content/​uploads/​2016/​08/​History-​of-​WAAE.pdf). ISME continues to expand its reach to places that traditionally did not participate in the Society’s activities, holding conferences in Kuala Lumpur in 2006, Beijing in 2010, and continents that had never hosted the conference since ISME’s founding in 1953 (namely, South America, when the World Conference was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2014). One of the primary outcomes of the First World Conference on Arts Education that was held in Lisbon in March 2006 was the Road Map for Arts Education (UNESCO, 2006), which provided advocacy guidelines and strategies for “the strengthening of arts education at country level.” The Second World Conference, held in Seoul in 2012, produced the Seoul Agenda: Goals for the Development of Arts Education. From the individual teacher who campaigns to keep music in the school curriculum to international organizations that promote the cause of music/​arts education, advocacy is integral to the development of healthy and effective music programs globally.

Curriculum Development and Reform The status of music as a school subject is reflected in the way it is presented in a curriculum document. It may appear within an arts curriculum, as a subject for a national examination, or in the form of multiple curricula, such as that found in the standards for general, choral, and instrumental music in the U.S. National Standards for Music Education. A national curriculum can serve to set standards, provide unity of purpose across states and provinces, create a framework and general guidelines for local educational agencies, serve as an examination syllabus, or highlight the importance of certain goals such as literacy, creativity, diversity, or inclusion. The creation of a national music curriculum occurs within varying institutional contexts and collaborative arrangements, depending in part on the size of the country, the structure of the educational system, the relationship of national (federal) and local (provincial, territorial) levels, the infrastructures of arts and

International Perspectives

45

music organizations, and the intended agency of the document. Central government is typically active in the shaping of curriculum, with varying degrees of input from related bodies and organizations. Reports from music educators in individual countries indicate that these groups range from a national Arts Curriculum Panel in Namibia to the Arts Council in Belize and to professional music organizations in the United States and Brazil. In Australia, input is received from teachers, syllabus experts, performers, composers, and community members; a host of different agencies influence curriculum development in Hong Kong—​the Education Bureau, Curriculum Development Council, Education Commission, university sector, school boards, and parent associations. Curricular leadership in Germany is provided by professors of music education at universities and music schools, music education societies and conferences, companies like instrument makers and publishers, and teachers at the state level. In the United Kingdom, curriculum leadership is forthcoming from universities and from the National Association of Music Educators (NAME), while central government is the primary guiding force in the process. A clear hierarchy of leadership is evident in Namibia, where an arts coordinator within the National Institute for Curriculum Development under the Ministry of Education organizes a national arts curriculum panel of educators representing different regions, school levels, and arts subjects to develop curriculum. In some countries, the model of broad participation in curriculum development is now emerging—​for example, in the past, the curriculum development process in Lithuania occurred with little input from the music education community. A call for reform was issued to advocate the inclusion of teacher associations and teachers in the process. Curricular reform cross-​culturally in recent decades has strengthened the status of music in the official curriculum or formalized the arts within education. The 1990s witnessed the launch of a national curriculum for music in England in 1992 (with a third revision in 2008), National Standards for Arts Education in the United States in 1994 (revised in 2014), Statements and Profiles for the Arts in Australia in 1994, and a National Curriculum Standard in Japan in 1998 with revised objectives for music education (Murao & Wilkins, 2001). Reform is not limited to countries in the Very High HDI category. Music was integral to the New National Curriculum Reform movement which began in China in 1999, and in Hong Kong the arts were named one of eight Key Learning Areas in 2000. In Mexico, a national curriculum reform movement for basic education began in 2008. A National Curriculum for Basic Education–​Primary Level (Plan de Estudios para Educación Básica–​Primaria), was issued in 2009 which included a national curriculum for arts education at the primary level; arts education curriculum for all educational levels (preschool, primary and secondary) was articulated as part of the final curriculum reform document in 2011 (Reforma Integral de la Educación Básica, RIEB). Music educators who were surveyed for this chapter reported several recurring issues in relation to the implementation of music curriculum. They include sufficient time in the school schedule (Argentina, Hong Kong, Namibia, Spain), lack of parental support (Spain, Namibia, South Africa), provision of equipment

46

Marie McCarthy

and technological media (Greece, Hong Kong, Lithuania, Namibia, South Africa), lack of resources and learning materials (Israel, Namibia), and challenges with implementing cross-​curricular and/​or integrated arts curriculum (Brazil, Greece, Hong Kong, Namibia). Of central concern globally is teacher qualification, in the context of both music specialist and generalist teachers (Argentina, Finland, Honduras, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, South Africa). In some countries where music is compulsory in public education, there is no guarantee that there will be a qualified teacher to deliver the curriculum. The presence of qualified teachers may vary according to the location of the school, with a higher percentage of specialists in city schools when compared to rural areas. In cases where classroom teachers are charged with the responsibility to teach music, they are reported as lacking the expertise and the confidence to teach music or to integrate it into classroom life and the general curriculum. In more advanced countries where music is established in the curriculum and music is taught by specialists, teachers frequently do not receive the kind of professional development that would help them to implement a curriculum based on innovations and state-​of-​the-​art thinking and practice in music education. Areas such as integrated and cross-​thematic curriculum, creative approaches to pedagogy, and the use of technology surface as particularly challenging in the implementation of music curriculum.

Whose Music Is School Music? Of all the overarching trends and patterns of development in music education internationally in the past half century, the question of whose music belongs in the school curriculum has been played out across all professional contexts, from policy-​ making and standards setting to pre-​K to 12 and teacher education curriculum, from professional development programs and conferences to research agendas. What motivated this robust discussion? The answer is complex, since it involved an interplay of political, social, cultural and technological changes that impacted the very paradigms on which the profession functioned for over one hundred years. An overview of these changes would include the civil rights movement in the United States inspiring other oppressed peoples to fight for freedom, unprecedented migration of peoples across continents, with ensuing demographic changes in school populations, and the emergence of new democracies in postcommunist and postcolonial societies. The expansion of mass media and telecommunications and the effects of globalization on people’s access to, preference for, and participation in music are also central to the calls for reform. In what ways did these monumental influences impact music in education? Although the answer is context specific, for the purpose of this discussion I  will focus on a topic that seems to cross several of the aforementioned changes and link

International Perspectives

47

with a central question when planning curriculum—​whose music is included in the curriculum? (see Schippers & Shehan Campbell, ­chapter  5). Historically, this has been a sensitive issue in music education, given the perceived indoctrinatory potential of song or hymn lyrics, the association of certain music with particular social classes, and the generational difference between traditional classical offerings typical of school music and the musical preferences of students. Three overlapping types of rationale underlie efforts to change the canon of school music from a Western-​focused, classical repertoire to a broader, more egalitarian and global representation of musical practices and cultures. They are (1) recognition that the culture of all ethnic groups is valid and worthy of inclusion in public education, (2) the impact of new immigrants on political ideology and educational policy in Australia, Europe, and North America, and (3) the formation of new nations with a focus on building national identity through music education. The earlier exclusion of folk or traditional music from the school curriculum was rooted in social and political value systems, from colonialism to social elitism. There is abundant evidence that these musical genres are no longer socially repressed but rather are in the mainstream of education. Tucker and Bowen (2001) describe the journey of Caribbean folk music: In the countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean, there is therefore a shared aim to elevate the folk music of the region from an earlier position of being seen as inferior to European classical music, to being a valued and worthwhile form of musical expression in all schools. The general principle should be one of bringing school music and community music closer, so that the one can inform and, where possible, enrich the other. School music has tended to be a hybrid that is often removed from society and lacking in the emotional vibrancy that characterises Caribbean music. (p. 26)

Irish traditional music witnessed a similar journey, from being associated with lower social classes in colonial times and excluded from school music to gaining a place in the national music curriculum in independent Ireland (McCarthy, 1999). The narratives surrounding the introduction of folk and traditional music into the curriculum vary considerably. As new immigrant groups settled in North America, efforts were made to represent their music and culture in the school curriculum—​for example, Southeast Asian, Latin American, and African populations in the United States. In countries with recently established democracies such as Lithuania or South Africa as well as others with a rich musical heritage, there is a strong emphasis on including local music in the official curriculum with the goal of building national identity. The use of adapted pre-​Hispanic musical instruments in Mexico, pre-​Hispanic dance and song in El Salvador, or traditional instruments as well as Byzantine music in special music schools in Greece are representative of music education linked to the formation of national identity. Recognition of cultural diversity within nations is reflected in the promotion of local and regional musical traditions. Evidence of this is found internationally, from Spain to Namibia, Argentina to Canada, and Israel to Brazil. Research studies of music and culture in ethnomusicology and folklore provide a foundation for

48

Marie McCarthy

developing educational materials (see Nettl, ­chapter 6). Furthermore, the promotion of national identity is not limited to the inclusion of folk or traditional music in the curriculum. Contemporary classical and popular music are also integral to the formation of identity. The inclusion of a diverse range of musical genres, then, from those representing the student population and school community to a broad spectrum of musical genres, is a priority. When popular music is included, it is typically found in the curriculum of the secondary school. Genres of pop music used in the curriculum often include local music—​African pop in South Africa or Canto-​pop in Hong Kong. In Finland, popular music instruments are used increasingly in instrumental music tuition in music schools. The Musical Futures project based in the United Kingdom is an initiative “to find new and imaginative ways of engaging all young people, aged 11–​18, in meaningful music activities.” (http://​www.musicalfutures.org). The goal of informalizing and personalizing music pedagogy that is at the heart of the project aligns well with efforts in traditional music education to bridge the worlds of school music and music that influences students’ preferences and their motivation to participate. The expansion of music repertoire in recent decades brought to the surface a number of challenging questions about transmitting music founded on aesthetics different to those of Western music. Such music typically has different functions in society, is orally transmitted, and is unfamiliar to the majority of teachers in Western schools. Moreover, each musical practice or genre has its own historical roots, meanings, and international cultural profile, factors that come into play when one country appropriates its own or another’s music for the purpose of using it in the school curriculum. A considerable body of research on the use of world music in the curriculum over the past two decades reveals interesting patterns about the complex interaction of music, culture, and education. Southcott and Joseph (2007) point out that Indian culture was presented in stereotypic ways under colonial rule in Australia until recently, when educators began to engage with more authentic intercultural understandings. Writing on the Hong Kong curriculum, Ho (2007) concludes that because of complications between Hong Kong and mainland China due to colonial presence in the past, there is a dominance of Western and global musics over traditional Chinese and local cultures in the curriculum. Efforts to introduce Western teachers and students to music of other cultures take a variety of paths. Campbell (2001) and Emmanuel (2005) report on the impact of immersion internships in Native American and urban cultures, respectively, on the skills and dispositions of prospective music teachers. Chen-​Hafteck (2007) concludes that multicultural music can motivate learning when it provides novelty and interest, is relevant and meaningful, and is based on a student-​centered curriculum, while Hennessy (2005), after describing a project to establish taiko drumming in southwest England, argues that “there is clearly something compelling about the unfamiliarity, the otherness of such musics which motivates us” (p. 218). Meanwhile, the cultural familiarity of mariachi for Mexican children is seen by Clark (2005) as instilling pride in cultural heritage.

International Perspectives

49

As evident from these and other studies noted earlier, responses to the question of whose music to include in the curriculum are not uniform across contexts. There are several possible factors that can influence what is taught—​central government, school policy-​makers, parents and greater school community, the demographic makeup of students, teacher readiness, and not least, student response and interest.

Renewing the Culture of Pedagogy It is reasonable to argue that at no other time in music education history has there been such a critical moment for defining the future of professional practice. And at no other time has there been such a dynamic range of opportunities to promote music, disseminate it, and make it a part of lifelong learning (see Welch & McPherson, ­chapter 1). The transformation of pedagogy is central to capitalizing on the opportunities to broaden the scope and deepen the impact of music education in our time and that to come. For the purpose of this discussion, discourse about pedagogy questions assumptions about the role of the teacher and learner, and revisits beliefs about the nature of musicality and the development of musicianship. It further questions methodology, ethical considerations underlying classroom interaction, and values implicit in the relationship between music-​making in schools and in the culture at large. It is imperative to assess past practices as a basis for speculating about future directions. Campbell (2004) addressed some patterns that permeate Western and colonial-​based music pedagogy: School music programs in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and in parts of Asia and Latin America have been successful in developing western-​oriented musical skills and understandings, and are celebrated for the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches that produce musically literate singers and players. Yet this is but one model, and a colonial one at that, which fixes European music (and its staff notation) and its pedagogical processes highest in a hierarchy atop the musical expressions and instructional approaches of so many other rich traditions. Should such a model be continued in the twenty-​first century, in a time of post-​colonial and democratic reconsiderations of cultures and their perspectives? (p. xvi)

Answering the question posed here is not as simple as it might seem. It opens a space for more questions related to the role of Western literacy in music education, the foundations of pedagogy in European and American treatises and methodologies, and the reproduction of pedagogical beliefs and values at a time of profound change in the way music functions within and across societies, and cultures within them. Responses to this question will vary according to the developmental stage of music in education, the priorities of music educators, the quality of intellectual leadership that influences teachers’ thinking, and the resources available

50

Marie McCarthy

to effect change, especially the quality of professional development at pre-​and in-​ service levels of teacher education. The power of particular methodologies in defining pedagogy cannot be underestimated. The widespread and enduring influence of pedagogues such as Guido d’Arezzo, Pierre Galin, or John Curwen and the universal use of methods and approaches founded in the twentieth century such as Dalcroze, Kodály, Orff, and Suzuki attest to the manner in which a method can take root, be adapted in different cultural contexts, and become embedded in pedagogy. Music educators report widespread use of Orff and Kodály, while others emphasize that an eclectic approach is found most frequently or that instruction does not depend on mainstream methodologies. Some respondents refer to pedagogical approaches that have been developed and are popular within a national context—​John Paynter and Murray Shaffer in Argentina, Chile, and Jamaica, Edgar Willems in Brazil, Veronika Cohen in Israel, and Violeta Hemsy de Gainza and Ana Lucia Frega in Argentina. There is a call for pedagogies that embrace the changing manifestations of musicianship (Leong, 2003) and accommodate the transmission of music from diverse genres and traditions (Campbell, 2005). Furthermore, pedagogy must function around a more student-​centered approach versus a traditional authoritarian view of music teaching, and it must accommodate learner expectations in a technologically mediated world and move toward “transformative music engagement” for the learner (see O’Neill, ­chapter 9). Authors from five continents representing musical theatre, jazz, classical and indigenous music have confronted the issues, trends, and possibilities of musicianship in the twenty-​first century (Leong, 2003). The breadth of vision shown by authors as they expand the very idea of musicianship in contemporary society is noteworthy.7 A  common thread running through several of these transformative views is the role of creativity. McMillan (in Leong, 2003) boldly predicts that “creative activities, long marginalized but now mandated in the curricula of many students throughout the world, will be embraced for the means by which they can equip our future generations with the opportunity to sing their song, hopefully with a personal voice” (p. 194). Gould (in Leong, 2003) reminds the reader that in a time of such change and possibility, “for some in music that will demand a quantum shift in teaching and learning methodologies” (p. 87). There is evidence of emerging pedagogies that align with these calls for reform and expansion of pedagogical vision. The Musical Futures project in the United Kingdom addresses the gap between formal and informal music education at the secondary level. The development of Community Music as an academic field presents pedagogical models that are of interest to school music educators (Koopman, 2007). Music educators internationally are confronting the limitations of Western pedagogy in the context of teaching diverse musics that are rooted in different worldviews and transmission practices. Intercultural music education, O’Flynn (2005) writes, “will draw on a variety of performing and learning practices, in addition to a wide range of beliefs and values that are pertinent to the musical systems in question” (p. 191). The dialogue conducted in the Cultural Diversity in

International Perspectives

51

Music Education forum (CDIME) since 1995 has been invaluable to the advancement of understanding and the provision of models for teaching diverse musics in formal education settings. Finally, the work of scholars engaged in comparative studies of pedagogy begins to address the commonality of issues across national borders and the complexity of political, cultural, and social values as they shape the realities of music teaching and learning. In Marsh’s (2008) study of musical play in Australia, Norway, England, the United States, and Korea, she acknowledged “the contextual nature of many characteristics of children’s musical play,” as well as the possibility for making some generalizations (p. 310). Burnard et al. (2008) studied the pedagogies of four teachers working in challenging contexts in Spain, Australia, Sweden, and England. The focus on inclusive pedagogies illuminated how these teachers provided nurturing learning environments where all children are achieving and participating, despite challenges stemming from poverty, class, race, religion, to name some. The mandate to reconceptualize pedagogy is clear. The very ways students engage with music have changed, the hierarchical values associated with repertoire are no longer in vogue, and technological media have opened up new and unprecedented ways of accessing, creating, and communicating with music. Research findings and perspectives point the way to a more dynamic, innovative pedagogy that is resonant of and responsive to music and culture in the twenty-​first century.

Professional Networks and Forums for Research As professional organizations in music and music education developed in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a culture of research and inquiry was advanced within them. Although a network for the formal organization and dissemination of research began to develop in the United States in the early twentieth century with the Educational Research Council of the Music Supervisors National Conference in 1918, the founding of the Journal of Research in Music Education in 1953 represented the first major step in the development of a formal, peer-​reviewed research forum for music educators. Beginning in 1960, the ISME published a journal, International Music Educator, followed by the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education in 1963 and the Australian Journal of Music Education in 1967. An international forum for researchers was established in 1968 with the first meeting of the ISME Research Commission. Over the years, this commission has provided an important network for music educators to learn from one another about research priorities and findings in different parts of the world. These initial research initiatives were followed by the founding of several more research journals in Canada, Japan, and England.8 By 1990, music education researchers in Australia,

52

Marie McCarthy

Europe, and North America were served by numerous forums for sharing their research in journals and professional meetings. The number of journals, including online journals, founded since 1990 has increased and diversified in scope and function, with some journals founded in countries other than the United States (e.g. Music Education Research, Research Studies in Music Education). Just as the status of music education varies across cultures and continents, there is also considerable variation in the state of research in various countries. In a special issue of Psychology of Music titled “Mapping Music Education Research: International Perspectives,” Welch (2004) writes: [I]‌t would appear that relatively “young” research cultures exist for music education in South America and Hong Kong. The researchers report that they are adapting and transforming western (often English language-​based and primarily northern hemisphere) research perspectives in order to make sense of music education in their own localities. Nevertheless, the diversity exhibited in the research overviews from Scandinavia, Germany, the USA and Australia are a reminder of the breadth within these more established research traditions and also of how priorities and “significant questions” can shift between and within generations, as well as between countries. (p. 270)

The developed research profiles of countries such as Australia, Canada, England, Germany, and the United States are rooted in strong national associations, doctoral programs, well-​established journals, and conferences to disseminate research, and in some cases the opportunity to be awarded grants from government and other agencies to fund research projects. Where no organization of music educators exists, the infrastructure for research is underdeveloped or nonexistent, for example in Mexico or South Africa, Lithuania or Israel. In these and other countries, research is conducted within undergraduate and graduate degree programs or faculty projects at the tertiary level. Of the South American countries, research is most developed in Argentina and Brazil. Several factors influenced these developments, including the contributions of music educators who completed doctoral degrees abroad and returned to their home countries, the founding of the National Association for Research and Graduate Studies in Music (ANPPOM) in 1988, and ongoing exchanges with music educators in Britain since the 1980s (Hentschke & Martinez, 2004). Leadership is provided by ABEM, which organizes regional and national meetings and publishes a journal, Revista da ABEM. Some countries are continuing to build a research profile linked to a music education organization or third-​level institution. The Greek Society for Music Education, established in 1997, promotes research through a biennial Panhellenic conference and an annual refereed journal, Musical Pedagogics. Several research groups exist in Finland, supported by the Finnish Society for Music Education SuomenMusiikkikasvatusseura, the Finnish Journal of Music Education, published by the Sibelius Academy, and the Nordic Network for Research in Music Education. Playing a similar leadership role, the Hong Kong Institute of Education publishes the Asia-​Pacific Journal for Arts Education.

International Perspectives

53

Traditions of music education research are changing. First, there is an increase in collaborative research projects, frequently authored by scholars from different countries, as evident in sources cited in this chapter. Scholars are devoting more attention to topics that attract government funding:  topics related to the use of music education to improve the quality of life for children and youth of marginalized groups or those who are challenged by disabilities. Music industry is funding research projects, a trend that introduced new ethical issues to the research process. Centers of music education research play a significant role in advancing particular areas of inquiry, facilitating team-​based, collaborative projects, and attracting funds for large-​scale projects, for example, the Canadian Music Education Research Centre at the University of Toronto, the Music Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the iMERC (International Music Education Research Centre) at the University of London. In sum, there is a vibrant research culture in countries with established research traditions, and evidence of considerable interest and activity in research in countries where music education is developing a profile in higher education.

Shaping the Future of Music Education International perspectives in music education are founded on and dominated by narratives from Western countries and those influenced by the colonial presence of European countries. The voices of music educators and narratives of music education in several countries are not present in the discussion, countries that may bring quite different perspectives to the forum. As a professional network, ISME continues to make progress in reaching out to music educators around the world, encouraging the participation of developing countries through differentiated membership fees based on the HDI, complimentary conference registration, and regional conferences. Participation of the Republic of China in ISME is a major step forward toward initiating dialogue between music educators from the eastern hemisphere and the rest of the world. As Charles Seeger (UNESCO, 1955) put it in his proposal for an international society, “we have much to learn from each other” (p. 329). In the context of a global community, we not only learn from each other, but also increase collective agency to effect change for the benefit of music education. Furthermore, collective resources enable us to carry out collaborative projects and to engage in comparative research studies. Most importantly, as we discover more about the effects of music education on children and youth in different cultural contexts, we are in a better position to articulate the values of music participation in human development and in social life. As music educators look to the future, what themes and challenges are likely to dominate the profession? What forces will direct the course of music education? I  will address these questions based on the premise that the discipline of music

54

Marie McCarthy

education is undergoing a crisis of identity in relation to several dimensions of its practices. By a crisis of identity, I mean that assumptions about and traditions of formal music education are being challenged and interrogated in light of fundamental changes rooted in several related factors. They are political ideology, expanding global consciousness, communications and technology, educational priorities, the knowledge base about human functioning, and interactions that occur among all of these realities in the twenty-​first century. Music education occurs both inside the school and in partner organizations and institutes outside the school. How will these sites of music education, of which school music is but one, albeit an important one, interact to strengthen overall access to music education? How will interaction and collaboration among partners lead to hybrid models that provide high-​quality and comprehensive programs that are resonant of community needs and resources? Might such collaborative models facilitate intergenerational music education and situate music learning in a lifespan context? In such a scenario, and with more stakeholders invested in local music education, the advocacy lobby will likely have greater agency in policy-​making. In countries where music education in beginning to find a foothold in public education, how will educators learn from the legacy of formal music education in developed countries? A second area of identity crisis is the placement of music within arts education in many educational systems. In countries where music has a developed curricular identity such as the United States, this proves to be a challenge since the interactions between the professional worlds of music, art, dance, and theatre education are minimal, and music teachers typically do not identify themselves as arts teachers. At the other end of the scale are countries where the first entry of music into the official curriculum is through an arts requirement. And in between are contexts such as Australia, where music has a strong curricular status and professional history and at the same time is presented in the curriculum within a group of arts subjects. Given that UNESCO and national governments recognize music as an arts subject, it would seem wise to capitalize on that reality and forge relationships with teachers of other arts and their professional organizations. The challenge will be to maintain a separate curricular status and disciplinary identity for music in an era of increasing interdisciplinary thinking in education. A third source of identity crisis is accommodating alternative pedagogies within the practices of traditional, time-​ honored European methodologies. Notions of teacher-​centered pedagogy and music literacy are challenged as technology and constructivist paradigms of learning assume a role in instruction, and where proficient levels of musical accomplishment do not depend on knowledge of Western notation. Expanding the notion of musicianship and ways of being a musician is essential to resolving this dilemma. Related to this tension is the breakdown of the school music canon of repertoire and the entry of popular and nontraditional musics into the spaces of classroom music. Musical values and pedagogical traditions are challenged, giving way to a more socially and culturally inclusive curriculum.

International Perspectives

55

The global-​local dialectic created by the forces of globalization is yet another point of tension in shaping curriculum at the local and national levels. What criteria are used to achieve a sound relationship between the development of music, here and now in this place, with an ever-​expanding global consciousness? What will characterize an era of postglobalization in terms of balancing local, national, and global musics? How will music function in such an era? And what will the implications be for the transmission of music? As the music industry represents a major force in the globalization of music, in what ways will its relationship to music education be sustained? With these and related issues being played out on the global tapestry of music education, it is clear that music education is a shared social responsibility. The profession’s response to this reality will determine the sustainability and direction of music education in future decades. Groups such as UNESCO and ISME play an increasingly important role in developing awareness of this responsibility, but it also resides in the actions of individual teachers and national organizations. As the interdependence of nations assumes more importance in the imagination of peoples worldwide, the realization will become clear that each group or nation has something different to contribute to the tapestry of music education. As new threads are woven, all music educators will benefit from the images created, the perspectives gained, and the humanity encountered in the process. I started out with a statement that music educators are bound together as a global community by a common purpose. As the century unfolds, sustained international dialogue and collaboration among music education professionals will play an increasingly important role in determining the scope, quality, and impact of music education.

Reflective Questions







1. What role is assigned to music education in the primary and secondary school curricula in your country? How is it named and categorized? What does its curricular status reveal about the value of music in school and community, as well as in the nation at large? 2. What is the relationship between music and the other arts in the education system? Consider the findings that Bamford (2006) presents (see section on “Status of Music in Education”) and evaluate them in the context of your national system of education. 3. What formal and/​or informal strategies are used to advocate music education in your country? How can music educators and other stakeholders unite their efforts to strengthen the place of music in education? 4. What curricular issues dominate music education today? Trace their origin in your local or national context and then compare with other nations.

56

Marie McCarthy 5. Identify key issues that you believe will confront the music education profession in the next few decades in your part of the world. For each one, trace its origins and project how the issue will shape the course of music education in the short and long term.

Acknowledgments I wish to express my gratitude to scholars who provided valuable perspectives on music education in their countries and regions:  Polyvios Androutsos (Greece), José Luis Aróstegui (Spain), Eva Brand, Veronika Cohen, Dochy Lichtensztajn, and Yael Shai (Israel), Luciana Del-​Ben (Brazil), Peter Dunbar-​Hall (Australia), Ana-​Lucia Frega (Argentina), James Garnett (England), Patricia González-​Moreno (Mexico and Central America), Werner Jank (Germany), Samuel Leong (Hong Kong), Minette Mans (Namibia), Emilija Sakadolskis (Lithuania), Johannella Tafuri (Italy), Caroline van Niekerk (South Africa), Heidi Westerlund (Finland), and Paul Woodford (Canada).

KEY SOURCES Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. New York: Waxmann Münster; Berlin: München. Bresler, L. (ed.). (2007). International handbook of research in arts education. Parts I and II. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Cox, G., & Stevens, R. (eds.). (2017). The origins and foundations of music education: International perspectives. 2d. ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (eds.) (2001). Musical development and learning: The international perspective. London & New York: Continuum. Leong, S. (ed.). (2003). Musicianship in the 21st century:  Issues, trends & possibilities. Sydney: Australian Music Centre. Leung, C. C., Yip, L. C., & Imada, T. (eds.). (2008). Music education policy and implementation: International perspectives. Aomori, Japan: Hirosaki University Press.

NOTES 1. I refer to sources such as Music education: International viewpoints—​A symposium in honour of Emeritus Professor Sir Frank Callaway (Comte, 1994); Music education in international perspective: National systems (Lepherd, 1995); Musical development and learning: The international perspective (Hargreaves & North, 2001); Musicianship in the 21st century: Issues, trends and possibilities (Leong, 2003); Toward a global

International Perspectives

57

community: The International Society for Music Education 1953–​2003 (McCarthy, 2004); a special issue of Psychology of Music (Welch, 2004), “Mapping music education research: International Perspectives”; The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education (Bamford, 2006); International handbook of research in arts education (Bresler, 2007); Music education policy and implementation: International perspectives (Leung et al., 2008); and Origins and foundations of music education: ­Cross-​cultural historical studies of music in compulsory schooling (Cox & Stevens, 2017). 2. I asked scholars to respond to a number of questions related to: the use and function of the term “music education,” the status of music in general education, music curriculum, pedagogical traditions and innovations, networks and support structures for the development of the profession, and current trends and challenges that music educators confront in each national context. Scholars’ names are included at the end of the chapter text. 3. The first Human Development Report in 1990 introduced a new way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment, and income into a composite Human Development Index, the HDI. Retrieved from http://​ hdr.undp.org/​en/​content/​human-​development-​index-​hdi. I received reports on music education from the following countries: Very High HDI (Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Spain, United Kingdom, United States); High HDI (Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Lithuania, Mexico), and Medium HDI (Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, Namibia, Nicaragua, South Africa). 4. Musikerziehung is the historical term, but some more widely used terms today are Musikunterricht (music lessons in school), Schulmusik (the school subject, or music teacher education programs), Musikpädagogik (theory and research), and Musikdidaktik (philosophy and theory). 5. The countries surveyed are listed here, presented under their HDI category (not included in the original publication): Australia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, United States (Very High HDI), Croatia, Hungary, Latvia (High HDI), and Indonesia, South Africa (Medium HDI). Since the survey was carried out, Croatia, Hungary, and Latvia have been reassigned to the category of Very High HDI (http://​hdr.undp.org/​en/​composite/​HDI). 6. In the past, global influences were present in music education—​for example, in the dissemination of U.S. music education textbooks across several continents in the nineteenth century or the popularization of methodologies rooted in Europe in the United States and Australia in the twentieth century. These forms of global influence continue today, but their reach and scope are now augmented due to communication networks such as the internet, international exchange, and digital media. 7. Fung points out that music education ought to be based on contemporary notions of music and musicianship. Burnard urges readers to broaden awareness of what constitutes innate musicality (p. 36). Hentschke and Souza suggest that music educators step off the podium and provide space for the ensemble members to discover their innate musical potential and their ability to connect with others through music (pp. 102–​112). Bresler emphasizes the importance of collaboration between musicians and educators “within schools and across institutions, working towards expanding musical and intellectual horizons, cultivating sensitivities and understanding” (p. 24). 8. The Japan Music Education Society, founded in 1969, published the first issue of Japanese Journal of Music Education Research in 1971. The Canadian Music Research

58

Marie McCarthy Council was established in 1973, publishing Music Research News from 1976 to 1983, followed by the Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education in 1986 and the Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education Edition in 1989. The British Journal of Music Education was first issued in 1984.

REFERENCES Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. New York: Waxmann Münster; Berlin: München. Bresler, L. (ed.) (2007). International handbook of research in arts education. Parts I and II. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Burnard, P., Dillon S., Rusinek, G., & Sæther, E. (2008). Inclusive pedagogies in music education:  A comparative study of music teachers’ perspectives from four countries. International Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 109–​126. Campbell, P. S. (2001). Lessons from the Yakama. In The Mountain Lake reader: Conversations on the study and practice of music teaching (pp. 46–​51). Murfreesboro, TN:  Middle Tennessee State University. Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally. New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (ed.) (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st century. Queensland, Australia: Australian Academic Press. Chen-​Hafteck, L. (2007). In search of a motivating multicultural music experience: Lessons learned from the Sounds of Silk project. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3), 223–​233. Clark, S. (2005). Mariachi music as a symbol of Mexican culture in the United States. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 227–​237. Comte, M. (ed.). (1994). Music education. International viewpoints—​A symposium in honour of emeritus Professor Sir Frank Callaway. Nedlands, Perth: Australian Society for Music Education. Cox, G., & Stevens, R. (eds.). (2017). The origins and foundations of music education: International perspectives. 2d. ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic. El Sistema. (July 1, 2010). Retrieved from http://​ www.el-​sistema film.com/​el_​Sistema [accessed November 11, 2016]. Emmanuel, D. T. (2005). The effects of a music education immersion internship in a culturally diverse setting on the beliefs and attitudes of pre-​service music teachers. International Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 49–​62. Freed-​Garrod, J., Kojima, R., & Garrod, S. (2008). Policy and practice in music education: Elementary education through an integrated arts approach in two cultural contexts, Canada and Japan. In C. C. Leung, L. C. Yip, & T. Imada (eds.), Music education policy and implementation:  International perspectives (pp. 25–​40). Aomori, Japan:  Hirosaki University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (eds.) (2001). Musical development and learning: The international perspective. London and New York: Continuum. Hennessy, S. (2005). Taiko South West:  Developing a “new” musical tradition in English schools. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 217–​226. Hentschke, L., & Martínez, I. (2004). Mapping music education research in Brazil and Argentina: The British impact. Psychology of Music, 32(3), 357–​367.

International Perspectives

59

Ho, W-​C. (2007). Students’ experience of music learning in Hong Kong’s secondary schools. International Journal of Music Education, 25(1), 31–​48. Hull, B. J. (2004). Fact sheets on music education in seventeen countries. Reston, VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Jank, W. (2009). Moving in a field of conflicting forces: Problems of music education policy in Germany. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 14–​21. Kertz-​Welzel, A. (2008). Music education in the twenty-​first century: A cross-​cultural comparison of German and American music education towards a new concept of international dialogue. Music Education Research, 10(4), 439–​449. Koopman, C. (2007). Community music as music education: On the educational potential of community music. International Journal of Music Education, 25(2), 151–​163. Leong, S. (ed.) (2003). Musicianship in the 21st century:  Issues, trends & possibilities. Sydney: Australian Music Centre. Lepherd, L. (ed.) (1995). Music education in international perspective:  National systems. University of Southern Queensland Press. Leung, C. C., Yip, L. C., & Imada, T. (eds.) (2008). Music education policy and implementation: International perspectives. Aomori, Japan: Hirosaki University Press. Lindemann, C. A. (2005). Editor’s comments. In special focus issue on Advocacy for Music Education. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 91–​94. Mark, M. L. (2002). A history of music education advocacy. Music Educators Journal, 98(1), 44–​48. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, M. (1993). The birth of internationalism in music education, 1899–​ 1938. International Journal of Music Education, 21, 3–​15. McCarthy, M. (1995). Canticle to hope: Widening horizons in international music education, 1939–​1953. International Journal of Music Education, 25, 38–​49. McCarthy, M. (1999). Passing it on:  The transmission of music in Irish culture. Cork, Ireland: Cork University Press. McCarthy, M. (2004). Toward a global community:  The International Society for Music Education 1953–​2003. Nedlands, Perth: International Society for Music Education. Murao, T., & Wilkins, B. (2001). Japan. In J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical development and learning: The international perspective. London & New York: Continuum. Musical Futures. http://​www.musicalfutures.org/​news [accessed November 11, 2016]. O’Flynn, J. (2005). Re-​appraising ideas of musicality in intercultural contexts of music education. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 191–​203. Sarmast, A. Founder’s message. http://​www.anim-​music.org/​founder.html [accessed November 11, 2016] Southcott, J., & Joseph, D. (2007). From empire to filmi: A fusion of western and Indian cultural practices in Australian music education. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3), 235–​243. Tucker, J., & Bowen, C. A. (2001). Music education in Jamaica and the Commonwealth Caribbean. Prepared for UNESCO. http://​portal.unesco.org/​culture/​en/​ev.php-​URL_​ ID=19570&URL_​DO=DO_​TOPIC&URL_​SECTION=201.html [accessed November 11, 2016]. UNESCO. (1955). Music in education: International conference on the role and place of music in the education of youth and adults. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2006). Road map for arts education. Publication based on proceedings of World Conference on Arts Education: Building Creative Capacities for the 21st Century, Lisbon,

60

Marie McCarthy

March 6–​9, 2006. http://​www.unesco.org/​new/​fileadmin/​MULTIMEDIA/​HQ/​CLT/​CLT/​ pdf/​Arts_​Edu_​RoadMap_​en.pdf [accessed November 11, 2016]. Welch, G. F. (2004). Coda. Mapping music education research in the UK. Special Focus: Mapping music education research: International perspectives. Psychology of Music, 32(3), 268–​271.

Chapter 4

MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY David J. Elliott

One of the first things we notice about music is the innumerable ways societies and individuals create, use, value, teach, learn, and conceptualize “musical” products, processes, experiences, and so forth. We also notice that billions of people, past and present, invest enormous amounts of time, effort, thought, passion, money, and, sometimes, their entire lives in making specific kinds of sounds for listening and related activities. But why? Although music is a fundamental and conspicuous dimension of all human societies, making and listening to a special category of “musical” sounds is rather unusual (if not downright odd) compared to the considerable efforts we make to fulfill our basic survival needs. As many have noted, music does not seem to be a biological necessity; yet music pervades all societies. And what about education? While many societies (including some Western societies) fail to provide adequate financial support for teachers, learners, and formal educational institutions, nearly every society acknowledges and provides something we would recognize as education, whether formal, informal, nonformal, or some combination of these. But what, precisely, is “education”? How does “educating” differ from teaching, training, indoctrinating, and schooling? What are the “proper” aims of formal education? Of all things that can be taught and learned in public and private schools, what is most valuable? How should these values be taught? How does music relate to the aims of general education? One would expect music educators to have thoughtful answers to all these questions and many more—​ to be knowledgeable about the nature and values of education in broad, deep, and detailed ways. Putting music and education together, how do we explain the nature and value of music education in ways that are sufficiently logical, comprehensive, and compelling

62

David J. Elliott

to assure ourselves and others (e.g., parents, administrators, communities, and governments) that we understand (1)  why music is valuable for people to learn in formal and informal music teaching situations; (2)  what is best to teach (e.g., musical skills and understandings, and/​or “appreciation,” and/​or civic and social dispositions, or something else?); (3) how we ought to engage people of all ages and dispositions in educative, ethical, and moving encounters with music and musical experiences; (4) where, when, how much (and so forth) to teach; and (5) how we know when music education has succeeded in enabling people to achieve music’s most important values? These are all philosophical questions. Why? Because what we commonly label “music,” “education,” “music education,” “musical experience,” “music appreciation,” “talent,” “teaching,” “learning,” “curriculum,” “assessment”—​all these, and many more—​are what philosophers call “essentially contested concepts” (Gallie, 1956). Essentially contested concepts are ambiguous, abstract, and value-​laden terms that resist conclusive definitions and scientific verification. Thus, whether or not people claim a general or sophisticated understanding of music, or education, or how music education should be conceived and taught, and regardless of whether it’s possible to provide rational explanations for privileging one concept of these constructs rather than another, explanations will always be open to a wide range of interpretations, applications, dialogues, and debates. For example, what do music teachers mean and intend when they design lessons to “teach musical creativity”? What counts as “musical” and what is “creativity”? Is there a difference between “creating” music and composing it? If so, what? If teachers lack logically valid concepts of music, teaching, and creativity, how can they possibly “teach creativity”? Is a composition-​based music curriculum better than a performance-​based curriculum, or a music history–​based curriculum? Why, or why not? And what do we mean by “music listening” in formal educational settings—​do we mean “aesthetic perception,” embodied music listening, listening to “classics,” iPod-​listening, or listening while we perform? Is “just listening” while we exercise, drink wine, or dance to hip-​hop “legitimate” listening that we ought to teach-​for? From another perspective, how can we be certain that qualitative and quantitative studies of (say) music teacher education, musical experience, music assessment (and so on, ad infinitum) are valid, reliable, and useful unless we’re sure that researchers begin their work with logically warranted understandings of these concepts? In summary, how can we be confident that “music” is being taught and learned comprehensively and ethically, with/​for the benefit of students of all kinds, unless we have assurances that the decisions and actions of school music teachers and community music facilitators are based on rigorously reasoned beliefs and principles that will guide (consciously and unconsciously) why, what, and how they carry out their responsibilities? Unfortunately, some music educators’ pedagogical assumptions, beliefs, and concepts are unjustified and “reason-​less.” Some teachers’ beliefs rest on mere commonsense, unreflective experience, indoctrination, or poor textbooks, rather than careful, rational, and critically reflective thinking. Thus, music teaching and

Music Education Philosophy

63

learning is sometimes misguided, unethical, or “mal-​practiced.” Being a professional music educator, community music facilitator, or artist-​teacher demands more than musical skills and understandings (formal and/​or informal) and having practical savvy and experience. These abilities and qualities are necessary, but not sufficient for teaching music thoughtfully, wisely, effectively, compassionately, and ethically. Doing so requires teachers to build, update, and maintain a professional philosophy-​practice “guidance system.” Given these challenging intellectual, practical, and moral matters, it’s not surprising that the ubiquitous, diverse, and inspiring domain of music education has captured the attention of philosophers for thousands of years. As Aristotle said in the Politics: “It is not easy to determine the nature of music, or why anyone should have a knowledge of it.” Indeed, everything music teachers and music education scholars encounter in their daily work involves many ambiguous concepts, choices, and actions that involve logical, social, and ethical dimensions of considerable complexity. Where can students, teachers, and scholars find examples, strategies, and resources that will help them clarify key concepts and develop professional philosophy-​practice guidance systems? Enter music education philosophy. This chapter is intended as an introduction to the field called “the philosophy of music education,” or, if you prefer, music education philosophy (MEP).

Music Education Philosophy: Outlining the Field Notwithstanding the seminal writings of philosophers and musicians in ancient Greece, India, China, Arabia, Europe, and elsewhere, the philosophy of music education is a relatively young field in North America, Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, Greece, Spain, Scandinavia, Asia, Africa, and other countries. Moreover, many music educators are unaware of the field’s existence, not to mention its nature and values. Indeed, specialized courses in MEP are still infrequent in undergraduate and graduate music education curricula in North America and most other nations. When philosophical issues/​discussions are included in North American music education programs, this often occurs in the context of amorphous “foundations” courses or (sometimes) in methods courses. It is also worth mentioning that when MEP is included in music teacher education, it is often taught narrowly (i.e., from the perspective of one philosopher or one philosophical perspective). Nevertheless, there is a fairly sizeable and rapidly expanding international literature intended to (1) analyze, synthesize, debate, or (as some contemporary writers prefer to say) “problematize” and “worry about” all theoretical and practical aspects of music education; and, thereby, (2) inform teachers, university music education

64

David J. Elliott

students, and scholars about fundamental concepts, conceptions, controversies, principles, and practices in school and community music education. Of course, it’s impossible to provide a truly equitable accounting of this literature, let alone a comprehensive discussion. Space is restricted, and choices require exclusions, which means that somebody will always be more or less offended. But there is nothing to be done about this, and there is nothing we can do to identify individually all the music education philosophers who have and are making enormous contributions to the field. That said, following below is an incomplete accounting of a very sizeable literature, beginning with journals that contain the works of many fine thinkers I cannot credit formally. Two music education research journals, both of which originated in the 1990s, privilege philosophical research: Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education and Philosophy of Music Education Review. On a continuum ranging from journals that publish philosophical articles more and less frequently, several come to mind immediately:  Journal of Aesthetic Education; Music Education Research; Research Studies in Music Education; Gender Research in Music Education; International Journal of Music Education-​ Research; Visions of Research in Music Education; Nordisk musikkpedagogisk forskning, Arbok; British Journal of Music Education; The Finnish Journal of Music Education; International Journal of Community Music; Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education; Australian Journal of Music Education; Diskussion Musikpädagogi; and Zeitschrift für Kritische Musikpädagogik. Importantly, most editorial boards today are much more willing to consider philosophical submissions than before 1990, when positivistic research reigned supreme. The Oxford Handbook of Music Education Philosophy (Bowman & Frega, 2012) is a highly welcome and notable addition to the field’s literature. Two previous music education research handbooks (Colwell, 1992; Colwell & Richardson, 2002) include important chapters related to philosophical method and the role of philosophy in research, curriculum, and instruction. Numerous books have played a significant role in the advancement of MEP since the mid-​1950s. Whether partly or wholly concerned with philosophical perspectives on the nature and value of music education and its cognates, a necessarily selective list might include Human Values in Music Education (Mursell, 1934), Education for Musical Growth (Mursell, 1948), Foundations and Principles of Music Education (Leonhard & House, 1959), Basic Concepts in Music Education (Henry, 1958), A Philosophy of Music Education (Reimer, 1970, 1989, 2003), Aesthetics:  Dimensions for Music Education (Schwadron, 1967), Didaktik der Musik (Alt, 1968), A Basis for Music Education (Swanwick, 1979), Musical Knowledge:  Intuition, Analysis and Music Education (Swanwick, 1994), Music Matters:  A New Philosophy of Music Education (Elliott, 1995), In Search of Music Education (Jorgensen, 1997), Philosophical Perspectives on Music (Bowman, 1998), Der schwankende Boden der Lebenswelt:  Phänomenologische Musikpädagogik zwischen Handlungstheorie und Ästhetik (Vogt, 2001), Transforming Music Education (Jorgensen, 2003), Democracy and Music Education:  Liberalism, Ethics, and the Politics of Practice (Woodford, 2005), Music Education for Changing Times (Regelski & Gates, 2010), What’s So

Music Education Philosophy

65

Important About Music Education? (Goble, 2010), and Music Matters: A Philosophy of Music Education (Elliott & Silverman, 2015). The picture that emerges from this brief overview of MEP shows a field that is rich, robust, and growing steadily in quantity and quality. Not surprisingly, however, the philosophy of music education parallels other areas of philosophy (e.g., the philosophy of education) insofar as it is not entirely uniform in quality. That is, while many music education philosophers in North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Scandinavia, and other nations have produced numerous examples of outstanding journal articles, books, and book chapters during the last 30 years, there are instances of less rigorous thinking (which, of course, also holds for quantitative and qualitative research in our field). If so, then there may be several interdependent causes, including the longstanding absence of MEP courses in university music teacher education curricula, which, in turn, explains the continuing shortage of professors and scholars who know how to carry out and/​or identify rigorous philosophical research. Another likely cause is that many philosophers of music education are not educated wholly, or even partially, as philosophers, but as musicians and pedagogues. This is not to say that musical and pedagogical expertise is unimportant. On the contrary. Because MEP is arguably a form of applied philosophy, music education philosophers ought to have a significant amount of experience as musicians and teachers. But without a reasonable depth of background in philosophy, and/​or philosophy of music, and/​or philosophy of education, some music education philosophers will lack the skills and understandings necessary to discern the intellectual viability of alternative views and create excellent philosophical arguments and critiques. And without a reasonable knowledge of philosophical inquiry, future music educators will lack the tools they need to develop their own philosophical foundations—​all of which brings us to a central question:  What is philosophy?

Philosophy Is . . . ? Professional philosophers have divergent views on what counts as “philosophy.” Indeed, after 3,000  years of Western philosophical thinking and debate, Lucas (1969) quips that “if all the philosophers in the world were stretched end to end they would still not reach an agreement” (p. 3). To complicate matters, efforts to explain philosophy’s proper aims, topics, and methods encounter the reality that, unlike other fields (e.g., computational neuroscience, cultural studies, and linguistics), the terms “philosophy,” “philosopher,” and “philosophize” are part of everyday public discourse. Given this factor, and contested concepts of philosophy, some music education students and professors have the false impression that philosophy is vague, “lofty,” and/​or impractical, and that philosophical understandings are not necessary for developing a personal philosophy of music education. However,

66

David J. Elliott

and notwithstanding problematic concepts of philosophy, it seems reasonable to argue that our best efforts to prepare future music educators and music education philosophers must include some rationally justifiable concept of what philosophy is and how philosophy should be carried out, and how philosophy can contribute to effective and ethical teaching. If so, then we need some basic criteria for understanding what philosophy is. But where do we start? Let’s begin by unpacking some common uses of “philosophy.” When laypeople use “philosophy,” they often use it in the “weak” sense—​as a synonym for an opinion, assumption, belief, or faith (Regelski, 2010a). For example: “My philosophy is that (i.e., I believe) school music is just for the talented”; “I’m convinced (i.e., my philosophy is) that when someone is composing creatively, they are creative”; “My philosophy is (i.e., my opinion is) that learning an instrument teaches kids discipline”; “My professor has written a book, so I  know (i.e., I trust) that she’s right about the values of standardized testing in music.” Again, these direct and indirect uses of “philosophy” are weak (or simply wrong) because they associate philosophy with uncritical thinking and/​or blind faith in fallible authority figures and contested concepts (e.g., talent, creativity, discipline, and testing). Several unfortunate consequences follow from weak notions of philosophy. For example, people who accept weak notions tend to assume that they’re justified in holding their opinions or “philosophies” because one person’s opinions are just as good as any others, regardless of logic or evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, however, if everything counts, then nothing counts. So how do we proceed to distinguish between weak and strong concepts of philosophy? Let’s tackle this question by following some simple “first steps” that philosophers (in the strong sense) might follow (in much more depth than I have space for here) to sift and sort helpful and less helpful insights. A  simple first step would be to scan various dictionaries; a second step would involve historical perspectives on the meaning of philosophy; a third step would involve unpacking philosophy etymologically. Let’s follow these steps and continue with a few more. If we consult contemporary dictionaries, as other philosophers have done (e.g., Stroll, 2009, p. 115), we find six possible definitions of philosophy (see: “What philosophy means to me,” 2006):

• The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct • Any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study • A system of philosophical doctrine: e.g., the philosophy of Spinoza • The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: e.g., the philosophy of science • A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs • A philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances

Music Education Philosophy

67

Five of these definitions trace back to the early Greek sense of philosophy as a rational process of analysis and investigation. But the sixth sense of philosophy is quite different. It points us to the fact that many ancient thinkers conceived philosophy as something akin to what Shusterman (1997) describes as “a deliberative life-​practice that brings beauty and happiness to its practitioners” (p.  3). Indeed, as Shusterman says, some of history’s most eminent philosophers (e.g., Socrates) communicated their teachings and beliefs not through their theoretical writings, but through the critically reflective and purposeful conduct of their admirable lives—​through modeling inspiring modes of life (and death) in the pursuit of self-​knowledge about and for their own and others’ well-​being. Admittedly, some contemporary philosophers may reject the idea of philosophy as the lifelong contemplation and practice of “artful living”—​of virtuous and healthy living for oneself, for the happiness of others, and for the well-​being of society as a whole. But care for one’s selfhood and the well-​being of others remains an admirable aim of philosophical practice. In fact, this aim is central for many contemporary philosophers of education and for a growing number of music education philosophers. History takes us another step forward. Stroll (2009) reminds us that “many of the earliest philosophers did not distinguish sharply between scientific and moral questions” and that some of their topics “were more or less the same as those of modern scientists” (p.  113). At the same time, says Stroll, “Aristotle describes his predecessors [beginning with Thales, arguably the first Greek philosopher] as scientists who investigated nature ‘in order to know and not for any utilitarian end’ ” (p. 113). Indeed, they also investigated and theorized nonscientific issues—​the nature of the “good life,” concepts of ethical action, the values of education, and so forth—​by means of reason rather than experiment. If we consider the etymology of the word, we see that philosophy comes from two Greek words: philos (loving) and sophia (wisdom). But what is the wisdom that philosophy helps us understand? Critchley (2010) explains that “for Socrates, and for nearly all ancient philosophers that came after him, the wisdom that philosophy teaches concerns what it might mean to lead a good human life” (p. 1), meaning a happy life. So philosophy involves living a reflective life, an “examined life,” not just living or surviving. Through careful thought, and the cultivation of a wise and prudent curiosity, philosophy not only informs us, it “forms” our “habits of heart and mind,” our character—​our ways of living fully. Critchley adds a key point: “although the unexamined life is not worth living, the unlived life is not worth examining, and philosophy for the ancients was not divorced from the practical to and fro of everyday life” (p. 1). Indeed, philosophy was viewed as a very practical activity, not a purely theoretical endeavor, as many people see it today. Thus, as Passmore (1967) explains, the Greek sense of sophia was broader than our modern English sense of “wisdom”; to the Greeks, the verb philosophein also meant “to find out” (p.  216). Accordingly, “philosophia etymologically connotes the love of exercising one’s curiosity and intelligence rather than the love of wisdom” (p. 216). In short, philosophy should be understood as both a noun and a verb, as a vast body of inherited wisdom and as an active form of “applied thoughtfulness.” As Wittgenstein says (as cited in

68

David J. Elliott

Malcolm, 1967): “What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?” (p. 39). Stroll (2009) combines these themes: “Philosophy is the strong liking for knowledge of what is true or right, coupled with just judgments as to action; sagacity, prudence, or common sense” (p. 117). Clearly, then, philosophy (properly understood) is not idle speculation; philosophy is “a tool for the clarification of meaning . . . philosophy allows one to understand more clearly and decide important issues” (Regelski, 2010a, p. 6). In terms of music teaching and learning, I suggest that an unexamined professional life is not worth living or pursuing. An unexamined professional life is potentially damaging and dangerous because what teachers do in each and every moment of teaching involves the well-​being of people—​children, young people, and adults. Put another way, MEP not only informs us, it “forms” our habits of teaching effectively, wisely, ethically, and compassionately—​philosophy, done well, informs and forms our ways of living and working fully. As such, MEP should never be optional in music teacher education; it should be fundamental and central. Critchley (2010) tackles philosophy from another angle by asking, “What is a philosopher?” He answers by invoking Socrates’s comparison of a philosopher and a lawyer. In Greek times, says Critchley, lawyers were compelled to prepare and present their court cases in a very short amount of time, which led to errors and ethical lapses. In contrast, “the philosopher is the person who has time or who takes time” (p. 1) to think carefully, examine issues from all sides, over time, and draw logically balanced conclusions. In short, to philosophize is to “take your time” in order to reflect rigorously. Another characteristic of truly professional philosophers is that they tend to ignore academic cliques and eschew the approbation of their peers. Thus, some people often belittle philosophers for their aloofness, their indifference to symbols of popularity, and their impatience with the status quo. Shand (2009) adds another important perspective when he emphasizes that doing philosophy requires thinking “in a determinedly open minded way, with no holds barred; think, as one might say, to the limits” (p. 4). This can be difficult. The natural inclination is to “salute” the latest trends, embrace the ideas of venerable “authorities,” and/​or overlook the weaknesses in one’s own sources and theories. Summarizing to this point, people tend to use “philosophy” in three basic ways. First, many people “philosophize” from time to time as part of their everyday lives: that is, people often puzzle over their decisions, ideas, beliefs, relationships, and actions and the actions of others. Let’s call this “everyday philosophy.” In a stronger sense, some people are disposed (because of an inquisitive or educated disposition) to think about their lives, actions, and professions with more than a usual amount of care and rational reflection, which we might call “informal philosophy.” Third, there’s the “capital-​P” or scholarly sense of philosophy, as carried out by academic philosophers. Let’s examine the latter in more detail. An understanding of “capital-​P” philosophy starts by acknowledging “that some ways of thinking about things are more defensible or justified, when assessed

Music Education Philosophy

69

by the merits of the arguments for and against them, than others” (Shand, 2009, p. 3). While this may seem too obvious to mention, it’s not obvious to those who assume that “a philosophy” is synonymous with an opinion or a viewpoint, or that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, or that one view is as good as any other. Shand calls these assumptions “intellectual nihilism” (p. 3). Implicit in these notions is the belief that there are no criteria for assessing a debate, dialogue, or philosophical argument as good, bad, or valid. But this overlooks one of the most unique attributes of human nature—​our ability to reason our way to good decisions about what is best to think and do. This is not to suggest that we should “reason” as if we were “brains alone.” Excellent philosophers do not remove themselves from the world, nor do they deny their emotional and embodied selves. Still, rationality is at the core of what serious philosophers do. Without logical thinking, the door is open to an “anything-​goes” mindset. Stated differently, what does philosophy have to offer music education if music education philosophers eschew reason and logic? Unfortunately, as in all fields, some authors of MEP books, articles, and “critical” commentaries undercut the potential values of their work by (a) committing various fallacies—​i.e., errors in reasoning, of which there are more than 100 (Angeles, 1981, p. 95), that ignore the structures and rules of logical validity—​and/​or (b) by substituting unsubstantiated opinions for carefully evidenced arguments. What remedies are there? In addition to granting MEP a central place in music teacher education, music educators would benefit from (for example) studying the work of today’s leading philosophers of education and/​or music (e.g., Nel Noddings, Jane Roland Martin, David Carr, Joseph Dunne, Paulo Freire; Jenefer Robinson, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Stephen Davies, Theodore Gracyk, Philip Alperson, Noël Carroll, Jerrold Levinson, Peter Kivy, Jeanette Bicknell, etc.). These thinkers (among several others) provide excellent models of how to formulate logical and warranted arguments about the nature and values of education and music and how to effectively challenge and “repair” fallacious arguments in the writings of others. Of course, formulating new arguments, identifying fallacies, and challenging existing philosophies can be difficult for many reasons. Aside from the demands of doing philosophical work, being critically reflective can have serious professional and personal consequences (consider the price that Socrates paid). As Jorgensen (1992) warns, we should not be surprised that “doing philosophy in music education may sometimes be disturbing, uncomfortable, even painful” (p.  98) for philosophers and critics alike. However, says Jorgensen, although “the critique that philosophy brings and the vision it offers may be destructive of complacency,” the process of challenging claims and assumptions is well worth the price for people seeking deeper understandings (p.  99), including philosophers, critics, and the critics of critics. Given the above, we see the wisdom of Bowman’s words: “the trick is to recognize the fallibility of logic and reason, and their potential abuses (intentional and unintentional), without renouncing them altogether” (W. Bowman, personal communication, July 28, 2010). Which brings us to another major question: How, more specifically, do philosophers actually do philosophy? Not surprisingly, philosophers

70

David J. Elliott

differ in their views on “philosophical method.” This lack of consensus can be attributed to the fact that ways of doing philosophy are always influenced by personal dispositions, allegiances, and the historical and intellectual ethos of a given time and culture (Regelski, 2010a). Nevertheless, it is possible to make several basic points with reasonable assurance.

Philosophical Method In The Practice of Philosophy, Rosenberg (1984) states that philosophy is a process of developing arguments for and against concepts, claims, theories, and beliefs, whether these concepts and claims belong to oneself or others. In philosophy, the term “argument” refers to a series of statements that present a philosopher’s reasons for his or her beliefs. “In the clearest sort of case,” says Rosenberg, “one of these statements will be tagged as the intended conclusion, expressing the target belief which requires support . . . the conclusion is what is argued for; the premises are what is argued from” (p. 12). Intervening statements link premises to conclusions by means of careful logic (deductive, inductive, analogical, etc.), as well as evidence, authority, and/​or precedents. The philosopher’s aim is to “warrant”—​to justify, support, or defend—​the statements that he or she makes for his or her conclusions. Evidence, authority, and precedents include a range of logical and relevant public knowledge including pertinent arguments by other philosophers, past and present, the conclusions of experts in related fields, and, when applicable, quantitative and qualitative data. Clearly, when consulting and drawing on various kinds of evidence to warrant their arguments, philosophers must evaluate carefully the validity of this evidence. Implicit in everything I’ve suggested so far are the fundamental issues of language and concepts. That is, in the process of creating or criticizing arguments, philosophers must be vitally concerned with the ways they employ language to organize and articulate their concepts and critique the arguments and concepts of others. As Shand (2009) says, “concepts may be considered as the building blocks of articulate organized thought. Without them . . . it would not be possible to think about anything, because to think about something is to apply a concept to it” (p. 5). Enter “conceptual analysis.” Put simply (very simply), conceptual analysis means breaking down ideas, concepts, and arguments into their constituent parts to clarify their logical structure. It means dissecting the elements and assumptions underlying concepts, premises, arguments, claims, and conclusions—​one’s own and others’—​to understand a particular philosophical issue in which concepts are involved. Beaney (2009) adds that conceptual analysis is “a process of isolating or working back to what is more fundamental by means of which something, initially taken as given, can be explained or reconstructed” (p.  1). (The previous step-​by-​ step examination of “philosophy” is a tiny example of conceptual analysis). In a

Music Education Philosophy

71

little more detail, the process of conceptual analysis—​applied to one’s own or other philosophers’ work—​includes (for example) clarifying terms; making careful distinctions between and among concepts; explaining, exposing, and evaluating assumptions, “commonsense” ideas and/​or “received wisdom”; and using logic and evidence to support or challenge one’s own or others’ use of given concepts. Without the techniques of logic and conceptual analysis, it’s impossible to develop rational and coherent perspectives, or expose the errors that may underpin other philosophers’ premises and conclusions. Given the above, we begin to see why Rosenberg (1984) and other philosophers emphasize that philosophy is best understood in relation to its methods rather than its subject matter (p. 6). That is, philosophy is concerned with everything human beings do and think. Accordingly, there is (for example) the philosophy of medicine, the philosophy of music, the philosophy of education, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of emotion, and so on, ad infinitum. Philosophy is centrally concerned with issues that cannot be addressed by observation, description, or experiment alone. The products of good philosophizing are not new facts but new perspectives on the concepts, assumptions, beliefs, and meanings that inhabit, underpin, drive, and steer our thinking and doing. In short, philosophy is a “second-​order” discipline:  philosophers are concerned with understanding, evaluating, and theorizing the “first-​order” problems, actions, claims, achievements, and guiding concepts of educators, physicians, scientists, artists, everyday human experiences, and so forth. While many philosophers of medicine, music, and education are physicians, musicians, and educators themselves, and while philosophers in these fields frequently draw examples from their own work, this does not hold in all cases, nor is it sufficient for being a “philosopher of ” these areas. In other words, philosophers do not always deal directly with (say) treating cancer, performing the blues, or teaching secondary school. If so, then what do philosophers in specific areas share in common, other than their fascination with and experience in their domain? Philosophers understand the philosophical discourse that constitutes the historical record of their domains. Philosophers of education, for example, know and understand what Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Dewey, Carr, Dunne, Scheffler, Noddings, Martin, Greene, and many other educational philosophers have said about the nature and values of education and its cognates. Thus, the history of philosophical arguments, concepts, and controversies in a given field is an essential part of philosophical method because it provides “a shared vocabulary of concepts, and a set of paradigms of philosophical reasoning” (Rosenberg, 1984, p. 11) that serve as key sources of critical dialogue and new philosophizing. The next two sections of this chapter provide brief reviews and examinations of (1)  several (but not all) paradigms of philosophy and philosophical method, and (2) key concepts and issues in the historical discourse of the philosophy of music. Taken together, both sections set the scene for the final section of this chapter, which summarizes some important junctures and developments in the

72

David J. Elliott

discourse of MEP. Note that the topics in each of the next three sections deserve much deeper treatments than it’s possible to provide in the constraints of this chapter.

Philosophical Paradigms In the broadest sense, analytic philosophy is an umbrella term for diverse types of twentieth-​century conceptual analysis. Although Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle engaged in basic forms of conceptual analysis (as did Kant and many others, in a variety of ways), “analytic philosophy,” as philosophers name it today, dates back 100 years or so to England, where its originators (e.g., Russell, Carnap, Frege, Moore) employed extremely abstract, symbolic-​mathematical forms of logic. To take a tiny example, the simple tautology “All bachelors are unmarried” would transform to this in analytic philosophy: “x((Fx & Gx) → Gx).” This approach to philosophy swept Western university philosophy departments, where it dominated until the 1950s or so, and it is still present in some. Analytic philosophy is almost entirely absent from the history of MEP, with the possible exception of Fiske’s (1990) Music and Mind, which makes some use of analytic techniques. Although he was initially and profoundly influenced by Russell and his colleagues, Wittgenstein challenged the excesses of traditional analytic philosophy and departed radically from this approach when he and his followers (e.g., Ryle, Austin) initiated a transition to a more concise form of analysis that became known as ordinary language philosophy. Wittgenstein’s work was also responsible for the development of quietism, which evolved from his concern for linking philosophical thinking to the social world and eschewing analytic philosophy’s artificial languages (e.g., symbolic logic), which quietists view as the source of needless diversions, complications, and confusions. Quietist philosophers ask, “Is X a real philosophical or practical problem, or is it simply a pseudo-​problem that arises from confusing language or misguided thinking?” Quietists aim to extinguish philosophical fires before they start, thereby restoring intellectual “peace and quiet.” In the philosophy of music, excellent examples of ordinary language philosophy include Higgins’s (1991) analyses of Langer’s (1942; 1953; 1966) philosophy of music and Kivy’s (1980) concept of musical expression; Bicknell’s (2005) discussion of the interpretation of songs; and Sparshott’s (1994) extensive analysis of musical “aesthetics.” Examples of conceptual analysis in music and MEP include Bowman’s (1998) study of numerous philosophies of music (2010); Jorgensen’s (2002) analysis of the concept of curriculum; Regelski’s (2006) examination of music appreciation; Elliott’s analyses of social justice (2007b) and performativity (2007a); and Vogt’s (2003) probe of the assumptions underlying any attempt to develop a philosophy of music education. Jorgensen (1992) makes a key point: overall, she says, “there has been relatively little analytic philosophy” (in the broadest sense of the term) in music education

Music Education Philosophy

73

(p. 98). She is correct again when she avers that “in music education, philosophical thought has been dominantly synoptic; witness the work of Reimer” (p.  98). By “synoptic,” Jorgensen means that most MEP is constructed in top-​down fashion, often with little concern for critical, conceptual analyses. For example, in a synoptic approach a music education philosopher “downloads” a philosophy of music by a prominent scholar (e.g., Langer) as a basis for his or her philosophy of music education. Reimer uses a synoptic approach in three editions of A Philosophy of Music Education (1970, 1989, 2003), all of which rest squarely on Langer’s concept of the nature and value of music, which claims that (1) music equals works of music, and (2) musical works are valuable because they are symbols of human feeling that educate feeling when we listen aesthetically, or make music. A great deal more needs to be said about varieties of conceptual analysis, but we must say a few words (far too few) about three other philosophical movements that are present in varying degrees in current MEP. First, pragmatism, which is often contrasted with analytic philosophy, was founded and developed by three noted American philosophers: Peirce, James, and Dewey. Basically, pragmatic and praxial philosophers engage in varying forms of ordinary language philosophy and quietism (except for Peirce, who has strong ties to formal logic). At the heart of pragmatism is the belief that “truth” depends on its human and social usefulness in ethical action. The writings of Bowman (2005, 2003) and Regelski (2005, 2010b) exemplify their deep commitments to praxial-​pragmatist arguments and ideals. Goble (2010) is notable for his applications of Peirce. “Continental philosophy” includes a range of “movements” and intellectual dispositions including (but not limited to) phenomenology, poststructuralism, and critical theory. And feminist theory has been exceptionally important in expanding and refining discourses and methodologies. All of these paradigms, and more, have been common in the literature of educational philosophy (e.g., McLeod, 1998; McNay, 1992; Stone, 1994; Kohli, 1995, to name a few) for many years, but their appearance in music and MEP is more recent. Like the terms “analytic” and “continental philosophy,” “postmodern philosophy” is an umbrella term for a family of viewpoints. Very simply (too simply), postmodern philosophers are highly skeptical about many traditional philosophical practices, including logical argument and conceptual analysis. To postmodernists, reason and logic tend to ignore the diversity of people’s beliefs about and experiences of embodiment, justice, politics, power, race, and so on. Feminist philosophers emphasize that philosophical objectivity is an illusion because our philosophical legacy has been generated almost exclusively by males for males, thereby ignoring female perspectives, experiences, and values. On this view, traditional philosophy, conceived as an objective, impersonal, and historical enterprise, is biased and political: it is anathema to many feminist scholars’ commitment to pursuing plural, multiple, and inclusive solutions. In sum, postmodern and feminist philosophers make a serious point when they argue that traditional philosophy has not been sufficiently inclusive, because it has omitted many fundamental dimensions of human thinking, being, and action. Until very recently, this also holds for traditional work in the philosophy of music.

74

David J. Elliott

Not surprisingly, there are strong criticisms of postmodern dispositions and forms of argument, both inside and outside music education. Fundamentally, as Best and Kellner (1991) point out: the interest in postmodern theory ultimately derives from fascination with our present moment, with the current social situation in which we find ourselves and its often surprising developments and events. Yet in articulating the new, postmodern theory . . . tends to degenerate into sloganeering and rhetoric without any systematic or comprehensive theoretical position. . . . Theory itself is “post-­​­modernized,” adapting to the speed, fashions, superficiality, and fragmented nature of the contemporary era. Theory thus becomes a hypercommodity, geared to sell and promote the latest fashions in thought and attitudes. (p. 140)

Postmodern music education philosophizing can be problematic when it emulates synoptic procedures. In music education, some (but not all) postmodern publications favor downloading the ideas of celebrated postmodern and quasi-​ postmodern theorists and philosophers, including, for example: Baudrillard, Butler, Derrida, Deleuze, Delpit, Foucault, Freire, Giroux, Guattari, Lyotard, and Marcuse. Another term for postmodern “method” in music education is what Regelski (2010a) calls “lens-​ism” or “perspectivism.” In this variation on the synoptic approach, some postmodernists (but not all) aim to “problematize,” “trouble,” or “worry about” various aspects of music pedagogy “through the lens” of a particular postmodern theorist. Generally speaking (but not always), postmodern perspectives on music education are less concerned with topics related to the sonic-​artistic natures and values of music, musical experience, music-​making and listening, musical understanding (and so on) and more concerned with how instruction and curriculum function to embody and/​or remedy abuses of power, race, gender, social justice, and so forth. There is no doubt whatsoever that these are hugely important issues that music education scholarship has largely failed to examine in the past. But in terms of philosophical processes, the difficulty with “troubling” any issue through a specific lens is that “lenses” always have theoretical and normative blind spots. Thus, analyzing an aspect of music education through the lens of a specific theorist causes some philosophers to overlook what their chosen theorist/​theory does not say, or what critics of their chosen lens have to offer. For example, when philosophers of education and music education promote Freire’s critical pedagogy, they sometimes omit to include other philosophers’ critical perspectives on Freire’s views. Of course, the same applies to philosophical discourse that privileges the thoughts of (say) Aristotle, Kant, Marx, Adorno, Langer, Rorty, Greene, and so forth. In contrast to top-​down philosophy, Dewey suggests that philosophers should be very cautious before accepting the theoretical assumptions of past or present scholars. Dewey urges philosophers to begin their inquiries from the bottom up; he advises that we avoid “given” and possibly flawed frameworks and assumptions by seeking answers in actual, everyday, social experiences and social practices, which is the preferred approach of pragmatic and praxial philosophers. Finally, the field of experimental philosophy, or x-​ phi, holds that many problems confronting contemporary society (e.g., the nature of consciousness,

Music Education Philosophy

75

moral responsibility, intentional action) cannot be solved by philosophical analyses alone. X-​philosophers are currently integrating conceptual analyses and scientific procedures to investigate a wide range of long-​standing human issues. At present, this potentially rich approach is almost completely absent in music education.

Philosophy of Music and Music Education I suggested earlier that the literature of philosophical arguments, concepts, and controversies in a given field is an essential part of philosophical inquiry. Thus, and in addition to a reasonable degree of knowledge concerning philosophical methods, anyone interested in doing MEP also needs a knowledge of the history and discourses of (1) the philosophy of music, (2) music education, and (3) the philosophy of education. “The philosophy of music,” says Alperson (1994), “consists in the sustained, systematic and critical examination of our beliefs about the nature and function of music” (p. 3). “The nature and value of music” involves an extraordinarily wide range of issues, problems, and questions. Since the history of music philosophy has been thoroughly documented in richly contextual versions (e.g., Goehr, 2000; Sparshott, 1982), concise and conceptual formats (e.g., Alperson, 1994; Higgins, 1991), and focused, topic-​related versions (e.g., Cross & Tolbert, 2009; Lippman, 1964; Regelski, 2009), I will not attempt anything of this scope. Likewise, the philosophy of education is a vast and complex field that has been documented by many scholars (e.g., Bailey, Barrow, Carr, & McCarthy, 2010; Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish, 2003; Gutek, 2008). Thus, I  cannot and will not attempt to summarize or discuss this massive literature, either. Instead, I’ll focus on basic themes in music and MEP. Music—​mousikē, música, Musik, musikk, muzyka—​notwithstanding the many names we give it, the ways we make and listen to it, and the forms it takes, it’s possible to sketch three basic ways one might conceptualize “music,” which in fact have exerted a powerful influence on the thinking of scholars and music educators past and present. It’s also possible and important to mention why these three concepts hold very different implications for music teaching and learning. In Greek society, “music” was not conceived as “works” or pieces of music that existed for listeners’ contemplation; music was not conceptualized as a “work-­​ ­centered” art. Instead, music was considered a social praxis that existed for its social and ethical uses and values. Everything “musical” was integrated with ceremonies, celebrations, feasts, rituals, entertainments, education, ethical development, emotional regulation, therapy, and so forth. Put another way, music was “praxial” or pragmatic in its nature and value; music was viewed and practiced holistically, as an integration of dimensions: people, processes, products, and the situated, social-​ ethical values of these dimensions.

76

David J. Elliott

These praxial themes hold in many world musics past and present. For example, “the Navajo people view music as medicinal” (Higgins, 1991, p.  12); the Finnish-​ Karelian itkuvirsi is a ritual death lament improvised by women to guide community mourning; and the Kaluli people of Papua, New Guinea, “make duets with birds, cicadas, and other forest sounds; and they often sing when near a waterfall, for they consider the waterfall to be a desirable musical accompaniment” (p. 15). As explained elsewhere (Cross & Tolbert, 2009; Higgins, 1991; Regelski, 2009; Elliott & Silverman, 2012a, 2015), music continued to be dominantly praxial (and vocal) across all cultures until the mid-​eighteenth century in Europe. Even in the context of medieval and Renaissance music education, music was viewed as a social praxis tied to issues of social status, gender, and worship (Murray, Weiss, & Cyrus, 2010). This is not to say that issues related to sonic structures were ignored; rather, sonic structures were always related to historical/​social/​cultural needs, experiences, values, and contexts, including other sensory experiences. Higgins (1991) summarizes key points: One of the most important features of music is experiential context. Most musical experience throughout history and across cultures has been imbedded in extramusical experience—​indeed it is unimaginable without it—​the extramusical has had a decisive impact on the meaning of the music for the listener. (p. 16)

This long-​standing situation changed gradually in Europe with the dawn of the Enlightenment. At that point, a new concept of music began to emerge: music was ­conceptualized as an “aesthetic,” work-​centered “fine art” (Kristeller, 1990) and equ­ ated with “pure” instrumental music. According to the aesthetic concept, which was conceived by a small group of elite, male thinkers in the specific cultural, eco­­nomic, and political circumstances of eighteenth-​and early nineteenth-​century Europe, the value of music resides entirely in the formal structures of musical “works”—​in “the music itself.” There have been many variations on the premises and corollaries of the aesthetic concept during the last 250  years of aesthetic theorizing. Most notably, the aesthetic doctrine argues that musical works exist to be perceived with an “aesthetic attitude”—​with distanced and “disinterested” attention to the complexity and novelty of a work’s formal properties. When listeners listen aesthetically, they (allegedly) undergo an “aesthetic experience,” a kind of otherworldly, intellectual–​ emotional pleasure. Conceived in these vague terms, “aesthetic meaning” is processed rationally and yet “ineffable.” Musical experience is conceived as music “cognition” or “perceptual structuring” focused on musical elements and form. Even musical feelings and emotions are viewed as resulting from cognitive processes alone. To a large degree, these premises anchor many philosophical writings about musical affective experience and music education, past and present (e.g., Hanslick, 1854; Kivy, 1980; Langer, 1942, 1953; Meyer, 1956; Reimer, 1970, 1989, 2003). And aesthetic notions still underpin a theoretical and practical division between “art for art’s sake” and musical actions that are beneficial in practical and social ways (Higgins, 1991; Bowman, 2005; Korsmeyer, 2004; Regelski, 2009). The notion of aesthetic value, says Korsmeyer, was attached to the new concept of “good taste”

Music Education Philosophy

77

(p. 28), as opposed to music for social bonding, embodied pleasure and enjoyment, entertainment, play, healing, group satisfaction, and other social-​ethical benefits that can arise from music as praxis. “Aesthetic appreciation” fostered a listener-​ work separation that privileged a disembodied relationship with the syntax of instrumental music, rather than a concrete, embodied, practical, and participatory relationship with musical-​social sounds of all kinds, vocal as well as instrumental, and group experiences of music-​making. Privileging musical products and conceiving music in terms of aesthetic objects—​music as removed from and placed above ordinary life in a special “aesthetic realm”—​has had a dramatic effect on Western musical values and music education. In addition to the implausible claim that musical meaning and value is entirely intrinsic—​“in the music itself ”—​the aestheticization of music causes many music teachers to assume that everything that is not “serious” music is merely popular, entertainment, or mass music (Regelski, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010b). However, as Bourdieu says (cited in Regelski, 2005), what past and present followers of the aesthetic concept overlook is that their elite class-​based notions of music are, themselves, historical and institutional inventions. Indeed, adds Higgins, “the Western [aesthetic] classical tradition is unique in taking the paradigm of music to be a musical work. . . . This tendency of the Western classical tradition . . . allows us to think of music unproblematically as a natural kind” (1991, p. 13). Conflating “music” with “works” of music may seem obvious and harmless. But as Higgins says, “it is obviously faulty, or at least incomplete, for it does not apply to all music. The music of the world does not all conform to the Western model of the ‘separate, identifiable, coherent, intentionally developed and individually composed’ work” (p. 13). Even large categories of Western music do not conform to this model, including all improvised musics; rock, pop, and hip-​hop styles; avant-​garde music; film music, and so on. Despite obvious flaws in the premises of the aesthetic concept of music, some contemporary philosophers of music still labor under its influence. For example, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kania’s (2007) chapter on the philosophy of music focuses exclusively on the main tenets of the work-​concept and on the assumption that “pure [instrumental] music often presents the most difficult philosophical problems” (p. 2). The problems that have occupied Western aesthetic philosophers since the nineteenth century are largely concerned with the ontology of musical works, the authenticity of performances of works, the cognitive evocation and expression of musical emotion by works, the nature and value of understanding musical works, and so forth. The scholars cited by Kania include several contemporary music philosophers: for example, Alperson, Bicknell, Budd, Carroll, Davies, Goehr, Kivy, Levinson, Robinson, Scruton, Walton, and Zangwill. The philosophical dispositions of these scholars range across a wide continuum, from those aligned closely with traditional aesthetic doctrine to several that reject most aspects of this doctrine. Unfortunately, these philosophers’ ideas appear rarely, if ever, in the literature of MEP. Why “unfortunately”? To take just one example, several noted music philosophers (e.g.,

78

David J. Elliott

Alperson, Budd, Davies, Robinson) have conducted thorough conceptual analyses of Langer’s work-​centered philosophy of music (1942, 1953), exposed many lapses in her logic, and, accordingly, rejected her concepts of the nature and value of music. To the extent that music educators are unaware of the depth and precision of these conceptual analyses, and the philosophy of music in general, our profession is weakened, because (for example) many teachers continue to accept uncritically Langer’s philosophy, which underpins past and present aesthetic and synergistic philosophies of music education (e.g., Reimer, 1970, 1989, 2003). At this point it’s appropriate to consider Higgins’s argument that “philosophical adherence to a rigid definition of music in terms of ‘musical works’ has led many philosophers to counterintuitive misunderstandings about the nature of music as a phenomenon in human experience” (1991, p. 16). Indeed, many of the issues and theories that traditional philosophers of music and music education continue to analyze and produce are outdated in relation to work in the fields of contemporary music philosophy, ethnomusicology, music psychology, music sociology, and neuroscience, all of which have exhaustively examined key topics in music education, such as people’s emotional responses to music (e.g., Juslin & Sloboda, 2010), music-​social identities, embodied interactions with music, and music and health (e.g., Elliott & Silverman, 2012b). But if past and present aesthetic conceptions of music are problematic inadequate, are there alternative ways of conceiving music? Yes. Beginning in the 1980s, a great deal of new musical scholarship rejected Enlightenment-​aesthetic theorizing and its many offshoots in favor of social-​cultural concepts of music, as explained by key scholars in several related fields: for example, “new musicology” (e.g., McClary, Kerman, Subotnick, Kramer); music sociology and ethnomusicology (e.g., DeNora, Shepherd, Small, Clayton, Bohlman, Martin, Finnegan); music psychology (e.g., Hargreaves, MacDonald); music philosophy (e.g., Sparshott, Alperson, Carroll, Robinson, Gracyk), and MEP (e.g., Bowman, Elliott, Goble, Jorgensen, Regelski). Because it’s impossible to account for all the important concepts, themes, and arguments in this new body of scholarship, I will only sketch a few social-​cultural, praxial, and pragmatic themes that have impacted MEP since the early 1990s. According to Kramer (1990) “music . . . is a form of activity: a practice. If we take it in these terms, we should be able to understand it less as an attempt to say something than as an attempt to do something” (p. xii). Similarly, Small (1998) argues that “music is not a thing at all but an activity; something that people do” (p.  2). Bowman (2007) proposes that music educators begin their professional theorizing “with music as a social act and a social fact, instead of music as an entity to which my relationship is aesthetic, receptive, and somehow individual in nature” (p. 1). In my work (Elliott, 1995; Elliott & Silverman, 2015), I recommend that we conceptualize “music” not narrowly—​not in terms of musical pieces, sonic works, or products alone—​but inclusively as a robust and highly diverse social praxis that includes pieces and much, much more. This means that each specific musical style is actually a style-​community: an integrated network of socially

Music Education Philosophy

79

situated music-​makers and listeners, who engage in socially situated forms of musical action (i.e., all forms of music-​making and listening, depending on the musical community’s priorities) toward the creation of musical products, events, and situations (performances, compositions, improvisations, rituals, ceremonies, and so forth) within specific social-​historical-­​­cultural-​political-​ethical-​economic contexts and value systems. In this praxial view, as explained originally in Elliott (1995), which deserves problematizing as much as any view, I admit freely that I did not give sufficient attention to issues of embodiment, gender, social justice, and the nature of education, nor did I detail sufficiently the nature of musical emotions. These and other dimensions require and receive much more development in the second edition of Music Matters (Elliott & Silverman, 2015). In other words, philosophical efforts should evolve critically in relation to new knowledge, new social and intellectual circumstances, collegial collaborations, and so forth. In short, like music, philosophy is (or should be) a social praxis. In summarizing praxial and pragmatic concepts of music and music education (e.g., Elliott, 1995; Regelski, 1997; Regelski & Gates, 2010; Elliott & Silverman, 2015), we can say that music is vital to all societies and cultures because its doings, makings, and effects work to define, embody, and reflect community and social values and fulfill a wide range of divergent and evolving needs. The highly diverse social-​cultural practice of music includes thousands of specific sociomusical style-​ communities that thrive at local and regional levels and across national borders and overlap for a variety of reasons and purposes. In praxial terms, says Regelski (1997), sound is deemed “musical” according to any personal, social, and cultural functions it serves. Sounds are “musical” not simply because of their sonic characteristics, but because of the functions people assign them in specific social-​cultural situations. It follows that musical values and meanings are not intrinsic, they are not located in sonic forms alone; musical values are socially assigned to sounds according to how sounds are used, experienced, and understood as being “good for” various purposes in personal and social life (Cross & Tolbert, 2009; Kramer, 1995; Regelski, 2006, 2009). As DeNora says, “Music is not about life but is rather implicated in the formulation of life; it is something that gets into action, something that is a formative, albeit often unrecognized resource of social agency” (2000, pp. 152–​153). In view of these themes, it should be clear that praxial, pragmatic, feminist, and postmodern concepts of music and music education differ fundamentally from aesthetic, work-​centered views. And it should be clear from the above that while efforts to fashion “synergistic” philosophies are often well intentioned, such efforts can easily produce serious logical contradictions. For example, attempting to fashion “a synergy” by combining aesthetic and praxial concepts of music education (e.g., Reimer, 2003) is like mixing oil and water or Descartes and Dewey—​ the result is a bog of logical contradictions, a “synergy myth.” This is not to say that synergistic views are impossible, only that such efforts must be very carefully constructed.

80

David J. Elliott

In conclusion, MEP is moving forward in rich and exciting ways and on multiple fronts, especially as new pragmatic and praxial philosophers, critical theorists, and feminist theorists apply their thinking to past and present issues in music, education, and music education. Accordingly, music educators have more sources of philosophical insight on more topics than ever before. The first challenge for music educators is to approach this literature with a balanced attitude of critical reflection and caution in terms of the philosophical aims, processes, and conclusions of the sources they study. The second challenge for present and future music educators is to use this literature wisely during the development and refinement of their own philosophies of music education. Indeed, MEP must not be left to capital-​P music education philosophers alone. It should be carried out and applied continuously by music teachers and community musicians who work with people in the everyday world. Recall Wittgenstein’s words: “What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk . . . about some abstruse questions . . . and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?” Which, again, includes important questions of everyday musical and educational life.

Reflective Questions

1. Is MEP important in music education? Why, or why not? 2. If someone asks you what “philosophy” means, how will you answer? 3. What attributes make the philosophy of music education (1) a robust field, and (2) a problematic field? 4. Locate, compare, and analyze examples of valid and fallacious thinking in MEP books and articles.

KEY REFERENCES Alperson, P. A. (1994). Introduction. In P. A. Alperson (ed.), What is music? An introduction to the philosophy of music (pp. 3–​30). University Park, PA:  Pennsylvania State University Press. Bowman, W. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New York: Oxford University Press. Higgins, K. M. (1991). The music of our lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. McCarthy, M., & Goble, J. S. (2009). The praxial philosophy in historical perspective. In D. J. Elliott (ed.), Praxial music education:  Reflections and dialogues (pp. 19–​51). New York: Oxford University Press. Robinson, J. (ed.). (1997). Music and meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Music Education Philosophy

81

REFERENCES Alperson, P. A. (1994). Introduction. In P. A. Alperson (ed.), What is music? An introduction to the philosophy of music (pp. 3–​30). University Park, PA:  Pennsylvania State University Press. Alt, M. (1968). Didaktik der Musik. Orientierung am Kunstwerk. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Angeles, P. A. (1981). Dictionary of philosophy. New York: Barnes and Noble. Bailey, R., Barrow, R., Carr, D., & McCarthy, C. (eds.) (2010). The Sage handbook of philosophy of education. London: Sage. Beaney, M. (2009). Analysis. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://​plato.stanford. edu/​entries/​analysis [accessed June 5, 2010]. Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford. Bicknell, J. (2005). Just a song? Exploring the aesthetics of popular song performance. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(3), 261–​270. Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, P., & Standish, P. (eds.) (2003). The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Bowman, W. (2010). No one true way:  Music education without redemptive truth. In T. Regelski & J. T. Gates (eds.), Music Education for Changing Times (pp. 3–​15). New York: Springer. Bowman, W. (2007). Who is the “We”? Rethinking professionalism in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(4), http://​act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Bowman6_​4.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010]. Bowman, W. (2005). The rationality of action: Pragmatism’s habit concept. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 4(4), http://​mas.siue.edu/​ACT/​v4/​Bowman4_​1.pdf [accessed August 12, 2010]. Bowman, W. (2003). Re-​tooling “Foundations” to address 21st century realities: Music education amidst diversity, plurality, and change. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 2(2), http://​act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Bowman2_​2.pdf [accessed August 23, 2010]. Bowman, W. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Bowman, W., & Frega, A. L. (eds.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of philosophy in music. New York: Oxford University Press Bowman, W., & Powell, K. (2007). The body in a state of music. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 1087–​1106). New York: Springer. Colwell, R. (ed.), (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New York: Schirmer. Colwell, R., & Richardson, C. (eds.), (2002). The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New York: Oxford University Press. Critchley, S. (2010). What is a philosopher? New York Times, May 16, 2010, file://​/​Users/​vtrombone/​ Desktop/​Philo%20for%20Gary%20/​What%20Is%20a%20Philosopher%3F:Critchley.html [accessed May 16, 2010]. Cross, I., & Tolbert, E. (2009). Music and meaning. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 24–​34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. J. (2007a). Puerto Rico: A site of critical performative pedagogy. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education. 6(1), 2–​24, http://​act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Elliott6_​ 1.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010].

82

David J. Elliott

Elliott, D. J. (2007b). “Socializing” music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(4), 60–​95, http://​act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Elliott6_​4.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010]. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters: A philosophy of music education. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2012a). Rethinking philosophy, re-​viewing musical-​emotional experiences. In W. Bowman & A. L. Frega (eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy in music education (pp. 37–​62). New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2012b). Why music matters:  Philosophical and cultural perspectives. In R. MacDonald, G. Kreutz, & L. Mitchell (eds.), Music, health, and wellbeing (pp. 25–​39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fiske, H. E. (1990). Music and mind: Philosophical essays on the cognition and meaning of music. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–​198. Goble, J. S. (2010). What’s so important about music education? New York: Routledge. Goehr, L. (2000). Music philosophy. In L. Macy (ed.), The new Grove dictionary of music online. http://​ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:22941/​subscriber/​article/​grove/​music/​52965#S5296 [accessed June 22, 2010]. Gutek, G. L. (2008). New perspectives on philosophy and education. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Hanslick, E. (1854). On the musically beautiful. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Payzant. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1986. Henry, N. (ed.). (1958). Basic concepts in music education. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. Higgins, K. M. (1991). The music of our lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington:  Indiana University Press. Jorgensen, E. (2002). Philosophical issues in curriculum. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 48–​ 62). New York: Oxford University Press. Jorgensen, E. (1997). In search of music education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Jorgensen, E. (1992). On philosophical method. In R. Colwell (ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 91–​101). New York: Schirmer. Juslin, P., & Sloboda, J. (2010). Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kania, A. (2007). The philosophy of music. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://​plato. stanford.edu/​entries/​music/​ [accessed June 22, 2010]. Kivy, P. (1980). The corded shell:  Reflections on musical expression. Princeton:  Princeton University Press. Kohli, W. (ed.) (1995). Critical conversations in philosophy of education. New York: Routledge. Korsmeyer, C. (2004). Gender and aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Routledge. Kramer, L. (1995). Classical music and postmodern knowledge. Berkeley:  University of California Press. Kramer, L. (1990). Music as cultural practice, 1800–​ 1900. Berkeley:  University of California Press. Kristeller, P. O. (1990). Renaissance thought and the arts: Collected essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Music Education Philosophy

83

Langer, S. K. (1966). The cultural importance of the arts. Journal of aesthetic education, 1(1), 5–​12. Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and form. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Langer, S. K. (1942). Philosophy in a new key. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1959). Foundations and principles of music education. New York: McGraw-​Hill. Lippman, E. A. (1964). Musical thought in ancient Greece. New  York:  Columbia University Press. Lucas, C. (ed.) (1969). What is philosophy of education? Toronto: MacMillan. McLeod, J. (1998). The promise of freedom and the regulation of gender—​feminist pedagogy in the 1970s. Gender and Education, 10(4), 431–​445. McNay, L. (1992). Foucault and feminism:  Power, gender and the self. Cambridge: Polity Press. Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Murray, R., Weiss, S., & Cyrus, C. (eds.) (2010). Music education in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Mursell, J. L. (1948). Education for musical growth. Boston: Ginn. Mursell, J. L. (1934). Human values in music education. New York: Silver, Burdett. Passmore, J. (1967). Philosophy. In P. Edwards (ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy, vol. 6 (p. 216). New York: Macmillan. Regelski, T. (2010a). The questions of “philosophy” or philosophy for music educators? Paper presented at the conference of the International Society for Philosophy of Music Education, Helsinki, Finland, June 10, 2010. Unpublished manuscript. Regelski, T. (2010b). Conclusion: An end is a beginning. In T. Regelski & J. T. Gates (eds.), Music education for changing times (pp. 187–​197). New York: Springer. Regelski, T. (2009). Curriculum reform:  Reclaiming “music” as social praxis. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 8(1), http://​act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​ Regelski8_​1.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010]. Regelski, T. (2006). Music appreciation as praxis. Music Education Research, 8(2), 281–​310. Regelski, T. (2005). Music and music education: Theory and praxis for “making a difference.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(1), 7–​27. Regelski, T. (2002). On “methodolatry” and music teaching as critical and reflective practice. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 102–​133. Regelski, T. (1997). A prolegomenon to a praxial theory of music education. Canadian Music Educator, 38, 43–​51. Regelski, T., & Gates, J. T. (eds.). (2010). Music education for changing times. New York: Springer. Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education:  Advancing the vision. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reimer, B. (1989). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reimer, B. (1970). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rosenberg, J. F. (1984). The practice of philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schwadron, A. (1967). Aesthetics: Dimensions for music education. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference. Shand, J. (ed.) (2009). Central issues of philosophy. Chichester, UK: Wiley-​Blackwell. Shusterman, R. (1997). Practicing philosophy:  Pragmatism and the philosophical life. New York: Routledge. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Hanover: University Press of New England. Small, C. (1980). Music-​society-​education. 2nd ed. London: John Calder.

84

David J. Elliott

Sparshott, F. (1994). Aesthetics of music:  Limits and grounds. In P.A. Alperson (ed.), What is music? An introduction to the philosophy of music (pp. 33–​98). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Sparshott, F. (1982). The theory of the arts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stone, L. (ed.) (1994). The education feminism reader. New York: Routledge. Stroll, A. (2009). Informal philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Swanwick, K. (1994). Musical knowledge:  Intuition, analysis, and music education. London: Routledge/​Falmer. Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. Windsor, UK: NFER Nelson. Vogt, J. (2003). Philosophy–​music education–​curriculum:  Some casual remarks on some basic concepts. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 2(1), http://​act. maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Vogt2_​1.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010]. Vogt, J. (2001). Der schwankende Boden der Lebenswelt: Phänomenologische Musikpädagogik zwischen Handlungstheorie und Ästhetik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. “What philosophy means to me.” (2006). Philosophy Forum. http://​groups.able2know.org/​ philforum/​topic/​1508–​1 [accessed June 12, 2010]. Woodford, P. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Chapter 5

CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

With the unprecedented meeting, mixing, and recontextualizing of cultures across the globe over the past 50 years arises a need for conceptualizing and organizing music education in line with these realities:  the challenge to devise systems of learning and teaching music that aim to reflect, feed off, and nurture the rich complexities of contemporary musical environments for children, adolescents, and adult learners. This was first formulated in the second half of the twentieth century by scholars like Hood, Blacking, Small, Swanwick, Campbell, Reimer, and Elliott. In the twenty-​first century, it is waiting to crystallize through the formulation of more coherent philosophies, and especially strategies for the implementation of practical approaches. This chapter aims to sketch a global perspective of the development of cultural diversity in music education—​also frequently referred to across educational settings as multicultural music education, intercultural music education, world music education, or global music education. It documents some of the key ideas and practices that have shaped current thinking on the topic, identifies recurring pitfalls and challenges, and presents a model that can aid in both understanding and developing practices across a wide range of contexts, ambitions, and specific local situations. In doing so, it aims to transcend the positive but naïve idea

86

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

that the complexities of music across the world can be represented by simply including (Western) notation and transcriptions of songs from various cultures into music curricula.

The Rise of Cultural Diversity in Music Education As Blacking (1985) points out, cultural diversity has existed across cultures and eras. Less common are active interventions in “multimusical” environments. From a recent Western perspective, McCarthy (1997) traces such initiatives back to the 1950s, and Volk (1998) digs well into the nineteenth century, where she also finds warnings on the “tendencies” of “negro melodies and comic songs” “to corrupt both musically and morally” (Mason quoted in Volk, 1998, p. 27). The influential 1967 Tanglewood Declaration is a convenient formal starting point for contemporary approaches to cultural diversity among music educators. Since that time, schools addressing cultural diversity in music education seem to have been driven mostly by demographics. The context of the school or school district in which a teacher worked (along with the teacher’s own experience and training) has been fundamental to the curricular choices made in elementary and secondary school music programs—​and occasionally shaped instructional strategies as well. This has been stronger than philosophical arguments for the selection of music based on its inherent sonic beauty so as to offer, for example, experiences in Thai music to students in largely Mexican, Korean, or Pakistani neighborhoods. In this sense, the development of world music in schools has been unlike that of the “world music” phenomenon at large, which has been attributed to forces such as musical curiosity, commercialism, exoticism, changing musical tastes, or “one world” ideologies (Taylor, 2007). In the United States, the historical development of greater musical diversity in school programs is directly linked to developments in university programs of music of the time. The field of ethnomusicology was blossoming with the founding of the Society for Ethnomusicology in 1955, which then fueled interest from established university faculties in performance, historical musicology, music theory, composition, and education in understanding and finding the relevance of the study of world music in music programs (Nettl, 2002). By the 1970s, the academy was opening its door to studies in the music of India, Japan, and Indonesia in particular. Gamelans as exemplar of “high-​art Asian music” began to appear in courtyards or rehearsal rooms to draw students directly into music-​making experiences (Campbell, 2004b; Solis, 2004). At the same time, a rise of interest in the study of musical traditions of the African continent was developing as a response to the Afro-​American Studies programs that were emerging at the edge of the civil rights era. New faculty hires

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

87

created opportunities to bring ethnomusicology and the performance of some of the world’s musical traditions into sharper focus, so that music could be studied and practiced more broadly. Faculty in music education and composition led their colleagues in bringing ethnomusicology and the development of world music ensembles into university programs. A fair balance of musics was achieved by some departments of music: Native American, Latin American, urban musics, and even popular musics appeared with African and Asian musics on the roster of courses for music majors and general studies students. This process of multiculturizing the school music curriculum accelerated considerably in the mid-​1970s, when government and educational policies started recognizing the importance and realities of cultural diversity more widely. This recognition was often related to ideas—​or illusions—​of social engineering toward a harmonious coexistence of widely different cultures within a single nation-​state. This period of curricular reform is documented by multiculturalists who worked within schools to reflect the cultural pluralism of society at large. Pioneering efforts by James A. Banks (2003) resulted in foundational understandings for multicultural education, which inspired a movement to restructure across-​the-​board school curriculum to guarantee educational equality regardless of age, ethnicity, class, or gender. Teachers were coming to grips with culturally responsive teaching, prompting the use of cultural experiences of ethnically diverse students to guide more effective teaching that could influence and inspire learning (Gay, 2002). Reflections on their own identities and those of their students emerged as an important stage in their professional development, so that the nature of pedagogical practice could be made more relevant to students (Howard, 2006). A first generation of U.S.  music educators like William M.  Anderson, Barbara Reeder Lundquist, Sally Monsour, and James Standifer, along with ethnomusicologists Ki Mantle Hood, John Blacking, David McAllester, and Bruno Nettl, asserted the need for music teachers to be enlightened as to the diversity of musical expressions that could be learned and taught. They paved the way for the reform of repertoire and pedagogical approaches in elementary and secondary schools, and inspired a flood of books, recordings, video recordings, and national and local mandates (Anderson & Campbell, 1989)  that resulted from the efforts of activist-​educators such as J.  Bryan Burton, Patricia Shehan Campbell, Mary Goetze, and Will Schmid. Attention was paid to songs and singing styles, “rhythm complexes” of percussion ensembles from sub-​Saharan African cultures, and participatory experiences in playing gamelan arrangements on classroom instruments and engaging in listening experiences that were part analysis and part participation. Programs at the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, and Kent State University (Ohio) were leading the way in these curricular developments and in their teacher education programs, which successfully melded ethnomusicology into their standard methods courses (Campbell, 2004b). The dissemination of “world music” or “multicultural music” to teachers has continued through the 1980s and 1990s and into the present, through

88

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

workshops at conference sessions and specialized institutes, and the emphasis on repertoire has given way to the inclusion of cultural meaning and pedagogical approaches that emanated from the targeted musical culture. Simultaneously, this transformation was in motion elsewhere in the world. In Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Europe, throughout Latin America, and across the African continent, curricular revision was evident at every level of music education. In postcolonial Africa, a large number of fiercely independent thinkers and practitioners, such as J. H. Kwabena Nketia and later Meki Nzewi, forged ideas linking traditional practices and constructs of music-​making with contemporary realities. Across Asia, two generations of musicians and scholars began negotiating the tensions in the triangle between long-​established traditional practices, a strong interest in Western art music, and the rise of popular music. In Australia, scholars like Peter Dunbar-​Hall and Kathryn Marsh made major practical progress in an environment where the translation from well-​conceived policies to actual practices that support cultural diversity—​and the music of Indigenous Australians—​is generally slow to take shape. In Europe, the diversification of musical training in public music schools, conservatories, and university programs was under way from the early 1980s, and consolidated in the early 1990s through the efforts of Joep Bor in Rotterdam, Huib Schippers in Amsterdam, Andreas Gutzwiller in Basel, Switzerland, Trevor Wiggins at Dartington in the United Kingdom, Keith Howard and David Hughes at (SOAS) the School of Oriental and Asian Studies in London, and Eva Saether and Håkan Lundström at Malmö, Sweden. Interest in what was often referred to as Teaching World Music led to the development of a movement known as Cultural Diversity in Music Education (CDIME) by the mid-​1990s, which drew from ethno­musicology, world music performance, and music education in an attempt to provide students with an understanding of how people learn, process, and find meaning in music as a human phenomenon (Lieth-​Philipp & Gutzwiller, 1995). Somewhere between ethnomusicology as a scholarly discipline and music education with its long-​standing conventions of school bands, choirs, and orchestras, there was a blend of views and practices that encompassed world music pedagogy, applied ethnomusicology, and community music (Campbell, 2004b; Higgins, 2006). An overview of European conservatoires and schools of music in 2000 yielded evidence of over 50 world music courses and programs, ranging from optional one-​off courses to full degrees (Kors et al., 2003). Not unlike the North American situation, “points of entry” for these new courses into these conservative environments tended to be music education, composition, jazz, or percussion. Through its conferences and publications CDIME has drawn international attention (Campbell et al., 2005; Kors, 2007; Lieth-​ Philipp & Gutzwiller, 1995), becoming an umbrella for the inclusion of those engaged in multicultural and global approaches to the musical education of students of various ages, interests, and contexts. Nowadays, learning what many refer to as “world music” (or at least, about world music) is available to many aspiring musicians and music lovers in some shape or form in school, community settings, or higher education. However, in spite

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

89

of positive intentions at almost all levels of music education and policy, its implementation in teacher training and in classrooms and studios around the world is still lagging. In actual practice, most core courses in history, theory, and performance studies remain almost exclusively directed toward aspects of Western art music in history, theory, and performance studies, with minimal attention paid to Western nonart, world art and traditional genres, and popular music (Nettl, 1995). Cain (2011) invokes the image of a reverse pyramid: while one would expect a solid body of musical practice, a healthy training environment, and some philosophy and policy, she observes the reverse in the case of cultural diversity in music education: much policy, little training, and barely any practice. The Association of European Conservatoires (AEC) did dedicate a solid project to this topic (Caird, Prchal & Shrewsbury, 2000), but as yet, there is not much evidence of increased activity in this area among its members. Accrediting organizations such as the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), which establish curricular standards and guidelines collegiate programs in music in North America, have modified earlier recommendations for courses in the study and performance of diverse musical practices as a more conservative, older layer, core of courses reemerges to give greater focus to the Western art traditions. During the first decade of the twenty-​first century, this phenomenon has spread worldwide post-​9/​11 (2001), with a subtle withdrawal of support and funds from many initiatives in the cultural diversity, rumors of the “failing of multiculturalism,” and a longing for an idyllicized monocultural past that may never have existed. Articulations on the merits and meanings of cultural diversity in music education have come from leading thinkers within the realm of music education, including Bennett Reimer, Keith Swanwick, David Elliott, and Estelle Jorgensen. Reimer’s remarkable influence over four decades on curricular design has shifted some from a position of music for music’s sake in his valuing of music education for its aesthetic meanings to questions of the extent to which music from other cultures can be fully understood by cultural outsiders (2003). While Reimer acknowledges the considerable efforts of those in the profession who have sought to multiculturalize the music curriculum, he remains skeptical as to the whether the production of materials and shaping of pedagogical approaches could ever replace the need for the foremost development of an understanding in the music of the single most prominent tradition of western European art music. Swanwick’s influential thinking on music education has long directed teachers toward the sonic features of music’s logic and beauty (1988), such that matters of its origin, function, and context run a distant second (and third and fourth) in significance. He argues for music education to focus on the treatment of musical features so as to lead students to an understanding of “the ways sounds behave” so that they might discover the relationships between features that can then lead to deeper musical experiences in listening, performance, and creative composition. Elliott favors a multicultural approach to music education, fully advocating a “MUSIC curriculum” with a range of music cultures, in order that the humanistic aim of “self-​understanding through other-​understanding” might be accomplished (1995). Jorgensen (2003) acknowledges the critical importance of

90

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

context in the design and delivery of music education. She firmly argues for a transformation of a music education that is responsive to diversity that is both musical and cultural, the latter pertinent to the identities, interests, and needs of students. A key international forum for the discourse in cultural diversity in music education has been the International Society for Music Education (ISME). Having approached the issues from what Marie McCarthy describes as three periods in its development—​the stimulation of the East-​West dialogue (1953–​69), recognition of national cultures (1970–​82), and sharing musics of the world (1982–​98) (McCarthy, 1997)—​it published its Policy on Musics of the World’s Cultures in 1996. This policy advocated engagement with world music in education from a predominantly ethno­ musicological point of view. Its heavy emphasis on music in culture has both raised awareness and caused stifling fear of cultural incorrectness among many music teachers. An updated policy with a more dynamic approach was endorsed by the ISME Board during the Beijing World Conference in 2010.

A Brief Conceptual Overview As the previous paragraph suggests, the uptake of the ISME policy on cultural diversity is slow, even if we take into consideration practical obstacles such as lack of funding, adequate training, and professional development. There is even a regression from curricular recommendations and from facing practical realities surrounding most contemporary music learning. This is likely to be due to conceptual approaches toward cultural diversity in music education, with underlying values and attitudes presenting invisible but very real thresholds. Three of these are widespread: Preconceptions regarding “ethnic,” “minority,” or “world” music and their place in the rhetoric and power structures of culturally diverse societies. While this is not the place for a debate on “correct” definitions of the terms used to refer to music from various cultures, it is important to observe how much confusion and “baggage” is associated with these terms. For example, for U.S. audiences, “ethnic” and “minority” still hail to 1970s/​1980s views of multiculturalism, as driven by non-­​ ­African-​American teachers’ fears of African-​American militancy, while “world” carries an interpretation of exotic island, bush, and court culture. Europe has a long history of exoticism (Oriental music), prejudice (primitive music), misconceived status (e.g., “folk music” for court traditions), and naïve idealism (“Weltmusik” in the sense of a single, harmonious global music). Given its relative lack of such strong connotations, the term “world music” (and incidentally its plural “world musics”) is perhaps the least objectionable term to collectively refer to music from various cultures, with an emphasis on the fact that music travels, establishes, and sometimes transforms itself away from its place and culture of origin (Schippers,

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

91

2010, pp.  17–​27). When observing societies and their approaches to cultural diversity in music education, the terms “monoculturalism,” “multiculturalism,” “interculturalism,” and “transculturalism” are useful instruments to indicate positions on a continuum with increasing room and tolerance for other cultures, from a single cultural reference to profound integration at the level of values and attitudes. It is interesting to note that while the rhetoric in music education has long shifted toward intercultural approaches, much of the practice (teaching Western art music using nineteenth-​century European pedagogy) has remained eminently mono­cultural (ibid, pp. 28–​32). Static approaches to essentially dynamic concepts such as authenticity, tradition, and context. When applied to world music, the fear of being accused of being inauthentic, not respecting the tradition, or presenting music out of context (all qualities commonly practiced and even celebrated in most Western music!) have paralyzed many educators from venturing into world music (Schippers, 2010, pp.  41–​60). As Said, Taylor, and others have pointed out, other cultures are often portrayed as being static, while only the West is modern and developed. The related concept of representation has been much in the mind of teachers, too: “If I’m confused about which piece to ‘do’ to represent a cultural group, then maybe I’ll leave it all alone.” The discussion on tradition, authenticity, and context leaves educators with a personal responsibility rather than a set of unambiguous guidelines for engaging with world music: the responsibility to deal intelligently with the dynamics of any tradition in order to create rewarding learning experiences in contemporary contexts. This discussion also offers a new vocabulary to assess existing or future projects and programs: has the teaching situation been shaped with a static idea in mind, or rather a concept of constant flux? Does the situation attempt to recreate an original context for the music, or does it see the music as recontextualized? Does the situation reflect a tendency toward reconstructing an authentic (in the sense of culturally and/​or historically correct) version of the music, or does it work from the view that the music has a new identity in the new context? Limited understanding of teacher-​learner interaction across cultures, and the gamut of accompanying pedagogical approaches. This has two aspects. Straddling the scholarly discipline of ethnomusicology and the practice of educating students in the world’s musical cultures is the phenomenon known as world music pedagogy (Campbell, 2004a). Yet beyond the theoretical understandings of music in and as culture that is at the heart of ethnomusicological study, and the aim for global expansion of repertoire in vocal and instrumental music education, the pedagogy of world music strives to reach beyond queries of “what” and “why” to the question of “how.” World music pedagogy concerns itself with how music is taught/​transmitted and received/​learned within cultures, and how the processes that are included within the culture can best be preserved—​or at least partially retained—​in classrooms and rehearsal halls. This includes the relative emphasis on notation or aural transmission, on atomistic/​analytical or more holistic approaches, and the importance given to tangible (e.g., technique, repertoire) and intangible (aesthetic, spiritual) aspects

92

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

of any music (Schippers, 2010, pp. 65–​75). The dynamic interactions that accompany these processes constitute a complex and fascinating realm of reflection, as underlying values are rarely made explicit. When the actors in this relationship come from different cultures, the complications multiply. Work on intercultural communication from sociology provides an interesting framework for coming to grips with these complications. In a famous study of constructs in corporate headquarters across nations, Hofstede (1998) identified five dimensions that strongly influenced interaction between people:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Small versus large power distance Individualism versus collectivism Long-​term versus short-​term orientation Masculinity versus femininity (which in music education could be opera­ tionalized most meaningfully as “strongly gendered versus gender-​neutral” 5. Avoidance versus tolerance of uncertainty

Each of these dimensions is eminently relevant to music transmission across cultures. For instance, they can elucidate (1) the absolute power of the guru in Indian classical music, (2) the spirit of the Javanese village gamelan, (3) the difference between performance-​oriented community music projects and long apprenticeships with African kora masters, (4) rigidly defined gender roles in Aboriginal music, and (5) the problems many Asian students experience when they are faced with postmodern acceptance of uncertainties when learning music in the West, having come from a culture where it may be inappropriate to challenge anyone senior. Combining the concepts discussed above, Schippers (2010) distinguishes three basically different responses commonly encountered among music teachers from other cultures facing the challenges of their new environments: 1. The teacher maintains the way of teaching that she or he has personally experienced, often in the context of the culture of origin. This is an attitude that can be fed by allegiance to and respect for the tradition, conviction, arrogance, insecurity, ignorance, or a clever appraisal of the market (as in the deliberate ambiguity about their role as spiritual guru among many expatriate Indian music teachers in the late 1960s). This approach has a substantial risk of failure by not acknowledging contemporary realities that surround the musical practice. While key qualities in the music may be retained, the frustration level among students from another culture is likely to cause a significant dropout rate. In some instances this may be an intended mechanism for natural selection, in most it is likely to be an undesired effect. 2. The teacher adopts the predominant teaching style of the host culture (whether that is a country or an institution). It is sometimes difficult for musicians who feel truly foreign to resist being intimidated into adapting to the dominant culture. For instance, teachers may resort to notation to transmit essentially aural traditions out of insecurity rather than conviction. Many teachers of African percussion will concede that

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

93

a performance can be notated, but maintain that the learning process is barely served by transcribing the various parts, as a sense of the flow of the rhythm is best achieved through listening and practice. Similar comments could be made about North Indian ragas. Yet some feel compelled to learn and teach notation when working within academic environments to gain acceptance, at the risk of generating stiff and stilted performances. 3. The teacher adopts a mix of the two traditions of teaching, and possibly adds new elements inspired by others. In practice this is the approach most commonly encountered, sometimes inspired by necessity, but mostly by choice. The intelligent music teacher assesses the profile of students, weighs the alternatives in relation to their ambitions and possibilities, and proceeds accordingly. Feay-​Shaw (2002) studied the gradual change of the transmission process of an Akan musician-​teacher who, in his first year as visiting artist in an American university, delivered the music in a more traditional manner than in his second year, when he had learned to use notation to teach the rhythmic phrases in a self-​styled method that was midway between his old and new worlds. When applied consciously, creatively, and conscientiously, a blended pedagogy can be a highly effective way of adapting teaching strategies, even at a superficial level. When applied haphazardly, it can be no more than a halfhearted attempt to marry the irreconcilable, and can fail to retain students or develop their skills. This deserves further consideration.

Models of Formal and Informal Learning While course materials and activities in “world music education” have often focused on content (the songs), and assumed that the nineteenth-​century pedagogies developed from Western folk and classical music were appropriate or even superior formats to transmit this material, there is an increasing awareness that learning and teaching music in other cultures may present models for music students across genres, cultures, and ages. Sometimes these practices—​often with a successful transmission history of centuries—​involve approaches that seem at odds with dominant educational philosophies in the West. If musical understanding is based on the study of music’s sonic properties, its cultural contexts, and the behaviors of those who make music and respond to it (ISME, 1996), then it is necessary to experience and study the manner in which it is transmitted and acquired. There is a vast difference between the experiences of an initiated student of an Indian guru who commits to 20 years of intense training to master the art of performing ragas and talas in the Hindustani tradition and a young participant in a samba batucada group rehearsing

94

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

for the Carnival in Rio. Both hopefully have support and experiences that help them realize their musical goals, whether they are long-​term or short-​term, spiritual or community-​driven. And both these experiences—​and countless others—​can inform music education in institutions. In recent literature (e.g., Green, 2002, 2008), a distinction is often made between formal, nonformal, and informal learning. Informal is characterized by an absence of consciously organized structures for music instruction; nonformal relationships between teachers and learners are organized by senior musicians or communities themselves; and formal represents programs and structures regulated by governments, in which the institutional environment consequently is a strong influence. This mapping of learning situations can be useful, but it is not without its critics. For instance, African educator Meki Nzewi (2003) convincingly argues that African transmission processes often classified as “informal” are in fact highly structured, purposeful, and fit for context. The rise of attention to community music activities, aiming to provide for “personal and communal expressions of artistic, social, political and cultural concerns” (ISME-​CMA, 2008), has taken what began as experiences chiefly outside the realm of formal institutions of musical education into schools and tertiary-​level programs at colleges, conservatories, and universities. In its early development in the 1960s and 1970s out of a Marxist-​inspired movement of social activism, it was viewed as a socially conscious means of developing individual expression within a supportive and accepting community (Higgins, 2006). Today’s manifestations of community music activities evidence a mix of formal and informal means of group music-​ making with “facilitation” by a group leader rather than didactic teaching as the means by which people sing, play guitars, write songs, form drumming ensembles, and dance together to live and recorded music (Bartleet et al., 2009). Since the mid-​1990s, a steady stream of scholarship has been directed toward the examination of children’s musical expressions, advancing beyond collections of their songs to questions of how they acquire songs, chants, and dance routines. Ethnographic techniques have been employed to the study of children whose musical expressions reflect their valuing of mediated music as well as repertoire that emanates from their home and community experiences. In her study of a multicultural sampling of American schoolchildren, Patricia Campbell (2010) examined content, functions, and meanings of children’s songs and rhythmicking behaviors, and described particular processes by which school and mediated songs were altered at the whim of children earnest in their efforts to make the music their very own. Amanda Minks (2002) identified within a review of ethnomusicological and education-​based research the theme of children’s undirected peer-​group practices in their learning of songs and singing games, and noted their tendency toward observation and adaptation of adult musical practices. Kathryn Marsh (2009) centered her work on questions of children’s musical creativity in playgrounds, embracing rich descriptions of their transmission of songs to one another in locations spreading from Sydney to Seattle and Seoul.

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

95

There were notable early efforts in the study of transmission. After Hood (1960) put the concept of bimusicality on the agenda, Booth (1986) applied aspects of the ethnomusicological method to the discovery of issues relevant to music education in his systematic study of tabla players. Through observations and interviews, he examined specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the teaching of a selection of active and successful players, as well as the ambience and “mood” of their lessons. Trimillos (1989) studied the oral-​aural spectra of systems in which the teaching and learning of music transpired across the Hawaiian halau, the German Hochschule, the Filipino maestro, and the Japanese ryu. Another early exploration of transmission was the study by Holmes (1990) of the aural techniques of a fiddle player in fiddling classes for beginners in a community outreach program, which led through transcriptions of class sessions to an understanding of the extent to which demonstration and imitation were key to learning Anglo-​American and Celtic tunes. Early inroads to the development of a literature on aurality and the demonstration-​imitation process of music transmission were noted in Lessons from the World (Campbell, 1990), particularly from the realms of ethnomusicology and folklore but also as addressed in anthropology and musicology (the latter coming from research on music in medieval Europe). Certainly, the descriptions by Bakan (1999) of Bali and Rice (1994) of Bulgaria documenting their journeys as cultural outsiders to learn traditional instruments reveal which teaching and learning skills may transfer (and which do not) from first cultures to second, adopted cultures. Linking these ideas back to the realities of music transmission in other cultures, ways forward to implement musical diversity in education emerge from the basis of a sound understanding of the key issues involved. “World music education” not only teaches valuable lessons about other cultures, it invites educators to reflect on the full gamut of contemporary practices, and can inform both formal and informal music education in the West.

Lessons from the World Bringing together the issues related to learning and teaching processes discussed above from a global perspective, they can be summarized in a framework that provides an overview of 12 pairs of key concepts across four clusters (see fig. 5.1). This framework can be used to gain deeper understanding of music transmission across a wide range of settings (including Western art music in schools of music and conservatoires), as it invites reflection on both observable practice and underlying constructs. For any situation of learning and teaching music, it interrogates the tools used as well as the values and attitudes that inform choices for any positions on the continua shown.

96

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell Twelve Continuum Transmission Framework (TCTF) Issues of Context Static tradition “Reconstructed” authenticity “Original” context

Constant flux “New identity” authenticity Recontextualization Modes of Transmission

Atomistic/analytical

Holistic

Notation-based

Oral

Tangible

Intangible Dimensions of Interaction

Large power distance

Small power distance

Individual central

Collective central

Strongly gendered

Gender-neutral

Avoiding uncertainty

Tolerating uncertainty

Long-term orientation

Short-term orientation Approaches to Cultural Diversity Multicultural Intercultural

Monocultural

|

|

Transcultural

Figure 5.1  Framework for understanding music transmission in culturally diverse environments (Schippers, 2010).

Schippers (2010) has argued that this framework can be a powerful and effective instrument for better understanding music transmission processes when a number of observations are taken into account:



1. The framework can be viewed from four perspectives: the tradition, the institution, the teacher, and the learner. These may be (and in fact often are) at odds with each other. The way these tensions are negotiated is crucial in creating learning environments that will be perceived as successful by all concerned. 2. There are neither “right” nor “wrong” positions on each continuum: the framework is essentially nonprescriptive and nonjudgmental. Positions are likely to vary from tradition to tradition, from teacher to teacher, from student to student, between phases of development, from one individual lesson to another, and even within single lessons. The aim of the framework is not to establish the “correct” way of teaching for any music, but to increase awareness of conscious and subconscious choices. The underlying assumption is that teaching is more likely to be successful when the institutions, teachers, and learners are fully aware of the choices they have and make, and are able to adapt to the requirements of different learning situations by choosing positions or moving fluidly along the continua.

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

97

3. There is some coherence between the continua: a general tendency to the left (atomistic, notation, tangible, static concepts, hierarchical, monocultural) points toward formal, institutional settings; a tendency to the right toward more informal, often community-​based processes. When a “right-​oriented” tradition finds itself in a “left-​oriented” environment, there is an increased risk of friction and unsuccessful transmission processes. This may explain many of the problems reported from projects trying to introduce community, popular, folk, and world music in European and American formalized environments (2010, pp. 124–​125).

The Twelve Continuum Transmission Framework (TCTF) can be applied to describe given teaching situations, whether they are moments in lessons or entire enculturation processes. Such descriptions of musical transmission are preferably based on a full analysis of an observed (or, even better, lived) teaching process, supported by extensive interviews with the facilitators/​teachers and the learner(s). Of the four clusters, methods of transmission and interaction are easiest to deduce from observation. With approaches to tradition, authenticity, and context, issues of interpretation arise:  the observer has to deduce or interpret implicit thought patterns and settings, clear indications of which are often absent. In long processes (like learning the violin or the shakuhachi), these ideas will be transmitted in a sophisticated manner in a combination of verbal and nonverbal communication. Observed approaches to cultural diversity tend to be less ambiguous, and can be readily established in most cases, often with support from verbal or written background material. The graphic representation of a transmission process (with positions marked on each continuum) can provide interesting overviews and comparisons, but on its own is not sufficient to provide significant insight into a specific situation of music transmission or learning. The descriptive component brings to life the transmission process. Not only the position but also the reasoning behind choosing the position on each continuum is crucial. Perceptions are likely to be most similar when the framework is applied to a well-​defined, short period in the process of teaching and learning music. Greater variation (and consequently more ambiguous positions on the continua) exists when applied to longer processes. This does not devalue the framework: considering the reality of practices of teaching and learning, it stands to reason to find alternation between choices over various stages of musical development. However difficult to position and document precisely, the description of longer trajectories can provide the most valuable information on how musical skills and knowledge are acquired within a specific tradition. Although the framework has specifically been designed to describe situations of musical transmission and learning involving world music traditions in culturally diverse societies, the value of the framework is not limited to those settings. There is considerable potential in applying the framework to more “monocultural” settings. Analyzing the various dimensions of the framework in relation

98

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

to traditions in their cultures of origin—​including world, jazz, pop, and Western classical music—​can be quite revealing. In such analyses, some of the continua may be less relevant, particularly those dealing with cultural diversity. There are four specific areas for which the framework has potential implications:  music education in the classroom; professional training of musicians and teachers in institutions like conservatories, university music departments, and schools of music; (ethno)musicology and music research at large; and music-​making and learning in communities.

Promises and Obstacles In spite of the rather sobering or even bleak picture that emerges from some of the sections in this chapter, there are in fact a good number of exemplary practices worldwide that illustrate that cultural diversity in music education can be inspiring and rewarding if both the organizational and conceptual challenges mentioned above are addressed with sense and sensitivity. There is abundant evidence of this:  from small-​scale community initiatives in African townships to large world music & dance centres in Europe; from vibrant traditional music schools in India to visionary practices across North America. By and large, the practice of teaching world music is on an upward trajectory in terms of the frequency of appearance in the curriculum of children’s singing games, polyphonic choral pieces, percussion (especially drumming) experiences, and culturally sensitive arrangements of a wide array of the world’s musical expressions for school bands and orchestras. These developments are helped by unstoppable changes in demographics, increasingly looser links between ethnicity and cultural preference and activities (breaking down musical stereotypes), and an increasing number of “world musicians” conversant with the language and approach of both their own and new environments. However, despite best efforts by well-​ intentioned teachers who embrace the philosophical tenets of musical and cultural diversity as integral to twenty-​ first-​century music education, the journey from philosophy and policy to practice is long and laden with considerable challenges for many. There are various uncertainties and misgivings in the minds of working teachers. Remarks like these represent some of the reasonings behind the largely monocultural practices within schools: “Multicultural music is not relevant, because my kids are not ethnic; they are white.” “I have no time to teach world music.” “My expertise is my training in Western—​not world—​music.” While lack of resources and professional development are very real obstacles, successful practitioners report a number of strategies that largely overcome the need for external support, including a commitment to listening continuously to the music to be taught in order to know its intricacies; reading key references to become informed of the context and meaning of music and of particular musical expressions, genres, and pieces in a culture; seeking out

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

99

cultural communities for the music, dance, drama, various visual arts, crafts, and customs that manifest their values; talking to artist musicians about the music they make and why it is important to them; observing—​or, better, participating as a student in—​lessons by a master singer or instrumentalist in order to understand the pedagogical approach; seeking out a genuine performance or listening competence in a second musical culture for the sensitivity it brings to understanding music comparatively; developing and delivering instruction intensively; and focusing on one or just a few musical cultures (Campbell, 1996). Moreover, it is not necessary to go to inland Borneo or outback Australia to do fieldwork for cultural diversity in music education. The opportunities are around the corner, often a short bus ride away. Most communities from other cultures are extremely welcoming and generous, even if they have major grief from a recent or more distant path (be it war, suppression, racism, or slavery). A dialogue approached with integrity and some cultural sensitivity can lead to highly rewarding experiences. In-​service training, professional development, sabbaticals, study leave, or refresher time can be used to develop insights, knowledge, and skills that will help realize vibrant learning experiences. These may include boldly recontextualized versions of the music one chooses to work with in the classroom, acknowledging differences with originals, aware but not paralyzed by concepts such as tradition, authenticity, and context. Content and approaches developed in this way may also address the diversity of learning styles and strengths within any educational setting. Students from other cultures frequently have trouble learning music through notation or analysis, yet may excel in understanding and remembering complicated music by ear. Some may learn best through abstract presentations of the material, while others gain most from a hands-​on approach. These are well-​known principles that require additional sensitivity and can be put to even more effective use in culturally diverse environments.

Conclusion Cultural diversity has yielded a wealth of thought and practices since Ki Mantle Hood (1960) reported on his experiences with teaching gamelan in U.S. university environments 50 years ago. The contours of successful practices are becoming clearer; the main challenges are training and implementation. Music educators who are intent on seeking best practice for the development of musical skills and understandings do well to pull back the curtain to allow in the wealth of perspectives on musical cultures and traditions, with their inspiring and effective approaches to transmission, teaching, and learning. The use of teaching modeling, student imitation, and exploration and improvisation are important to the integrity of delivery of essential and meaningful knowledge of musical cultures. If these are to be taken seriously, the transmission of much of the world’s art, traditional, and popular music can only be

100

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

taught acknowledging the central role of aural transmission in addition to notation. Central to the process of learning the classical music of India, the gamelan music of Java and Bali, the Chopi (Mozambican) xylophone and drum ensemble, music of the Bolivian Andes, the African-​American gospel song, and the rock, reggae, and rap music that are internationally available is the extent to which listening strategies are applied, at ever deepening levels. Leaving notation aside to learn these musical expressions adds to the musical meaning of these genres within their cultures of origin, and helps develop a more comprehensive musicianship in learners that is useful in knowing, understanding, and enjoying music at large. Similarly, celebrating rather than dreading the diversity of approaches to tradition, authenticity, and context can assist in preparing learners to find their way in the dazzling spectrum of musical cultures, styles, and approaches that make up the world of music today. Ultimately, it is not in question whether cultural diversity in music education will have an impact on learning and teaching music across the world, but how and when formal music education ensures its continued relevance by recognizing and integrating profoundly those practices that will shape musical learning into the future.

Reflective Questions

1. Discuss three watershed historical events that fed the development of the movement in cultural diversity in music education over the past 50 years. 2. Describe the considerations of pedagogical method that can offer deeper experiences in the world’s musical cultures that extend beyond “sonic materials” alone. 3. Give examples of practices that differentiate between music-​educational approaches based on monoculturalism, multiculturalism, interculturalism, and transculturalism. 4. Select a familiar and less familiar musical culture, and apply the TCTF to the likely pedagogical techniques that are evident. 5. Describe a teaching scenario in which the dynamic concepts of authenticity, tradition, and context are honored in a balanced and reasonable manner.

KEY SOURCES Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally:  Experiencing music, expressing culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S., Drummond, J., Dunbar-​Hall, P., Howard, K., Schippers. H., & Wiggins, T. (eds.) (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st century. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

101

Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Solis, T. (ed.) (2004). Performing ethnomusicology:  Teaching and representation in world music ensembles. Berkeley: University of California Press. Volk, T. M. (2004). Music, education and multiculturalism:  Foundations and principles. New York: Oxford University Press.

WEBSITES Association for Cultural Equity: www.culturalequity.org/​. Cultural Diversity in Music Education: www.cdime-​network.com/​cdime. International Society for Music education: www.isme.org. Smithsonian Folkways: www.folkways.si.edu/​.

REFERENCES Anderson, W. M., & Campbell, P. S. (1989). Multicultural perspectives in music education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Bakan, M. (1999). Music of death and new creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Banks, J. A. (2003). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). New York: Jossey-​Bass. Bartleet, B. L., Dunbar-​Hall, P., Letts, R., & Schippers, H. (2009). Sound links: Community music in Australia. Brisbane: Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre. Blacking, J. (1985). A false trail for the arts? Multicultural music education and the denial of individual creativity. In M. Ross (ed.), The aesthetic in education (pp.  1–​27). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Booth, G. (1986). The oral tradition in transition: Implications for music education from a study of North Indian tabla transmission. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Kent State University. Cain, M. (2011). Philosophy, policy, practice:  Visions and realities of cultural diversity in selected primary music classrooms in Brisbane and Singapore. Ph.D. diss., Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University. Caird, G., Prchal, M., & Shrewsbury, R. (eds.) (2000). Music education in a multicultural European society—​ Final project publication. Utrecht:  Association of European Conservatories (AEC). Campbell, P. S. (1990). Lessons from the world. New York: Schirmer Books. Campbell, P. S. (1996). Music in cultural context. Reston, VA:  Music Educators National Conference. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads. (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2004a). Teaching music globally:  Experiencing music, expressing culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2004b). Ethnomusicology and music education: Crossroads for knowing music, education, and culture. Research Studies in Music Education 21, 16–​30.

102

Huib Schippers and Patricia Shehan Campbell

Campbell, P. S., Drummond, J., Dunbar-​Hall, P., Howard, K., Schippers, H., & Wiggins, T. (eds.) (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st century. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford University Press. Feay-​Shaw, S. J. (2002). The transmission of Ghanaian music by culture-​bearers:  From master musician to music teacher. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Washington. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–​116. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishers. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishers. Higgins, L. (2006). Boundary-​ walkers:  Contexts and concepts of community music. Ph.D. diss., University of Limerick. Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: International differences in values. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol 39. Retrieved 18 November 2003 from www.questia.com. Holmes, R. (1990). A model of aural instruction examined in a case of fiddle teaching. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Washington. Hood, K. M. (1960). The challenge of bi-​musicality. Ethnomusicology, 4, 55–​59. Howard, G. R. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. ISME. (1996). Policy on musics of the world’s cultures. Reading, UK: ISME. ISME-​CMA. (2008). Community music commission. See www.isme.org [accessed October 10, 2008]. Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kors, N. (ed.) (2007). Networks and islands: World music and dance education. Musiké 3. The Hague: Semar. Kors, N., Saraber, L., & Schippers, H. (2003). Sound links: Cultural diversity, mobility, and employability in music education. Rotterdam: Rotterdam Academy of Music and Dance. Lieth-​ Philipp, M., & Gutzwiller, A. (eds.) (1995). Teaching musics of the world. Affalterbach: Philipp Verlag. McCarthy, M. (1997). The role of ISME in the promotion of multicultural music education. International Journal for Music Education, 29, 81–​93. Marsh, K. (2009). The musical playground. New York: Oxford University Press. Minks, A. (2002). From children’s song to expressive practice: Old and new directions in the ethnomusicological study of children. Ethnomusicology, 46, 379–​408. Nettl, B. (1995). Heartland excursions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Nettl, B. (2002). Encounters in ethnomusicology. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press. Nzewi, M. (2003). Acquiring knowledge of the musical arts in traditional society. In Herbst, A., Nzewi, M., & Agawu, K. (eds.), Musical arts in Africa: Theory, practice and education (pp. 13–​37). Pretoria: University of South Africa. Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education. (3rd ed.). Advancing the vision. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-​Hall. Rice, T. (1994). May it fill your soul. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Solis, T. (ed.) (2004). Performing ethnomusicology:  Teaching and representation in world music ensembles. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cultural Diversity: Beyond “Songs from Every Land”

103

Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind and education. London: Routledge. Taylor, T. (2007). Beyond exoticism:  Western music and the world. Durham, NC:  Duke University Press. Trimillos, R. (1989). Halau, hochschule, maestro, and ryu:  Cultural approaches to music learning and teaching. International Journal of Music Education, 14, 32–​42. Volk, T. M. (1998; second edition 2004). Music, education and multiculturalism: Foundations and principles. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 6

SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY Bruno Nettl

This chapter introduces the field of ethnomusicology and attempts to relate it to issues and approaches in music education, broadly defined. It comments, albeit very selectively, on ways in which the findings of ethnomusicology may inform music education, and also takes into account certain ways in which the concerns of music education have impacted the approaches and the organization of ethnomusicology.

Ethnomusicology Defined The scholars who identify themselves as ethnomusicologists have had a difficult time coming to agreement about a precise definition and conceptualization of their field. Most ethnomusicologists in Europe and North America see themselves as (1) students of the musics of the world’s cultures from a comparative, relativistic, and nonjudgmental perspective, and (2) students of music in its relationships to human culture (or cultures) at large, and more specifically, to other domains of culture such as social organization, religion, politics, and the arts. Typically, and especially before around 1980, ethnomusicologists in Western nations have been concerned with cultures outside their own, and most frequently they have studied societies that are geographically distant from their home ground. Their approach has been primarily that of the scholar rather than that of the practicing artist. Ethnomusicologists in

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

105

other parts of the world, however, have been more inclined to study the cultural “other” within their own nations or culture areas, most commonly the rural folk music or the non-​Western classical traditions of their own nations. It may go without saying that individual ethnomusicologists don’t try to comprehend the entire world of music, even superficially; rather, they devote their careers to long-​term specialization in one or perhaps two or three distinct cultures.

Approaches Ethnomusicology is a heterogeneous field, and its practitioners follow a large number of methods and styles of scholarship in conducting their studies, and their work has been based on a number of fundamental concepts. The approaches discussed below, especially in their relationships to music education, are particularly significant.

Preservation The field of ethnomusicology has always been concerned with the preservation of musical traditions that are seen to be on the verge of extinction. They have done this principally by recording—​first with notation alone, then with the use of sound and eventually visual recording. Since around 1960, they have also widely carried out their research by studying to be performers, normally as a way of comprehending the system, occasionally to become carriers of the tradition. In their interest in preservation, they have often worked to stimulate members of a society to maintain their older musical traditions intact. From the beginnings of ethnomusicology (c. 1900), preservation has been one of the principal motivating forces of field work, providing justification for face-​to-​face contact between investigator and the musical culture being learned. Preservation has also been a major incitement for government and foundation support for ethnomusicological research, and for the introduction of ethnomusicological principles into music education. Beliefs that the musical diversity of the world was disappearing, and that preservation must be carried out, has been one of the principal stimuli of ethnomusicology throughout its history.

Fieldwork This term denotes the principal way of gathering data in ethnomusicological research, and while at one point it may have suggested an explorer sitting in front of a tent

106Bruno Nettl wearing a pith helmet, watching a group of “natives” singing and dancing, the concept of fieldwork includes a large number of approaches and techniques, all of which, I believe it is safe to say, involve face-​to-​face confrontation with the people whose music is being studied. Fieldwork includes everything from relatively distant observation and somewhat artificial “collecting” to consciously entering into a culture as a participant. The quality of the fieldworker’s relationship to his or her informants, consultants, or teachers is a major issue in the ethnomusicological discourse on fieldwork.

Internalization By “internalization,” I  mean the comprehension of a musical system by learning to perform the music from cultural insiders, and trying to understand the music from an insider’s perspective. In certain ways, the aims of fieldwork can be seen as consisting of two sides of a coin. On the one hand, “preservation” is likely to suggest a desire on the part of the fieldworker to affect the culture being studied, perhaps by persuading its members to avoid changing their tradition. Internalization, on the other hand, suggests a more intensive interaction, significantly affecting change in the fieldworker and his or her personal and individual musical culture. Most important, the concept of internalization accompanies active participation—​as student, performer, perhaps interpreter—​in a foreign music. Carrying out fieldwork by attempting to internalize a music has become a standard component of research methodology. To be sure, certain ethnomusicologists and educators may question the value and efficacy, for example, of attempts by Americans or Europeans studying to become Japanese or Indian musicians, and reports of success are inevitably nuanced. Nevertheless, the concept of internalization has played a major role in developing a relationship between music education and ethnomusicology. Internalization of a different sort, however, involves the fieldworker’s search for the cultural insider’s own perspective of music. If the fieldworker does not choose to (or cannot, for any of many reasons) participate as a performer, he or she will surely try to comprehend and to present a foreign culture’s perspective, its system of ideas, of its music, from social, religious, economic, and specifically musical perspective.

Processes Since the 1960s, ethnomusicologists have seen the world of music as an ever-­​ ­changing set of phenomena, and they have devoted much of their energy to a search for understanding of the processes of change and of cultural relationships. Placing the many and diverse sets of processes that affect everything from the m ­ acrocosm of a total music to small units of culture such as changes in one instrument makes for

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

107

a vast conceptual category. In the first several decades of their field (c. 1900–​1960), many ethnomusicologists saw themselves as following a synchronic perspective (in contrast to the diachronic approach of historians), looking at each culture—​ especially the cultures of folk and small tribal societies—​as something in essence unchanging; or at least they concentrated on what they considered to be consistency. During the last 50 years, this view has shifted to the point that the processes themselves and their nature have become major foci of research and communication. In contemplating music and musical culture as dynamic, ethnomusicologists have been concerned with many different processes. Here are a few: the nature of musical change and the relationship of musical change to culture change; change of musical style, repertory, instrumentarium, performance context; change in individual compositions through a history of performance, such as the development of variants in a folk song. But significantly, for an educationist perspective, they also include a very broad category—​the way a musical system transmits itself, is taught and learned. In their study of processes, ethnomusicologists, in contrast to most music historians, are interested in discovering intra-​and intercultural regularities.

Comparative Study Ethnomusicologists have largely abandoned the label “comparative musicology,” which was actually a code word for inter-​and multicultural studies. But they do devote themselves substantially to comparisons of various sorts, as they regard comparison itself as an epistemological imperative. The degree to which intercultural comparison actually defines ethnomusicology has often been argued, but despite the widespread use of the label “comparative musicology” before around 1955, ethnomusicologists have probably never engaged in explicit comparison more than scholars in other humanistic discipline, and they have never (as a profession) compared musics in order to determine their relative quality or efficacy. Indeed, the term “comparative,” when used to characterize this field, has indicated an attitude rather than the typical research design. They believe that each musical system should be viewed as one of a universe of musical systems; that it is possible to use certain methods that apply to all musics and may be used to apprehend any of them; and that meaningful understanding can be accomplished by comparing the music of a society to that of its geographical neighbors.

Music and Culture Although defining ethnomusicology as the study of music in culture (a definition used by many North and Latin Americans, and Europeans) did not become

108Bruno Nettl current until after 1950, earlier scholars, too, regarded the understanding of music in its cultural context as an essential component of their field. How, precisely, this interest should be realized and what kinds of conclusions it may draw has led to major debates. Central among them has been the suggestion that what determines the character of a music is, principally, the nature of the culture of which it forms a part; in other words, that musical style reflects culture quite directly. The efficacy of this theory, whether and to what degree it may be tenable, and how it might best be illustrated, these are major issues of ethnomusicology relevant also to ethnomusicological interests of music education. A second area of debate concerns, broadly speaking, aesthetics; here we encounter issues of musical value, such as debates regarding the superiority of certain musics—​particularly Western art music traditions—​and the question whether the musics of the world, particularly musics of tribal and folk societies, are of interest to modern scholarship because of their intrinsic qualities, or simply because they help us to understand the cultures from which they come. Debates about the role of music in defining and preserving culture are also important here. Finally, the question whether ethnomusicological research has benefited the cultures whose music has been investigated has been an issue of increasing importance in ethnomusicological discussion.

Music Education and Ethnomusicology: the Relationship In assessing the relationship of music education and ethnomusicology one ought now to identify approaches and issues that parallel to the above-​listed “approaches” of ethnomusicology, but given the nature of this volume, the reader is referred to its principal content for discovering these parallels. Attempts at establishing dialogue between the two disciplines have been affected by an obvious though fundamental distinction. While music educators ultimately strive to solve practical problems of teaching and learning and the efficacy of their methods, and while their research, even when it may on the surface be totally impractical, is always ultimately directed to utilitarian goals, ethnomusicologists have most commonly considered the applied side of their research as a sideline. Nevertheless, among the various branches of music scholarship as carried out in many parts of the world, it is most commonly ethnomusicologists who have maintained a close and growing relationship to music education. The history of the relationship, particularly in academic institutions, is complicated. On the one hand, music educators and educationists in Europe and the Americas, or with Western orientation, have always maintained a close connection to historical (or “conventional”) musicologists, and to music theorists, as it was this group of scholars who could provide understanding of the Western classical

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

109

repertory with which they were most concerned. They also have, naturally, maintained a special affinity to the academic study of performance, or what is often called “applied music,” since the principal approach of music educators at primary and secondary levels has been to teach students at least rudimentarily how to play or sing. On the other hand, both music educationists and ethnomusicologists, perhaps along with some other groups of educators such as composers of experimental music or, in earlier times, performers of “early” music, or teachers of jazz or of music technology (everything from electronic music to piano tuning), often see themselves as a kind of outer circle in the world of academic music. Musicians such as these have sometimes joined in efforts which try to change the course of educational traditions. Thus, a persistent issue in music education in many parts of the world has been the relative importance of teaching and maintaining the Western classical tradition as against the introduction of new materials, which include material from foreign cultures and from other sectors of the home culture (e.g. non-​Western music and folk music). To some extent, this reflects an opposition between aesthetic and social values. If this is an acceptable characterization of the state of affairs in the macrocosm of musical education, the microcosm of ethnomusicology itself contains a parallel. Within this field with a shorter history confined to a narrower population of scholars and students, a similar set of conflicts can be observed, as between the concept of canons, based largely on the classical traditions of non-​Western peoples, and an all-​encompassing breadth, emphasizing popular musics, recent developments in world music, and various forms of fusion. But while ethnomusicology and music education are in important ways intensely connected, if we look at the world of music holistically, the two fields seem fundamentally to have almost opposite functions. The ultimate purpose of music education is the transmission and maintenance of the musical culture, although a principal debate might be the way this musical culture is defined. In the Western educational system, ethnomusicology has had the function of changing understandings and attitudes about music.

Some Basic Abiding Issues in Ethnomusicology Following on an account of some of the principal approaches of ethnomusicology, the following paragraphs detail some of the fundamental questions or issues that have been the subject of debate by ethnomusicologists throughout the history of the field, and attempt to relate these to issues in music education.

110Bruno Nettl

Egalitarian and Relativistic The fundamental viewpoint of ethnomusicology is egalitarian and relativistic. As stated by Helen Myers, “on the one hand, each scholar is eager to defend the music of his or her own people as special and unique; on the other, no ethnomusicologist will rank the music of his culture over that of his colleague’s” (1992, pp. 15–​16). Discourse in ethnomusicology rarely contains statements claiming, for example, that Chinese music is superior to Arabic; or Navajo songs better than Iroquois. Ordinarily, ethnomusicologists are concerned with value judgments only as they are expressed by the people whose music and culture is being investigated. This egalitarian attitude, however, was reached only gradually, as some of the earliest literature suggests—​or takes for granted—​the superiority or normalcy of music that adheres to certain criteria of complexity and structure. This naturally includes Western art music, but it also applied to musics with a degree of intricacy approaching that of Western institutions such as the symphony orchestra perhaps, or, by contrast, musics that seem particularly contrastive to Western music and thus benefit from a perceived exotic character, or again, musics that for one reason or another are believed to exhibit a special degree of authenticity or perhaps age. It is these criteria that seem to have determined the large degree of attention ethnomusicologists (and perhaps educators at large) have given to Indonesian gamelan music, or Native American music, or the European folk ballad tradition, to the extent that these repertories and cultures became part of a kind of canon whose knowledge was shared by many ethnomusicologists. How, then, is one to deal with the desire to present the musics of the world as equal, while showing preference for certain ones, in the practical situations of curriculum construction and teaching? It is a problem faced by music educators of all types. How may one promulgate the special value of whatever is being taught while developing egalitarian attitudes to the musics of the world?

Music or Musics? An abiding issue in ethnomusicology concerns views of the musical universe. Primarily, we are faced with the question whether music, as a unitary phenomenon, should be seen as a large group of distinct musics, somewhat analogous to languages, or whether all music is simply “music.” Within ethnomusicology, these questions relate to forms of musical and social analysis; and despite the widespread interest in the existence of “universals,” the first alternative—​a world of musics—​ characterizes the discipline’s attitudes. Thus, music is not seen as “the universal language,” but “a” music is a system with its distinctive grammar, style, and repertory, though it shares with (virtually) all other musics certain “universals” traits.

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

111

Until recently, the borders between musics were significantly respected in scholarly publications, professional training, and selection and choices in the presentations to the public such as concerts and broadcasts. In music education, and perhaps in music teaching of all sorts, the question—​ music or musics—​has elicited a variety of answers. On the one hand, the mixture or fusion of musics is encouraged, and borders ignored, by a manifest interest in such phenomena as Western orchestras using non-​Western instruments; or performance of musical works that draw on a combination of cultural sources as, for example, a piece for Javanese gamelan using Western harmony; or songs from v­ arious cultures combined in a choral concert with piano accompaniment. But most frequently, musics are maintained separately; a university music department normally keeps its wind band, string orchestra, gamelan, West African drum ensemble, and Balkan instrumental ensemble quite separate, in instruction, rehearsal, and in most cases, concert. Music educators have opted for a view of music that associates it with culture groups.

But: Stability or Change? Is the important thing about “a” music its consistency over time, or its constant state of change? It is a question debated, directly or by implication, in a large body of ethnomusicological literature. However, from an emphasis on cultural authenticity and on stylistic consistency and homogeneity as the norm, ethnomusicology has, in its history, moved toward acceptance of music as constantly changing and as increasingly diverse. In the early decades of ethnomusicology in central and western Europe, it was the basic assumption that musical traditions changed only as a consequence of the introduction of foreign musics, the result of military or economic conquest (such as the coming of Europeans to aboriginal Australia and the Americas and, more gradually and in diverse forms, to Asian and African cultures); or possibly as the outcome of a predetermined order of development (such as the change from monophonic to polyphonic textures, or from tritonic to pentatonic scales). In the early history of ethnomusicology, change resulting from conquest was generally of little interest, as it was seen as undesirable and contributing to a cultural grey-​out. It was the ethnomusicologist’s task to uncover music thought to have existed before the cultural invasion, and also—​a kind of corollary—​to discover older forms a tradition extant in diasporic populations. Gradually, the interest of researchers in musical and cultural change grew, and by the 1990s, research in culturally mixed forms began to dominate research and publication programs, and this included mixing and fusion of many sorts, from Native American rock music to the adoption of Western instruments in Carnatic music, and on to the introduction of Western notation in Asian and African cultures for the purpose of preservation. It

112Bruno Nettl began to be recognized that musical fusions represented the norm in the world’s musical life in the twentieth century. The conflict between the relative importance, in research, of authentic forms and fusion now plays a very modest role in ethnomusicological discourse in the twenty-​first century. In the educational offshoots of the field, such as the study of foreign musics through performance, it continues to be an issue, as, for example, in the choice of repertories by American university gamelan ensembles; or in the introduction of Western-​style ensembles using functional harmony for performance of older, originally largely soloistic or perhaps heterophonic music into the musical education systems of republics of the former Soviet Union.

Music and Culture The hallmark of ethnomusicology is the relationship of music to culture. Although historical musicology cannot be accused of ignoring the cultural environment of music, and musical developments are often seen as rooted in events in the history of culture, society, and politics, the emphasis of music as an integral part of culture has always been greater in ethnomusicology. Early ethnomusicologists justified their interest in seemingly simple musics by stressing their significance in ritual and social life. By the middle of the twentieth century, ethnomusicology in western Europe and the Americas was conventionally defined as the study of music in its relationship to (the rest of) culture. Although some early scholars (e.g., Curt Sachs, and later, Alan Lomax) interpreted the stylistic differences among musics somewhat as a function simply of certain fundamental characteristics of culture such as gender relationships, today (and since 1990)  a multitude of kinds of connection between music and other domains of culture dominate ethnomusicological thought. Here are a few random illustrations:  sociopolitical systems and power relations determine fundamental stylistic choices; music is a domain essentially reflective of, and commenting on, the more fundamental components of culture and society; musical ethnography requires comprehension of the total event.

Tradition and Transmission Connecting the concepts of change, authenticity, and the fusion of cultural forms, ethnomusicologists have taken a strong interest in the nature of musical transmission. In the early days of the field, most scholars were satisfied with simply designating the transmission of musics outside Western classical traditions “oral tradition” (later

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

113

“aural”) or “learning by rote.” The notation systems of Asian classical musics received hardly any attention until after 1950, and even more recently ethnomusicologists have paid them little heed. The understanding of oral transmission in its details came largely from the sector of ethnomusicology concerned with folk music, particularly of British and eastern European traditions, and from the study of variants and tune families. This interest actually took root in the need, on the part of collectors (c. 1900) to classify vast repertories, create order, and place tunes that appeared to be in some sense related or connected together. The existence of tunes with international provenance and the variety of the world’s repertories provided one path to the growth of an interest in the way societies taught and learned their musics. A second path came from the kinds of instruction experienced by investigators engaging in the participant-​observer mode of field research. The understanding of learning and teaching in the broadest sense—​ how a society transmits itself and the content and values of its music—​has moved from a kind of study virtually ignored to a major component of ethnomusicological research. This includes the need to understand a system of teaching as an indicator of what is important in a society’s conception of its music.

Music of Individuals and of Cultures The relationship of the music (or musical system) of a culture to the individual remains a major issue in ethnomusicological research. Broadly speaking, ethnomusicologists began with the belief that non-​Western traditions, particularly those of tribal and folk societies, were musically homogeneous. The musical repertory was known—​so it was believed—​throughout a society, and songs or pieces were seen as expressions of a culture and not of individuals. In this regard, ethno­ musicology was seen as fundamentally different from historical musicology, which extolled the contributions of individuals. Gradually, through the twentieth century, ethnomusicologists came to take a more nuanced view of the relationship of individual to society. It is nevertheless true that in most teaching of music at least in Western or Western-​influenced cultures, non-​Western and foreign folk musics are presented as representing cultures, or perhaps periods in prehistory, while Western musics are more typically presented as the functions of individual creativity.

Contributions (Real or Potential) of Ethnomusicology Music education and ethnomusicology have interacted in a number of ways, and ideas of each have influenced the other. The following paragraphs briefly discuss

114Bruno Nettl some of these areas from the perspective of ethnomusicological contributions, expanding on some of the points made in the previous sections.

Music Teaching and Learning as a Component of Musical Ethnography We are looking at two sides of a coin. Ethnomusicologists have gradually learned that the musical education of a society tells one a great deal about that society, and music educators have come to value the finding of approaches of ethnomusicologists in their work. The first general work on ethnomusicology that sees the study of teaching and learning as a component of musical ethnography is Alan Merriam’s book The Anthropology of Music. From Merriam’s time on, works of musical ethnography have typically included a great deal on musical transmission, but they don’t ordinarily distinguish musical education as a separate unit of musical culture. It is actually difficult to find, in most comprehensive musical ethnographies, a chapter of information about the ways the music is taught and learned. For understanding a musical culture, its system of teaching or transmission of both the conceptions and the sounds is clearly of primary importance. Allow me to cite illustrations from my experience. In the musical culture of certain Native American peoples, the fact that songs are believed to have been learned from supernatural vision beings such as animals that appear in dreams and teach songs in one hearing is clearly related to the belief that humans also learn songs from each other in a single hearing; and this, in turn, may be related to the consistency and homogeneity of song forms, in the course of which a song can be largely predicted once a singer or listener has heard its opening motif. Thus, the way songs are thought to come about, and the ideas about the way music is learned, are intimately associated with their musical structure. By the same token, Iranian musicians learning the classical tradition must learn the approximately 300 pieces of the body of music known as the radif, which become the basis for improvisation and composition. From the radif one learns not only the melodic and rhythmic materials that must be used as points of departure for creating new music, but from the very structure of the radif one learns how to relate diverse materials to each other musically. Moreover, the structure and the internal interrelationships of materials in the radif teach and reinforce metaphorically important principles governing the structure of Persian culture and ideal social behavior. The normal way of learning Carnatic music, the classical tradition of South India, involves a particular master-​student relationship emphasizing the authority of the teacher in all respects, and a group of exercises and teaching pieces—​alankaras, padams, varnams—​which emphasize musical dexterity and flexibility, instruct in the relationship of melody and rhythm, and provide models for applying the rules

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

115

of ragas and talas but also for techniques of improvisation. In various ways, the social organization of South Indian culture is reflected in the interrelationship of components of South Indian music. In older European folk song traditions, the integrity and homogeneity of the tradition itself as opposed to the tendency for individual singers to develop personal styles and versions of their songs can be traced to attitudes about how songs are learned. In Western classical music culture, the emphasis on such concepts as talent and genius, with which a musician is thought to be born, and the significance of practicing, of musical works that are part of teaching canons, and of the exhibition of difficulty for its own sake (in virtuosic performances and feats of memorization) show a dualistic attitude found in many aspects of Western culture and in the ways classical music is presented to the public. Thus, in characterizing a musical system and discovering its essence, ethnomusicologists have come to value the need to understand the way it is transmitted from generation to generation.

Music Education in Ethnomusicological Field Research Recognizing the importance of the system of transmission of a music as a component of the total musical culture is one thing, but can music education play a role in field research? How can fieldworkers use the knowledge of their own system of music education as part of their arsenal of field techniques? The most significant strand of this approach concerns the concept of bimusicality. If it is true that ethnomusicologists have only recently included the observation of musical education as a distinct component of field research, many of them, since the late 1950s, as already pointed out, have been inclined to try learn how to perform (and perhaps to create) music in their host culture as part of their research strategy. The history of ethnomusicological fieldwork can be interpreted from an educational perspective as a move from passive to active. Before the 1950s, ethnomusIcologists and their predecessors—​comparative musicologists and folk music scholars—​took a relatively passive approach to their field research, which was an activity they considered and usually labeled “collecting,” making notational transcriptions as they heard singing until, from around 1890 on, making technically increasingly sophisticated recordings. The recording activity was at first a somewhat artificial procedure, as “informants” were brought into a recording studio and requested to sing or play outside normal social contexts, and asked questions about the music that may never have occurred in their ordinary lives—​questions perhaps such as “Do you consider this a good song?”—​that possibly introduced concepts not relevant in the host culture. The process of gathering data by eliciting, based

116Bruno Nettl usually on the fieldworker’s own conceptions of the structure of a musical system, characterizes the body of the findings of early ethnomusicology. Although the principles of participant-​observer technique now dominate field research, the techniques of eliciting and of questioning in ways not necessarily relevant to the host culture have hardly been abandoned. Because of the absence of adequate technology, the recording of music performances as they occurred in a live cultural context (instead of in a studio) was introduced only gradually, although its desirability must surely have been evident to early scholars. Recording ceremonies or social dances as they occurred clearly brings the concept of fieldwork closer to the culture involved, as does the comprehension of ideas about music on the basis of a society’s own discourse as compared to structured interviewing.

Learning by Becoming Bimusical The most important development in fieldwork technique in the twentieth century, one of significance to music education, was the inclusion of hands-​on learning of music as part of the fieldworker’s toolkit. No doubt many early collectors had already learned informally to sing some songs, or participated in ensembles, perhaps with no thought that this might be a serious process. But the systematic study of performance became the hallmark of a branch of American ethnomusicology, developed first at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the leadership of Mantle Hood and then by Robert E. Brown at Wesleyan University, in the late 1950s, and it was quickly adopted by a number of other programs in the United States. By the late 1960s, it was widely taken for granted that fieldwork would include a large component of performance study. Scholars put themselves in the hands of teachers (or anyone, whatever their title, who was instrumental in the transmission of musical knowledge and kills) and learned to play or sing, hoping to become part of the musical culture. One might expect that such an approach would have come about as an aspect of anthropological field method, a component of the “new ethnography” being developed in the 1960s, and the significance of making both “etic” and “emic” interpretations of culture—​juxtaposing the outsider’s view of the scholar to that of the cultural “insider.” However, Mantle Hood insisted on considering his approach a normal practice in the tradition of Western musical education. Looking to historical musicology as the field most closely related to ethnomusicology and observing that at least modest performance ability in Western music was a requirement of musicological training, he promulgated an analogous stance for ethnomusicology. Students were encouraged to attain “bimusicality,” a concept analogous to “bilingualism,” although the two are clearly not quite parallel concepts. While widely adopted by certain American and a few European university programs in

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

117

ethnomusicology, “bimusicality” was at first greeted skeptically by others (in North America and Europe), particularly some with a principally anthropological orientation. The critical attitude was based on certain convictions:  that learning to perform would deemphasize the study of the relationship of cultural domains essential to ethnomusicology; that Western students would never attain the skills needed for native standards but, because of their high social and economic status, would in the long run dilute authenticity and pollute tradition; that fieldworkers would impose Western teaching and learning methods on cultures in which the notion of cross-​cultural musical experience was totally foreign. Possibly all of these things did happen, but their effect was probably mitigated since the same feared processes could have been observed among the autochthonous developments in non-​Western cultures after around1950, quite independently of the appearance of ethnomusicology. By the twenty-​first century, the conception of students at all ages learning about the music of cultures foreign to them by studying or at least getting exposure to the music-​making of the situation had become widely accepted in North American and European systems of music education. The “bimusicality” concept was first accepted in higher education—​perhaps beginning with graduate students specializing in ethnomusicology and moving to other specialties in music and then other fields. A  two-​pronged approach can be identified. While ensemble participation and lessons became part of the formal professional training of ethnomusicologists, participation in non-​Western and folk ensembles became an important aspect of extramural activity and in the lives of minority or international students. The existence of ensembles from non-​Western musics or European-​derived folk cultures had become, by the 1980s, a standard feature of North American music departments, even those that did not actually offer conventional courses in ethnomusicology. The entry of ethnomusicological thinking and the accompanying introduction of ensembles providing hands-​on experience in primary and secondary education came later, and they experienced influences from outside the ethnomusicological mainstream.

The Impact of Improvisation and Folk Music A number of developments in musical thinking early in the twentieth century affected developments in both music education and ethnomusicology. One area was the study and uses of improvisation, for which I briefly mention the work of Emile Jaques-​Dalcroze, in whose comprehensive approach to musical education improvisation played a major role. The first historian of improvisation (in Western music, but with references to other cultures) was Ernö Ferand, whose career was devoted in considerable measure to music education. Many early scholars of folk music were

118Bruno Nettl involved in music education. In the nineteenth century, much folk song collecting was done by music teachers, and the folk song repertory became a major component of music teaching throughout Europe; this stylistically simple repertory was thought to serve both musical and sociopolitical purposes. Prominent among the early figures were the German collectors and teachers Ludwig Erk and Franz Magnus Boehme, but probably the most prominent figure in this area was Zoltan Kodaly, who devised a system of music teaching in Hungary, based on the characteristics of Hungarian folk music, a system that was eventually (with various national and stylistic adaptations) widely adopted in European nations, North America, China, and elsewhere. One of the ethnomusicological issues faced also by music educators has been that of authenticity. One may wish to ask to what degree the folk songs taught in schools are truly representative of the music of the nation’s folk communities; and to what extent such songs should be altered in their words and in the musical style to serve perceived social needs. The adaptation of non-​Western musics to Western standards, such as the introduction of piano accompaniments or the substitution of Western instruments such as those in the so-​called Orff gamelan (introduced to accommodate the “hands-​on” approach of most music education systems) may be weighed against the desirability of presenting the world’s musics as they exist outside the scope of Westernization, in what is sometimes presented as “ancient” tradition.

Music as Reflection of and Influence on Culture Music educators have been more interested in the “world music” component of the ethnomusicological universe than in the “music in culture” side. Although ethnomusicologists do not agree on the details of methods of analysis, on interpretations, and on conclusions, they generally tend to agree that the music of a society reflects in some sense, or represents, or perhaps comments on some of its important characteristics or guiding principles. Simple illustrations may include the following possibilities: the congruence of technically simple music with small tribal societies, and of complex music with developed national cultures; the dominance of ornamental soloistic singing in hierarchical cultures as against choral singing in egalitarian and cooperative cultures; the differential kinds of acceptance of Western music by the societies of India, Japan, and China. These approaches are described and argued in works by Alan Lomax. In education, particularly elementary and secondary, the presentation of a foreign culture is often introduced with the use of native music. And at the same time, a foreign musical system may be presented by reference to the social contexts from

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

119

which it comes and the functions it carries out. Culture plays a greater part in the introduction of Western than of non-​Western music. In general, in music education, the notion that a music must be presented as part of culture is more important when it is foreign than when it is part of the students’ own cultural milieu. It seems, however, that music education has not provided for itself a systematic way, in the teaching of young students, of relating music to the rest of culture. In standard music education, the concept of talent plays a major role. From ethnomusicology one may learn that the world’s cultures vary greatly in their conception of what it means to have special musical ability and who may be expected to be musically gifted. Expectation of musical ability may be associated with a person’s relationship to the supernatural, or his or her role in religious practice; with membership in a hereditary group (e.g., musicians’ castes in India or hereditary communities such barbers, who also perform, in Afghanistan) or a minority (such as Jews in much of the traditional Middle East, or Roma, in European traditions); or with gender (as was long the case in many premodern societies). The understanding of talent and ability as a social construction may be important in informing the cross-​cultural development of music education.

The Music Education System Affects the Music Ethnomusicologists wish to understand the way a society transmits its music, the way music is taught from generation to generation. In noting the importance of oral transmission to teaching, it is important, for example, that Hungarian folk songs were evidently taught by repeated singing of the entire song, that a song’s overall form must be maintained while in its details it may be altered by pupil in the folk culture; or that by contrast, it was evidently acceptable for an English folk tune to be learned in parts, so that only its second half might be transmitted, changing a song with the form ABCD to a variant, CDCD. For another example, in Persian classical music, students who learn the standardized body of music, the radif, are encouraged to maintain it unchanged by daily practice but then to alter it constantly in performance. The congruence of song concept, teaching method, and formal characteristics in Blackfoot culture is again relevant here. The way people conceive of music learning may have an important affect on the nature of the music. Music educators, intent on teaching new material to their students efficiently and usually lacking time to introduce the often extended and laborious teaching methods that are part of a foreign music culture, may be faced with pupils who have learned ways of apprehending music. These may include, especially in tertiary institutions, the use of notation, or taking songs apart into their component phrases, or using memorizing exercises; and they may not be compatible with the

120Bruno Nettl teaching traditions of a foreign musical system that is being introduced, a system that may actually be violated by the change in transmission processes. I can present no solution for these conflicts of between approaches to teaching a foreign music, nor are there any that appear to be widely adopted by educators. It is important to bear them in mind.

Crossing the Disciplinary Boundaries in Professional Societies and Institutions Most organizations involving music research, that is, the professional organizations of music scholars of all types, have not made education, particularly of primary and secondary schools, one of their concerns. The American Musicological Society has, to be sure, shown concern for the development of teaching methods and skills in music history for tertiary institutions, mainly in providing workshops. The Society for Ethnomusicology (SEM), however, has made a relationship with the discipline of music education a principal concern. Since the 1970s, it has maintained first a committee, and then an interest section for music education, its purpose to encourage and facilitate the teaching of traditional and vernacular musics of the world in public schools in North America and elsewhere. The SEM was motivated by the recognition that in multicultural societies such as the United States and Canada, students (mainly in primary and secondary schools) should have exposure to a large variety of musics; but the principal driving force in the schools themselves, it seems to me, was the felt need to support students from minority groups and from abroad by teaching their own musics to them and their fellow students. The idea of teaching children the repertories of the cultures represented in the schools has had considerable success in North America and Europe, although it contrasts with the use of ethnomusicology in tertiary school systems, where the purpose is to teach “strange” musics rather than providing social support to students by showing respect for their own music. The notion that exposure to a variety of musics will decrease intercultural prejudice and discrimination against minorities and immigrants has been studied particularly in Scandinavia, with careful evaluations of the effects of teaching on refugee populations from South and West Asia, and on local indigenous pupils. In the United States, where public education is largely under state and local jurisdiction, programs in certain cities have made the inclusion of world music a special cause; significant among them is Seattle, which pioneered, in the early 1970s, the introduction of African music into public schools. In many nations, and some states in the United States, a minimum understanding of music of the world’s peoples is required in the course of music teacher

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

121

training. Music education societies generally developed a commitment to “world music” as one of their areas of concern. The experience of the International Society for Music Education may be indicative. In the late 1980s, this organization established a “panel” or committee on “world music,” which had the task of formulating a policy toward its assigned subject. This policy recommended to each national music education system a three-​pronged approach consisting of instruction of Western (principally “art”) music, the music of local traditions, and a sampling of world music at large. The deletion of Western music as a universal requirement was later considered. A significant development in the last decades of the twentieth century has been the combination of music education and ethnomusicology in graduate education. Examples of such formally or informally combined programs may be found in Germany (the universities of Bamberg and Magdeburg), the United States (the University of Washington and Kent State University), and in Canada (Memorial University of Newfoundland).

Conclusion In developing further areas of cooperation and collaboration, ethnomusicologists and music educators should bear in mind the following principle. The way music is taught and learned is a major and essential component of any musical culture and must play a role when a music is studied by scholars in the field, and also when it is imparted to students at primary and secondary levels in the classroom.

Reflective Questions



1. In a system of music education, is it important to learn thoroughly the standard style or repertory of one’s own culture before embarking on the study of “foreign” musics? 2. Is it important to teach the music of foreign cultures in an authentic format that may initially be off-​putting to students, or should one begin with the study of “fusion” styles such as African and Asian songs accompanied by functional harmony? 3. How can music educators serve the efforts of teachers of fields such as social studies, history, geography, or anthropology? 4. What is the best way to introduce the concept of music as a part of culture in the world’s societies, rather than as an isolated art or activity?

122Bruno Nettl

KEY SOURCES Campbell, P. S. (1991). Lessons from the World: A Cross-​Cultural Guide to Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Schirmer Books. Nettl, B. (2005). The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-​One Issues and Concepts (new ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the Music: Shaping Music Education from a Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Wade, B. C., & P. S. Campbell. (gen. eds.) (2004). Global Music Series. New York: Oxford University Press. A series of short volumes each devoted to the music of a nation or culture area, intended for college students and teachers. 24 vols. published so far.

SELECTED LITERATURE A substantial body of literature relating to ethnomusicology and music education has developed, although it has concentrated on the “world music” aspect of ethnomusicological concern much more than on the “music in culture” component. A  seminal work for understanding music learning in non-​Western cultures is Patricia Campbell’s Lessons from the World (New York: Schirmer Books, 1991), and a guide including printed and recorded materials, along with providing commentary from a variety of sides, may be found in Musics of the World’s Cultures (by Barbara Lundquist et al., Reading, UK: ISME, 1998). International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, edited by Liora Bresler (Dordrecht, Netherlands:  Springer, 2007) provides a broader approach comprehending perspectives from Western-​derived scholarship as well as a multicultural approach, with contributions and responses by scholars and teachers in nations throughout the world. Performing Ethnomusicology, edited by Ted Solis (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2004) examines the issue of study of non-​Western music by Western music students from several perspectives. Huib Schippers, Facing the Music: Shaping Music Education from a Global Perspective (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2009) integrates issues involving the teaching of world musics, and the influences of ethnomusicology, in a holistic approach to music education. Ethnomusicological views of music in tertiary education are found in Henry Kingsbury, Music, Talent and Performance (Philadelphia:  Temple University Press, 1988), and Bruno Nettl, Heartland Excursions: Ethnomusicological Reflections on Schools of Music (Urbana:  University of Illinois Press, 1995), while Ruth Finnegan, The Hidden Musicians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), contemplates the musical culture, importantly including teaching and learning, in a small British community. The use of ethnographic techniques in informing music teachers is illustrated in Patricia Campbell, Songs in their Heads (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Experiencing Ethnomusicology: Teaching and Learning in European Universities, by Simone Krüger (London:  Ashgate, 2009), is a study of ethnomusicology as it is established in the United Kingdom and in Germany. Literature from outside the field of music education includes Ernst (Ernö) Ferand, Die Improvisation in der Musik (Zurich: Rhein-​Verlag, 1938); Bruno Nettl, Blackfoot Musical Thought:  Comparative Perspectives (Kent, OH:  Kent State University Press); Jean During et al., The Art of Persian Music (Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 1991); Gabriel Solis and

Some Contributions of Ethnomusicology

123

Bruno Nettl, eds., Musical Improvisation: Art, Education, and Society (Urbana: University of Illinois Press); Alan Lomax et al., Folk Song Style and Culture (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1968). The discussions of ethnomusicology in the foregoing paragraphs may be found expanded in some general works: Alan P. Merriam, The Anthropology of Music (Evanston, IL:  Northwestern University Press, 1964); Mantle Hood, The Ethnomusicologist (New York: McGraw Hill, 1971); and Bruno Nettl, The Study of Ethnomusicology: 31 Issues and Concepts (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005).

Chapter 7

MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

This chapter has two main aims. The first is to identify those aspects of developmental psychology as a whole that are most useful in trying to explain musical development in particular. From the theoretical point of view, it was clear from the outset that we would need to place a strong emphasis on the expansion and application of the sociocultural approach. This has become a dominant force in developmental and educational psychology more generally, and its influence is also apparent in the study of musical development (see, e.g., Hargreaves & Lamont, 2017). This is perhaps most clearly shown by the rapid growth in studies of musical identity (see, e.g., MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2017), and so the second aim of this chapter emerged: to develop our central argument that the study of people’s musical identities is an essential part of the explanation of their musical development. People’s developing self-​concepts tell us a great deal about why they develop in the ways they do. This argument is particularly important since one of its implications is that musical development involves a number of important factors not necessarily concerned with technical aspects of musical performance. Recent advances in identity research have come to highlight the reciprocal relationship that exists between identity and musical development (e.g., Eccles, O’Neill, & Wigfield, 2005; Randles, 2009; Welch, 2007). As far as our first aim is concerned, we can look back to the first attempt that was made to map out the developmental psychology of music approximately

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

125

30 years ago (Hargreaves, 1986): the field has grown enormously since then. Many books, journal articles, and research projects have appeared, and this is now not only a very significant part of music psychology more generally, but an increasingly important part of psychology as a whole: it has also become an important foundation of and influence on music education, which was certainly not the case in 1986. Two recent milestones in the field are the second edition of McPherson’s comprehensive The Child as Musician:  A Handbook of Musical Development (2016), and Hargreaves and Lamont’s The Psychology of Musical Development (2017), which is a completely rewritten and updated version of the original 1986 edition. In the first of this chapter’s four main sections, we describe some of the main theoretical perspectives on musical development since the 1980s. The remaining three sections pursue our central argument, as stated, in those areas of the field in which it is most clear. We do so by providing one or two representative examples of empirical research from three broad areas—​cognitive, social, and affective. The second section of the chapter looks at the cognitive aspects of musical development and learning: this was the predominant emphasis of developmental studies in the 1980s. A great deal of effort was devoted to understanding the emergence of musical concepts and skills, centring on the development of musical competence: in subsequent years, this emphasis has been complemented by the rapid growth of neuroscientific studies of musical development, as well as by research on prenatal and infant musical development. Another major feature of research since the 1980s has been the strong emphasis on the social and cultural contexts in which musical cognition and learning takes place (e.g., Barrett, 2006; Ivaldi & O’Neill, 2009; Odena & Welch, 2009). The social aspects of musical development, which have come to include the study of personality, are therefore dealt with in the third section of the chapter. At the heart of the sociocultural approach is Vygotsky’s (1966) fundamental idea that we all develop primarily through our interactions with significant others, as well as with cultural objects, tools, and institutions; social relations with others form the basis of our own individual development, such that “we become ourselves through others.” This basic premise of Vygotsky’s theory could be seen as the precursor to our central argument, namely that the development of musical identities enables us to see how the social environment is incorporated into the development of musical thinking at the individual level. We have hinted at this idea in previous publications (e.g., Hargreaves, Marshall, & North, 2003), and it is developed in much greater detail in this chapter. We deal with the relationship between musical identity and the development of musical skills, with the development of positive and negative musical identities, and with the social construction of musicianship. The concept of musical identity can begin to explain “how individuals’ views of themselves can actually determine their motivation and subsequent performance in . . . music. It holds out the promise of explaining musical development ‘from the inside’ ” (North & Hargreaves, 2008, p. 338).

126

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

The third broad area of empirical research is that on the development of the affective aspects of musical behavior, that is, those concerning emotion, which are covered in the fourth section of the chapter. These were more or less absent from this field in the 1980s, but their investigation has grown very rapidly over the last two decades. This has been brought sharply into focus by two seminal edited collections by Juslin and Sloboda (2001, 2010). We focus here on the cognitive and emotional determinants of people’s musical likes and dislikes, and, once again, on the role of the social and cultural environment in shaping these preferences. The latter aim is achieved by referring to our own “reciprocal feedback” model, in which people’s responses to music are explained in terms of the interactions between the properties of the music itself, of the listener, and of the situation in which this takes place. We also outline some important developmental changes in musical likes and dislikes: these are the real-​life manifestations of affective and cognitive responses, as well as a vital component of our musical identities.

Theoretical Perspectives on Musical Development The sociocultural approach predominates in current developmental and educational psychology:  the ideas of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky remain the most influential. Hargreaves and Lamont (2017) have traced the recent history of the explanation of musical development from the sociocultural perspective. This originates from Vygotsky’s fundamental idea that “the relations between the higher mental functions were at one time real relations among people” (1966, p.  37), such that the social environment—​our parents, family members, peers, teachers, and so on—​ forms the basis of our own individual development. In one sense, this is the direct opposite of Piaget’s view, in which individuals assimilate the social world around them to their own thinking: Piaget felt that thinking predominates over social development, whereas Vygotsky’s view was that social relationships actually determine individuals’ thinking. Piaget’s well-​known theory of qualitatively different stages of cognitive development in childhood and adolescence is accepted by very few contemporary developmental psychologists in its original formulation, although many of Piaget’s developmental concepts still influence our thinking (and it is interesting to note that Vygotsky also proposed that developmental stages exist in children’s thinking, in his case in relation to the foci of different types of activity at different age levels (see El’Konin, 1971). The main theoretical explanations of musical development in particular were reviewed by Hargreaves and Zimmerman, in the Handbook for Research in Music Teaching and Learning (Colwell, 1992); by Swanwick and Runfola (2002) in the second edition of their New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning;

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

127

and most recently by Hargreaves and Lamont (2017). There is little point in repeating these here, although it is instructive to see how the actual models reviewed, and their particular theoretical and content emphases, have changed over that 25-​ year period. Hargreaves and Zimmerman reviewed three main theories, namely Swanwick and Tillman’s (1986) “spiral” model, Serafine’s (1988) developmental view of “music as cognition,” and the symbol system approach, principally associated with Howard Gardner and the Harvard Project Zero group. We also tried to assess the success of each theory in dealing with three critical questions, namely (1) does each theory deal with musical production, perception, performance and representation? (2) does each theory deal specifically with developmental progression? and (3) does each theory deal specifically with music? Swanwick and Runfola (2002) drew extensively on the original chapter, including their own views on the three theories identified in the original, and also included Gordon’s (1976, 1997) music learning theory, the work of other members and associates of Gardner’s group (e.g., Davidson & Scripp, 1989; Bamberger, 1991): they also cite Hargreaves and Galton’s (1992) more general descriptive model of the normative developmental changes that occur across different art forms. This 1992 model was updated and revised by Hargreaves (1996), who described five age-​ related phases in artistic development, namely the sensorimotor (artistic expression takes the form of physical action sequences such as scribbling or vocal babbling), figural (children’s representations convey the overall form or shape of the subject, but not its fine detail), schematic (figural representations begin to display adult artistic conventions), rule systems (the use of fully-​fledged artistic conventions), and professional phases (in which the artist employs a variety of styles and conventions according to the demands of the task). This broad description is generally accepted as providing a rough-​and-​ready map of development in these areas, given that there is huge scope for individual variation within each phase. Hargreaves and Lamont (2017) have identified six general theoretical perspectives, which can be further subdivided into 10 distinct approaches—​namely, those based on developmental stages (x2), learning and cognition (x2), symbol systems, music theory, social factors (x3), and neuroscientific methods, respectively. They also have suggested that the first six of these have given rise to specific models of musical development. The application of the sociocultural approach to musical development reveals that it is impossible to build specific social and cultural contexts into developmental phase/​stage models because stage theories are essentially individual rather than social. They represent generalized descriptions of the development of children’s thinking, and this makes it impossible to specify any social situations or cultural contexts. One side-​effect of the prominence of the sociocultural perspective in studies of musical development has been a growth of interest in teachers’ and learners’ self-​perceptions, and in their interrelationships. One important way forward here is to employ the concept of identity, which has long been used in sociology and in other fields of cultural study, and which forms the central argument of this chapter. In Musical Identities (MacDonald, Hargreaves,

128

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

& Miell, 2002), we argued that the development of people’s musical identities begins with biological predispositions toward musicality, and is then shaped by the people, groups, situations, and social institutions that they encounter as they develop in a particular culture. This approach enables us to incorporate sociocultural factors into the explanation of development “from the inside”: understanding how individuals perceive and conceptualize their own musical development may be important in shaping that development. We have developed this argument further in the Handbook of Musical Identities (MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2017), which provides a much more extensive review of the theoretical and empirical basis of musical identities.

Cognitive Aspects of Musical Development: Acquisition of Musical Competencies The Universality of Music While there is considerable evidence to support the idea that children move through different stages of development not only psychologically but also musically, and while it is important to recognize that children may move through these stages at different speeds, developing new skills at different ages, it is also crucial to note that all children have the potential to express themselves through music. In this section we examine the evidence to support the notion that “we are all musical”: that every human being has a biological and social guarantee of musicianship. We suggest this not as a vague utopian ideal, but rather a conclusion drawn by a growing number of researchers who are exploring the foundations of musical behavior (MacDonald, 2008). The work of Colwyn Trevarthen (2002, 2012)  has demonstrated how the earliest communication between a parent and a child is essentially musical. The cooing and babbling interplay that takes place between a parent and a child is a form of communication that has more in common with musical interaction than with spoken language:  work in this area involves detailed microanalyses of the moment-​by-​moment communicative interactions between parent and child. We therefore suggest that music plays a vital role in the earliest and most important bonding relationship that is developed throughout our whole lives, namely that with our parents. Our previous work (Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell, 2005) has also highlighted how music acts as a separate channel of communication that is quite distinct from, though often related to, language. Trevarthen (2002) provides evidence that not only do we all have the potential to communicate through music, but that we are all born musical communicators. Not only is this type of

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

129

communication musical, but it is also improvisatory. The kinds of musical interaction displayed between a parent and a baby are quite different from those taught within conventional music education. However, the development of musical expertise and knowledge in singing or instrumental playing, for example, build on the communicative systems that are rooted in infancy, and there is no doubt that these early interactions are spontaneous musical gestures that demonstrate our universal potential for musical communication.

Normal Distribution of Musical Behavior Given that the previous section has provided evidence to suggest that “we are all musical,” and that we all begin life as expert musical communicators, why do so many people see themselves as unmusical? This is a complex question, and it raises an issue that manifests itself in many ways. For example, there is evidence to suggest that 15% of the population may define themselves as “tone-​deaf ” (Williamson, 2009). Many people claim to not be musical in terms of not having “musical genes,” or not coming from a musical family, and received wisdom tends to suggest that in order to develop advanced music skills, individuals’ genetic inheritance must be favorable, and that this should coincide with a tradition of music-​making within the family. However, evidence suggests that the virtuoso musician is more likely to be the product of a supportive and fertile musical environment that encourages and develops skills that we are all capable of achieving, rather than deriving from innate musical ability:  there is copious anthropological and empirical support evidence for this argument (Blacking, 1973; Costa-​Giomi, 2012; Sloboda, Davidson, & Howe, 1994a, 1994b). However, if other personal characteristics such as intelligence and athletic prowess are normally distributed throughout the population, could it not be that this also applies to musical abilities (whatever they might be)? A  possible answer to this apparent paradox may be that even if musical talent is normally distributed within the general population, then it is distributed around a mean that is much higher than received wisdom suggests. For example, some of our work has shown how individuals with learning difficulties or mental health problems can learn to play a musical instrument, and that psychological benefits often result from musical engagement of this kind (MacDonald, Davies, & O’Donnell, 1999; MacDonald & Miell, 2002). Where does this leave the virtuoso musician, and the argument that some people just have a natural propensity for music? Perhaps there is a compromise position—​that we are all musical, but that musical ability is still normally distributed within the population. To put it simply: we are all musical, but some people have more natural potential to develop musical skills than others.

130

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

The Fundamental Mastery Misconception Our basic argument here is that everybody is musical, and that the technical and expressive aspects of musical performance demand skills that everyone is capable of learning, given the appropriate environmental intervention. However, the consistent emphasis on the technical aspects of performance in music education in many countries, and the corresponding lack of emphasis on critical thinking and the development of creativity, could be another reason why many people feel “unmusical.” This “artisan” approach to music education, in which students are required to develop advanced technical skills, underplays the importance of creative thinking and creative expression, and contributes toward the “fundamental mastery misconception.” This is that in order to be an authentic musician, one must possess singularly high levels of technical skill on a given instrument: that in the training of professional musicians, the key skills involve the technical mastery of the instrument, and that these high levels of technical skill are what define the musician (Johansson, 2012; MacDonald, Kreutz, & Mitchell, 2012). Those people who do not have such high levels of technical skill may feel excluded and may even regard themselves as “unmusical,” such is the strength of the mastery misconception.

Social/​Personality Aspects of Musical Development: Musical Identity Musical Identities We argued earlier that the study of people’s musical identities is an essential part of the explanation of musical development: we conceive of musical identities as ubiquitous, constantly evolving aspects of the self-​concept that are negotiated across a range of social situations. Research on identity facilitates the exploration of fundamental research questions relating to musical behavior and the social construction of musical activities in contemporary contexts. Musical identities influence not only the development of specific musical skills but also the rate at which that development occurs, and this provides the vital link between the development of very specific musical skills, and the effects of wider social and cultural influences on individual learning (Sichivitsa, 2007). As stated, this link is reciprocal: in addition to musical identities affecting musical development, the development of specific musical skills can also influence developing musical identities. For example, a young child who learns to play a demanding new piece of guitar music will experience a confidence boost that may influence in a positive way how she feels about her own musical abilities. There is considerable scope for research on the psychological processes surrounding how developments in technical aspects of musicianship influence musical identities.

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

131

In exploring how musical identities are constructed, and how they may influence the development of musicality, it is important to consider the wide variety of ways identity can be theorized. Identity is a very topical subject for current research, and there has been an exponential growth in studies exploring identity issues across a whole range of disciplines—​particularly within psychology and sociology (Elliott & du Gay, 2009; Wetherell & Mohanty, 2010). One of the reasons for the dramatic increase in identity research is the extent to which life choices regarding jobs, relationships, pastimes, locality of residence, and so on have become more fluid in postindustrial societies (Beck, 2009). Our earlier work (MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2002) provides a detailed exploration of the concept of musical identities and the diverse ways in which they can be considered. In this chapter, we focus specifically on the role that identities can have in the development of musical skills. The ways in which we view ourselves, and evaluate our own skills and competencies, form a key part of the development of our identities, and these self-​ assessments influence our development in general (Bandura, 1986) as well as in musical terms (Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell, 2002). For example, individuals with low self-​efficacy (i.e., with a low estimate of their capability to complete a specific task) in a musical context may regard their musical potential as minimal, perhaps arguing that “my family is not musical and so I cannot learn the piano.” This is a very common popular misconception regarding the development of musical skills: but it is often these low expectancies, rather than the family’s lack of musicality, that are more likely to contribute the eventual nondevelopment of musical skills. In other words, we suggest that musical identities mediate musical development. While there is considerable evidence to support the idea that musical development occurs in age-​related phases (see, e.g., Hargreaves, 1996) and that these phases of skill development depend to a certain extent on extensive hours of practice within a supportive environment (Sloboda, Davidson, & Howe, 1994a, 1994b), these developments are also affected by social psychological factors, and by musical identities in particular (Costa-​Giomi, 2012). Developing a positive musical identity can increase the extent to which individuals will engage in musical practice, which can in turn enable the development of specific musical skills (Lamont, Hargreaves, Marshall, & Tarrant, 2010; McPherson & O’Neill, 2010).

Social Construction of Musicianship The extent to which we view ourselves as “musicians” is an essential aspect of our musical identities. Whether one might be a professional opera singer, or just someone who sings in the bath when one thinks no one is listening, we all have an implicit view about the status of our own musicality, and this also influences how we develop musically. We suggest that the term musician is a socially and culturally defined concept, and that it is not simply the case that individuals practice over many years, develop high levels of technical skill, and only then adopt the label “musician.” In other professions, people obtain qualifications that enable them to

132

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

adopt the appropriate professional title, such as “doctor,” “dentist,” or “lawyer,” and so on. This has no parallel in music: individuals do not go to university or college, attain a degree in music, secure a job as a musician, and then adopt the label “musician” in the same way. The term musician is considerably more fluid and is not necessarily dependent on the attainment of qualifications. Furthermore, it would have been widely agreed upon that the term musician meant someone who was actively involved in producing music: composers, improvisers, and performers would all have been included, while listeners or audience members were seen as taking a more passive and reactive role. However, Rickard and Chin (2017) recently argued that it is possible to define musicianship in terms of listening as well as production skills. They suggest that a “musicianship of listening” exists alongside the more conventional “musicianship of production,” and that therefore, the widespread use of the term nonmusician should decline. Jazz musicians, for example, use elements of lifestyle choice to help them define the “professional jazz musician” (MacDonald & Wilson, 2005), and this is not solely dependent on the attainment of technical skills. For example, Caldwell and MacDonald (2010) interviewed 10 self-​ defined “non-​ musicians” about their musical tastes, preferences, and behaviors. In spite of their self-​definition, all had experience of playing music in public, and some had advanced technical skills evidenced by the fact they had been performing regularly in bands, in some cases for over 20 years. Conversely, MacDonald and Miell (2004) report a study of young adults without formal education in music, but who performed in a band that practiced every day: these individuals did see themselves as “musicians.” The key point here is that the term musician is a socially constructed label, and not an identity that is dependent on formal education or qualifications. These examples highlight how the concept of “being a musician,” and the development of our musical identities, are influenced by nonmusical factors within the immediate and wider social environment, in particular by the ways in which we relate to people around us (MacDonald, Miell, & Wilson, 2005). In a related study, Borthwick and Davidson (2002) studied 12 families over a number of years, undertaking interviews with all family members. Their work highlights in significant detail how social factors such as family interactions and sibling communication influence the construction and negotiation of musical identities. In this instance, musical influences merge with those present in the family. In one example, a family in which all the siblings have considerable musical experience and skill appears to interact in such a way that the oldest sibling adopts the identity of “musician.” This in turn inhibits the younger siblings, who discuss their musical skills by comparing them unfavorably with those of the older, apparently more musical sibling. The way in which music is structured and delivered in the school context also has a huge influence on our developing musical identities (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009). Lamont (2002) compared one school in which some pupils received peripatetic music lessons out of regular class time with another in which all pupils received music lessons together in the classroom. Many more children in the latter viewed themselves as being “musical” in comparison to the former. We do not present this example to advocate one way of teaching music rather than another, but as a way

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

133

of highlighting how the delivery of music education within a school context can influence the pupils’ developing sense of musical identity, and the resulting development of musical skills. In the first school, most of the pupils who were taken out of the class for music lessons saw themselves as “musicians,” but the rest of the class did not, as they felt excluded from this specialist treatment. In the second school, however, many more of the children perceived themselves as “musical” and as being “musicians” because they did not see a small group of specialist pupils that were getting a lot more musical input than they were. This shows once again how the social environment influences our developing sense of musicality. Musical identities can be conceptualized as multifaceted, as constantly evolving, and to a certain extent, as contextually dependent (Wilson & MacDonald, 2005): we all have several musical identities that manifest themselves in different ways. For example, our musical preferences and tastes help to shape how we view ourselves, as well as the image of ourselves that we wish to present to world around us (Zillman & Gan, 1997; MacDonald, Hargreaves, and Miell, 2009). We use music as a “badge of identity” (see Frith, 1981) and this aspect of our musical identity has an important influence on how we engage with music at a practical level: how we may learn the guitar, the style of music we might like to play, and with which other musicians we might like to play. In other words, our musical identities influence not only the development of our musical skills but also the ways in which we learn an instrument (MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2009). Our preferences are also dependent on the listening situation: we choose different pieces for listening in the car, in a supermarket, in a restaurant, while relaxing at home, while exercising, and so on (see, e.g., North & Hargreaves, 2008). Zillman and Gan (1997) also provide evidence that music may be the most important recreational activity in which young people engage. At around the time of life when this occurs, however (around early adolescence in many cases), it appears that many lose interest in more formal music education activities (see North & Hargreaves, 2008). The challenge for music education is to harness the power of music in young people’s lives in practical ways that can facilitate the development of musical activities throughout the life span.

Emotional Aspects of Musical Development: Development of Preference and Taste The Revised Reciprocal Feedback Model In its original version (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2005), this was a model of musical communication that combined two constituent models of response and performance, and the response model was used in the original version of this chapter. Figure  7.1 shows the revised version (Hargreaves, 2012), which has been

134

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

Music Reference systems, genres, idioms, styles, pieces…. Collative variables: complexity, familiarity, orderliness… Prototypicality Performance contexts: live, recorded, nonmusical

Situations and contexts Social and cultural contexts

Situational appropriateness of genres and styles Musical “Fit”

Everyday situations: work, leisure, consumer, education, health, media, entertainment… Presence/absence of others Other ongoing activities

Response Physiological: arousal level • Level of engagement • Active/passive control of listening

Constant evolution and change music as a in individual preferences and taste situations:

Cognitive • Attention, memory, perceptual coding, expectation • Discrimination, evaluation Affective: emotional responses, like/dislike, mood

Individual use of resource in different goals in specific

Environments

Listener Individual difference variables: gender, age, nationality… Musical knowledge, training, literacy, experience Immediate and short-term preference patterns: medium/long-term taste patterns Self-theories: musical identities

Figure 7.1  Reciprocal feedback model of musical response.

recast as a model of music processing and which combines elements of musical production and perception with a central core of imagination (“creative” cognitive processing). We describe it as a “reciprocal feedback model” because each of the three main components exerts a simultaneous influence on each of the other two, and because these mutual influences are bidirectional in each case. In summary, the music itself can be seen to vary in various respects, such as in its complexity, familiarity, or prototypicality; listener/​composers/​improvisers/​performers vary with respect to “individual difference” factors such as age, gender, personality, musical training, and experience; and situations and contexts, which complete the triangle, include features of the listener’s immediate situation (e.g., the presence or absence of others, or simultaneous engagement in other ongoing activities); the social or institutional context (e.g., concert hall, shop, restaurant, workplace, school classroom, consumer or leisure environment); or broader factors relating to regional or national influences (e.g., music associated with sports clubs, political movements, or

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

135

national figures). This conceptualization enables us to see how reciprocal feedback relationships exist between each one of the three broad factors and each of other two:  and as far as preference and taste are concerned, we can see from ­figure  7.1 that the dynamic relationship between “music” and “listener” might incorporate the constant process of evolution and change in an individual’s musical taste, and that between the “listener” and the “situation” could include the ways that people in contemporary society use music as a resource (e.g., in managing emotional states or moods). This general model of music processing provides a useful perspective from which we can explain individual preferences and tastes. The perception of music, shown as part of the center of fi ­ gure  7.1, has many components; just four broad types of these are illustrated in the figure—​namely, physiological responses (e.g., arousal level); cognitive responses (e.g., attention, memory, perceptual coding, expectation, and evaluation); affective responses; and esthetic preferences, which are the main focus of this section. Most people have strong and distinctive patterns of preference:  immediate, short-​term reactions to particular pieces at specific times gradually accumulate to produce medium and longer term taste patterns, which are more stable: these patterns become an important part of individuals’ musical identities, as we explained above. These medium-​and long-​term patterns, though relatively stable, are still subject to continual change as new musical experiences are encountered: immediate responses to new musical stimuli are determined by longer-​term taste patterns, but these new experiences can feed back into the system and change those longer-​term patterns, such that this aspect of the musical identity system is in a constant state of evolution and change.

Developmental Changes A good deal of research has described age-​related changes in musical perception, production, and performance. As we saw earlier, Hargreaves and Zimmerman (1992), Swanwick and Runfola (2002), and Hargreaves and Lamont (2017) have all reviewed this literature, and there is still considerable disagreement about the existence of Piagetian-​style developmental stages in musical (and artistic) development. Many contemporary developmental psychologists reject stage-​type theories for a variety of different reasons, and the notion of age-​related stages or phases in musical development is correspondingly problematic. However, musical preferences and tastes may be less dependent on the maturation of competencies and skills than performing, composing, or listening abilities, for example. It is important to note that the technological revolution in how we listen to music means that individuals can have access to complete personal music collections instantly and constantly via mp3 players (often incorporated into mobile phones). Moreover, the decision to select a given piece of music in a particular situation involves a series of psychological decisions: “How do I feel right now?” “How do I want to feel in five minutes?” “What music will help me achieve these

136

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

goals?” “Is this music appropriate for this situation?” and so on. In this sense we are all very sophisticated consumers of music, not least because we make these personal and complicated psychological assessments very quickly (Cassidy & MacDonald, 2010). We should therefore evaluate the research literature on the development of musical preference and taste with a clear distinction in mind between the capabilities that are involved in making particular preference decisions and the actual content of those decisions. It may be that something like “cognitive aesthetic development” does exist, and that this idea could be used to explain how children’s aesthetic judgments become more mature as they get older, but this does not necessarily have any bearing on the musical content of those judgments. In one of our own studies (Hargreaves & North, 1999), we made the distinction between the cognitive and affective components of responses to musical pieces and styles, suggesting that there is likely to be more consistent age-​related change in the cognitive than in the affective component; but both aspects are influenced directly by the social and cultural context within which particular pieces and styles are evaluated. The research literature on the content of the musical preferences of different age groups has been reviewed by Finnäs (1989) and LeBlanc (1991), and more recently by Hargreaves, North, and Tarrant (2016) and Hargreaves and Lamont (2017). LeBlanc’s (1991) review led to his developmental account of “open-​earedness,” a term first employed by Hargreaves (1982) in explaining the results of his own study on age changes in preference. Hargreaves used the term to refer to some children’s ability to listen to and maybe also enjoy unconventional or unusual (e.g., “avant garde,” aleatory or electronic) musical sounds, as they may “show less evidence of acculturation to normative standards of “good taste” than older children” (p. 51). LeBlanc developed the idea of open-​earedness by using it as the basis for four generalizations emerging from his literature review:  that “younger children are more open-​eared. . . . open-​earedness declines as the child enters adolescence. . . . There is a partial rebound of open-​earedness as the listener matures from adolescence to young adulthood. . . . open-​earedness declines as the listener matures to old age” (pp. 36–​38). Hargreaves, North, and Tarrant (2016) summarized the studies reviewed by LeBlanc, as well as some more recent ones, in a table that shows the details of the participants in each study and the music that was employed, and which summarizes the results in each case. LeBlanc’s generalizations do seem to be supported by this analysis: a “dip” occurs in open-​earedness in later childhood at around age 10 or 11 that typically shows itself in strong preferences for a narrow range of pop styles, and strong general dislike for all other styles. After this, there seems to be a general decline in liking for all popular music styles across the rest of the life span, and a corresponding general increase in “classical” and other “serious” styles. Louven (2016) recently published a critique of the ways in which the concept of open-​earedness has been operationalized in subsequent research, proposing his own definition, and Hargreaves and Bonneville-​Roussy (2017) have responded to this by proposing four

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

137

different possible definitions, as well as ways in which these can be operationalized and measured. It remains to be seen whether the ways in which people listen to music in the early twenty-​first century will continue to show these developmental regularities. The advent of music downloads onto large-​capacity hard disks, and the use of playlists that are structured by the individual listener’s categorization of different pieces, as well as the sheer volume of available music, and its increasing encroachment into many areas of everyday life, may give rise to quite different patterns of age-​related development. What is not in doubt, however, is that music will continue to exert an increasing influence in many areas of our lives, and that the study of these influences will therefore be increasingly important and necessary.

Conclusion The developmental psychology of music has come a long way in the last 30 years: technological developments have given rise to considerable advances in research methodology and instrumentation, which in turn have led to the emergence of several new areas of developmental study. Among the most prominent we would include the recent growth in neuroscientific studies of musical development; work on the development of emotion in musical behavior; and the detailed study of prenatal and infant musical development. Along with this has gone a significant change in the general theoretical zeitgeist, perhaps the most important aspect of which is the increasing influence of the sociocultural approach, which originates in the work of Vygotsky, as well as a general increase in interest in the emotional aspects of development in relation to cognition. Vygotsky’s (1966) basic idea that “we become ourselves through others”—​ that our social relationships with others form the basis of our own individual development—​has led indirectly to our own emphasis on the importance of individual identity in musical development; in this chapter we have elaborated on the different ways in which musical identities mediate musical development, and we have tried to do so by looking in more depth at three representative areas: the cognitive, the social, and the affective (emotional) aspects of musical development. Because of the complexity and the symbolic and expressive power of music, the study of musical development is giving insights into aspects of general development that have not previously been possible. We suggest that the explosive growth of music psychology in the 2000s and 2010s parallels the growth of psycholinguistics in the 1960s, or even the “cognitive revolution” of the 1980s: it is able to explain aspects of symbolic and representational development that have hitherto been beyond the reach of empirical psychology. This growth will continue because of its central importance within psychology, and because there is still so much that we still just don’t know.

138

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

Reflective Questions

1. In what sense are we “all musical”? 2. If we are “all musical,” why do so many people regard themselves as unmusical? 3. How do our views of ourselves in music influence our musical development? 4. Are the cognitive, affective, and social aspects of our musical development related to one another?

KEY SOURCES Borthwick, S. J., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Developing a child’s identity as a musician: A family “script” perspective. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 60–​78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J. (1996). The development of artistic and musical competence. In I. DeLiège & J. A. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings: The origins and development of musical competence (pp. 145–​170). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., & Lamont, A. (2017). The psychology of musical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., MacDonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. E. (2017). The changing identity of musical identities. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Handbook of musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., Miell, D. E., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (eds.) (2012). Musical imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R. A.  R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (2009). Musical identities. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 462–​470). Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (eds.) (2017). Handbook of musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E. (ed.) (2016) The Child as Musician: A handbook of musical development. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES Bamberger, J. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:  A social-​cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-​Hall. Barrett, M. S. (2006) Creative collaboration: An “eminence” study of teaching and learning in music composition. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 195–​218.

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

139

Barrett, M. S., & Stauffer, S. L. (eds.) (2009). Narrative inquiry in music education. London: Springer. Beck, U. & Beck-​Gernsheim, E. (2009). Losing the traditional: Individualization and “precarious freedoms.” In A. Elliott & P. du Gay (eds.), Identity in question (pp. 13–​36). Los Angeles: Sage. Blacking, J. (1973). How musical is man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. Borthwick, S. J., and Davidson, J. W. (2002). Developing a child’s identity as a musician: A family “script” perspective. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 60–​78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caldwell, G. N., & MacDonald, R. A.  R. (2010) Musical identities of self-​defined non-​ musicians. Paper presented at Music, Identity and Social Interaction Conference, Royal Northern College of Music, Manchester, February 2–​3. Cassidy, G. G., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2010). The effects of music on time perception and performance of a driving game. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(6), 455–​464. Colwell, R. J. (ed.) (1992). Handbook for research in music teaching and learning. New York: Schirmer/​Macmillan. Costa-​Giomi, E. (2012). Music instruction and children’s intellectual development: The educational context of music participation. In R. A. R. MacDonald, G. Kreutz, & L. Mitchell (eds.), Music, health and wellbeing (pp. 339–​356). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davidson, L., & Scripp, L. (1989). Education and development in music from a cognitive perspective. In D. J. Hargreaves (ed.), Children and the arts (pp. 59–​86). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Eccles, J. S., O’Neill, S. A., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-​perceptions and subject task values in adolescents and children. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 237–​249). New York: Springer. Elliott, A., & du Gay, P. (eds.) (2009). Identity in question. Los Angeles: Sage. El’Konin, D. B. (1971). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of children. Trans. N. Veresov. Voprosy Psikhologii 4, 6–​20. Finnäs, L. (1989). How can musical preferences be modified? A research review. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 102, 1–​58. Frith, S. (1981). Sound effects: Youth, leisure, and the politics of rock “n” roll. New York: Pantheon. Gordon, E. (1976). Learning sequence and patterns in music. Buffalo: Tometic Associates Ltd. Gordon, E. (1997). A music learning theory for newborn and young children. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, Inc. Hargreaves, D. J. (1982). The development of aesthetic reactions to music. Psychology of Music, Special Issue, 51–​54. Hargreaves, D. J. (1986). The developmental psychology of music. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Hargreaves, D. J. (1996). The development of artistic and musical competence. In I. deLiège & J. A. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings: The origins and development of musical competence (pp. 145–​170). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J. (2012). Musical imagination: Perception and production, beauty and creativity. Psychology of Music, 40(5), 539–​57. Hargreaves, D. J., & Bonneville-​Roussy, A. (2017). What is “open-​earedness,” and how can it be measured? Musicae Scientiae, Hargreaves, D. J., & Galton, M. (1992). Aesthetic learning: Psychological theory and educational practice. In B. Reimer & R. A. Smith (eds.), 1992 N.S.S.E. yearbook on the arts in education (pp. 124–​150). Chicago: N.S.S.E.

140

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

Hargreaves, D. J., & Lamont, A. (2017). The psychology of musical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., MacDonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. E. (2002). What are musical identities, and why are they important? In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 1–​20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., MacDonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. E. (2005). How do people communicate using music? In D. E. Miell, R. A. R. MacDonald, & D. J. Hargreaves (eds.), Musical Communication (pp. 1–​25). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., Marshall, N., & North, A. C. (2003). Music education in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. British Journal of Music Education, 20(2), 147–​163. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1999). Developing concepts of musical style. Musicae Scientiae, 3, 193–​216. Hargreaves, D. J., North, A. C., & Tarrant, M. (2016). How and why do musical preferences change in childhood and adolescence? In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: Handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 303–​322). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., & Zimmerman, M. (1992). Developmental theories of music learning. In R. Colwell (ed.), Handbook for research in music teaching and learning (pp. 377–​391). New York: Schirmer/​Macmillan. Ivaldi, A., & O’Neill, S. (2009). Talking “privilege”:  Barriers to musical attainment in adolescents’ talk of musical role models. British Journal of Music Education, 26(1), 43–​56. Johansson, K. (2012). Organ improvisation:  Edition, extemporisation, expansion and instant composition. In D. J. Hargreaves, R. A. R. MacDonald, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical imaginations (pp. 220–​232). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Juslin, P. N., & Sloboda, J. A. (eds.) (2001). Music and emotion:  Theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Juslin, P. N., & Sloboda, J. A. (eds.) (2010). Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lamont, A. (2002). Musical identities and the school environment. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.). Musical identities (pp. 41–​59). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Lamont, A. M., Hargreaves, D. J., Marshall, N. A., & Tarrant, M. (2010). Musical identities at school. Manuscript submitted for publication. LeBlanc, A. (1991). Effect of maturation/​aging on music listening preference:  A review of the literature. Paper presented at the Ninth National Symposium on Research in Music Behavior, Canon Beach, Oregon, USA. Louven, C. (2016). Hargreaves’ “open-​earedness”: A critical discussion and new approach on the concept of musical tolerance and curiosity. Musicae Scientiae, 20(2), 235–​247. MacDonald R. A.  R. (2008). The universality of musical communication. In M. Suzanne Zeedyk (ed.), Promoting social interaction with individuals with communication impairments (pp. 39–​51). London: Jessica Kingsley. MacDonald, R. A. R., Davies, J. B., & O’Donnell, P. J. (1999). Structured music workshops for individuals with learning difficulty:  An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 12(3), 225–​241. MacDonald, R. A.  R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (eds.) (2002). Musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R. A.  R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (2009). Musical identities. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 462–​470). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Musical Identities Mediate Musical Development

141

MacDonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (eds.) (2017). Handbook of musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R. A. R., Kreutz, G., & Mitchell L. (eds.) (2012). Music, health and wellbeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. (2002). Music for individuals with special needs: A catalyst for developments in identity, communication and musical ability. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 163–​179). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R.A.R., & Miell, D. (2004). Musical collaboration. In K. Littleton & D. Miell (eds.), Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn: Understanding and promoting educationally productive collaborative work (pp. 133–​146). New York: Nova Science. MacDonald, R. A. R., Miell, D., & Wilson, G. B. (2005). Talking about music: A vehicle for identity development. In D. Miell, R. A. R. MacDonald., & D. J. Hargreaves (eds.), Musical Communication (pp. 321–​338). Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R. A.  R., & Wilson, G. B. (2005). The musical identities of professional jazz musicians: A focus group investigation. Psychology of Music, 33(4), 395–​419. McPherson, G. E. (ed.). (2016). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Students’ motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects:  A comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(December), 101–​137. North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2009). A generative model of teachers’ thinking on musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 37, 416–​442. Randles, C. (2009). “That’s my piece, that’s my signature, and it means more . . . ”: Creative identity and the ensemble teacher/​arranger. Research Studies in Music Education, 31(1), 52–​68. Rickard, N. S., & Chin, T. (2017). Defining the musical identity of “non-​musicians.” In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 288–303). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Serafine, M. L. (1988). Music as cognition:  The development of thought in sound. New York: Columbia University Press. Sichivitsa, V. O. (2007). The influences of parents, teachers, peers and other factors on students’ motivation in music. Research Studies in Music Education, 29(1), 55–​68. Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Howe, M. J.  A. (1994a). Is everyone musical? The Psychologist, 7(7), 349–​354. Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Howe, M. J. A. (1994b). Musicians: Experts not geniuses. Psychologist, 7(7), 363–​365. Swanwick, K., & Runfola, M. (2002). Developmental characteristics of learners. In R. Colwell & C. P. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development. British Journal of Music Education, 3, 305–​339. Trevarthen, C. (2002). Origins of musical identity: Evidence from infancy for musical social awareness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 21–​38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trevarthen, C. (2012). Communicative musicality: The human impulse to create and share music. In D. J. Hargreaves, R. A. R. MacDonald, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Musical Imaginations (pp. 259–​284). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

142

David J. Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald, and Dorothy Miell

Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Genesis of the higher mental functions. Abridged translation. In P. H. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (eds.) (1991), Learning to think, pp. 32–​41. London: Routledge and Open University Press. Welch, G. F. (2007). Addressing the multifaceted nature of music education:  An activity theory research perspective. Research Studies in Music Education, 28(1), 23–​37. Wetherell, M., & Mohanty, C. T. (eds.) (2010). Sage handbook of identity. London: SAGE. Williamson, V. (2009). In search of the language of music. The Psychologist, 22(12), 1022–​1025. Wilson, G. B., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2005). The meaning of the blues: Musical identities in talk about jazz. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 341–​363. Zillman, D., & Gan, S. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D. J. Hargreaves and A. C. North (eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 161–​188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 8

SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

Learning to perform music can be a very enjoyable, satisfying, and meaningful undertaking. It offers students an inherently challenging activity and the opportunity to experience a continual supply of feedback, which in optimal conditions enriches their sense of competence. It gives students an avenue to express their talents, passions, and creativity. It is also a rare educational opportunity for students to learn to enjoy an activity truly for its own sake—​simply for the pleasure and spontaneous sense of satisfaction it provides, and it does so often within the companionship of one’s friends. Still further, learning music offers a rare opportunity to engage in a lifelong activity that can open up future opportunities for increasing skill development and ever-​expanding opportunities for stylistic specialization and collaboration with peers (Sosniak, 1990). For these reasons, many students say that learning to perform music is an inherently interesting and enjoyable thing to do. While performing music can be highly engaging and personally satisfying, many pedagogues and researchers have documented that the reverse is often the case—​namely, the steady decline in young people’s musical participation and engagement throughout their school years.  Various explanations have been posited for this decline, such as students’ perceptions that they are insufficiently competent or that they have lost their intrinsic motivation (Hallam, 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In the lives of many music students, practicing may take on a role akin to a homework-​like task: a daily chore to be completed alongside many others, often

144

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

under the surveillance of parents (McPherson & Renwick, 2011).  While teachers, students, and parents often negotiate the extent to which the music lesson focuses on work-​like preprofessional training or on enjoying the activity for its own sake (Davidson & Jordan, 2007), the trend too often observed in music classrooms around the world is one of declining, not rising, interest and enjoyment. Walking through the doors of a music classroom, a student may enter with a strong sense of curiosity, mastery motivation, vitality, and eager self-​motivation, or that same student might enter with apathy, anxiety, and only a blank lifeless stare out the window. As with other school subjects, music students can be motivated and engaged, or they can be unmotivated and disengaged. Such reactions reflect more than just individual differences between students, as they are also reactions to the social environment and classroom climate in which music education takes place. A social context—​be it the classroom or a tutor-​tutee relationship—​can vitalize and nurture students’ inner motivational resources, resulting in enthusiastic engagement, or it can neglect and frustrate students’ inner motivational resources, resulting in alienation and disaffection. A theory of student motivation that is especially well suited to explain such engagement versus disaffection is self-​determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and we focus our chapter on this perspective in order to introduce its insights to the music education community.

Self-​Determination Theory This is an approach to student engagement that uses traditional empirical methods to highlight the key role of students’ inner motivational resources in facilitating their positive classroom functioning, such as their engagement, learning, and achievement (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Much of the research guided by SDT emphasizes the motivational underpinnings of students’ positive functioning, and we will emphasize both intrinsic motivation and internalized valuing in this chapter. Other research guided by SDT emphasizes the role that social and environmental factors play in either promoting and vitalizing student motivation or in thwarting and undermining it, and we will emphasize the music teacher’s motivating style as a key social influence on students’ motivation and engagement. In the empirical study of motivation, SDT highlights the inherent and acquired motivational resources that facilitate students’ positive classroom functioning. The prototype of students’ natural motivation is intrinsic motivation, which is “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70).  It is through intrinsic motivation that a child engages in a piece of music because it makes her feel happy, because she likes the sound of the chord changes, or because she enjoys the

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

145

connection she feels between her breath control and an expressive diminuendo.  All aspects of music learning cannot be expected to be intrinsically interesting, however, so SDT researchers further study how people developmentally internalize the motivation they need to carry out behavior that is not intrinsically motivated. It is through internalized extrinsic motivation that a child or adolescent engages and persists in activities that are socially valued but personally uninteresting, such as following rules, practicing the same music over and over, and doing what is important rather than what is fun. Hence, in addition to a focus on supporting students’ intrinsic motivation, this chapter will focus on developing students’ internalization of extrinsic motivation. 

Intrinsic Motivation Despite the fact that all music students enter the classroom with intrinsic motivational tendencies, it is clear that they do not all walk out with their intrinsic motivation intact. For its maintenance and enhancement, intrinsic motivation requires supportive conditions (Deci & Ryan, 1985); accordingly, SDT focuses on the environmental factors that can sometimes nurture and support, but other times suppress and undermine, students’ natural tendency to learn and explore the world with autonomy.  Some environmental factors that generally maintain and enhance intrinsic motivation include the provision of optimal challenges, opportunities for self-​direction, acknowledgment of feelings, and positive feedback; some environmental factors that generally frustrate and undermine intrinsic motivation include deadlines, threats of punishment, competition, surveillance, and external evaluation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). A central tenet of SDT is that intrinsic motivation will be enhanced by conditions that support people’s experience of being autonomous and competent, while it will be undermined by conditions that reduce or frustrate people’s experience of autonomy and competence. An example of how a student might express high intrinsic motivation during a music lesson would be to show a high and enduring level of interest, to seek out and find pleasure in optimal challenges, and to say things such as “This is fun.” Educational practices that provide opportunities for self-​direction, optimal challenges, and positive feedback typically enhance intrinsic motivation. An example of how a student might express low intrinsic motivation during the same music lesson would be to show listlessness, to avoid challenges, and to say things such as, “I can’t do it.” Hence, conditions that lead people to feel lesser autonomy and competence will typically undermine intrinsic motivation. This explains why educational practices such as deadlines, threats of punishment, competition, surveillance, and external evaluation typically decrease intrinsic motivation.

146

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

Internalization and Integration Although intrinsic motivation is an important type of motivation, it is not the only type of autonomous motivation students have. Students can also be extrinsically motivated, and Ryan and Deci (2000) propose that extrinsically motivated behavior lies along a continuum (see fig. 8.1) according to the extent to which it is perceived as autonomous or self-​determined.  The central four panels of ­figure 8.1 depict this more fine-​grained, continuous conception of extrinsic motivation. At one end is external regulation, where a person acts simply to gain a reward or to avoid punishment. A slightly more internalized form of regulation is called introjection, where people have partly taken in external controls but control themselves through pressure-​inducing dynamics such as contingent self-​esteem, anxiety, and guilt. An autonomous and internalized type of extrinsically motivated behavior is identified regulation.  Here, a conscious valuing of the activity occurs, as in “While this activity is not fun, it is important and valuable to me.” Various activities regulated through identification may nevertheless remain compartmentalized, however, and SDT proposes that the developmental internalization process can continue to a state of integrated regulation, where the various identifications are brought together into congruence with each other and one’s sense of self. With young musicians, for instance, this may involve reconciling the huge time demands of skill development with other competing goals, such as academic and social activities (Austin, Renwick, & McPherson, 2006; Evans, 2016).

Non-self-determined

Amotivation

• Low competence

self-determined

Intrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation

External regulation

• Noncontingency

BEHAVIOR

Introjection

• Reward

• Ego

• Punishment

• Guilt • Approval

Identification

• Conscious valuing • Self-endorsed goals

Integration

• Hierarchical

• Interest

synthesis of

• Enjoyment

goals

• Inherent satisfaction

Figure 8.1  Internal–​external Motivation Continuum (adapted with permission after Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

147

Of course, a person might not be motivated to pursue an activity in any way—​ either intrinsic or extrinsic. At one extreme, ­figure 8.1 shows amotivation, a state where people are totally disengaged from an activity, consider themselves low in competence for that activity, and see a lack of any relationship between their actions and environmental outcomes.  This is the polar opposite of intrinsic motivation, where a person engages in an activity solely for its own inherent satisfactions, and out of interest and enjoyment.  Extrinsic motivation becomes autonomous when students wholeheartedly internalize into the self-​system a socially prescribed way of thinking or behaving (e.g., a value for practicing a musical instrument, a personal goal to win a state competition). Students might express a self-​endorsed goal during music instruction through a high and enduring level of commitment and valuing of what they are doing. Hence, conditions that allows students to feel greater autonomy, valuing, or self-​endorsement of the goal are likely to assist the process of motivational internalization. How music teachers can do this is the topic of the next section, on teachers’ motivating styles. But before introducing this key topic, consider one experiment that illustrates many of the concepts highlighted throughout the chapter—​long-​ term adherence and persistence in the activity, intrinsic motivation, types of extrinsic motivation, and motivating style. The experiment focused on persistence within a specific skill domain, which is a crucial issue in music education because it is an elective course and because too many students drop out of music education in early adolescence. In this study, Pelletier and colleagues (2001) investigated the effects of athletic coaches’ motivating style (autonomy support and controlling) on competitive swimmers’ long-​term persistence. The effect that motivating style had on persistence was hypothesized to be mediated by the five types of motivation introduced in ­figure  8.1. Persistence was measured by swimmers’ continued participation (versus dropout) after 10 months (Persistence in Season 1) and then again after 22 months (Persistence in Season 2). Results are summarized in ­figure 8.2. What is important to note about these findings is, first, the close connection between the coaches’ motivating style and the swimmers’ motivations, and second, the close connection between the swimmers’ motivational orientations and their choices regarding persistence. Specifically, when coaches were autonomy supportive, the swimmers’ intrinsic motivation and identified regulation both increased substantially. Alternatively, when coaches were controlling, the swimmers’ dysfunctional motivations—​external regulation and amotivation—​ increased substantially. These changes in motivation throughout the season were important, as intrinsic motivation and identified regulation clearly facilitated long-​term persistence, whereas external regulation and amotivation clearly undermined it. With a little imagination, perhaps the reader can see some striking parallels between the changing motivations and outcomes of these swimmers and the changing motivations and outcomes music teachers witness in their classrooms year after year.

148

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

Intrinsic motivation .48 Coaches’ autonomy support

.59

.47

Identified regulation

.33

.23

.35

–.36 –.37

Coaches’ control

.49

Introjected regulation

.23

.36

.65

Persistence in Season 1

Persistence in Season 2

–.31 External regulation –.68

.33

–.82

Amotivation

Figure 8.2  The Pelletier et al. model of the influence of coaches’ interpersonal behaviors on athletes’ forms of regulation and persistence (Pelletier et al., 2001, p. 296, adapted with permission).

Autonomy Support Autonomy support exists as a variety of behaviors teachers enact to enhance students’ feelings of freedom, of choice, and their sense that they are the origin of their own behavior—​that is, students’ experience of autonomy. Formally, autonomy support is the interpersonal sentiment and behavior that teachers provide to identify, nurture, and develop students’ inner motivational resources (Reeve, 2009). Its opposite is behavioral control—​behaviors teachers enact during instruction to suppress students’ experience of autonomy. More specifically, controlling is the interpersonal sentiment and behaviors that teachers provide to pressure students to think, feel, or behave in a specific way—​“think this way; don’t feel like that; and do this but don’t do that” (Roth, Assor, Kanat-​Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007). As opposites, autonomy support and controlling represent a single bipolar continuum to conceptualize the quality of a teacher’s motivating style toward students (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981). A teacher’s motivating style is an important construct because it predicts students’ educational and developmental outcomes, such that students of autonomy-​supportive teachers relatively thrive in terms of their learning, engagement, and well-​being, while teachers of controlling teachers relatively suffer on the same student outcomes (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

149

Recognizing the influence that a teacher’s motivating style has on students’ classroom functioning, many researchers have worked hard to specify exactly what autonomy-​supportive and controlling teachers do during instruction. Once understood, teacher training intervention programs have been developed to help teachers become more autonomy supportive toward their students. In this section, we will identify precisely what autonomy-​supportive and controlling teachers say and do during instruction, and then we will summarize the benefits to students when teachers are trained to be more autonomy supportive.

What Autonomy-​Supportive Teachers Say and Do Many instructional behaviors have been validated as autonomy-​supportive acts of instruction (e.g., Reeve & Jang, 2006). These instructional behaviors can be organized into five clusters of autonomy support (for reviews, see Reeve, 2009; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004):









1. Autonomy-​supportive teachers spark students’ initial engagement in learning activities by nurturing their inner motivational resources. For instance, a musical instructor might introduce a difficult piece of music saying, “Here is a challenge; here is a piece of music that will challenge your skills.” 2. Autonomy-​supportive teachers provide a steady stream of rationales to explain the why behind any potentially uninteresting endeavor. For instance, a music instructor might say, “Okay, playing the same piece of music over and over tends to get boring, but the reason for the repetition is to make gradual little refinements each time until, in the end, you have mastered the piece of music.” 3. Autonomy-​supportive teachers rely on noncontrolling and informational language when they communicate requirements, comment on student progress, ask students to take responsibility for their learning, and address motivational and behavioral problems. For instance, a music instructor might say, “I don’t hear much progress; do you know why that might be?” 4. Autonomy-​supportive teachers display patience to allow time for self-​ paced learning to occur. To display patience, the music teacher would take the time to listen to students, provide time for them to work in their own way, offer hints when students seem stuck, and postpone advice until they first understood what the student was trying to accomplish. 5. Autonomy-​supportive teachers acknowledge and accept students’ expressions of resistance and negative emotions. For instance, after a student complains that a procedure is too boring or too hard, a music teacher might say, “Yes, this is hard; it can make anyone feel frustrated. What could we do differently so it didn’t seem so boring or difficult; any suggestions?”

150

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

What Controlling Teachers Say and Do Autonomy-​ supportive teachers enhance students’ autonomy, while controlling teachers neglect and frustrate this fundamental psychological need. For each autonomy-​supportive instructional behavior, its opposite can be identified:









1. Controlling teachers try to spark students’ initial engagement in learning activities through directives, assignments, incentives, or compliance requests. That is, they neglect or bypass the opportunity to vitalize students’ inner motivational resources and, instead, introduce some sort of (often artificial) source of environmental motivation (e.g., directive, deadline, incentive). 2. Controlling teachers are notably silent when it comes to providing explanatory rationales for their requested activities, rules, and procedures. Again, they bypass the opportunity to develop students’ inner motivational resources (internalization and valuing, in this case) and instead simply push for students’ behavioral compliance. 3. Controlling teachers rely on pressuring language. By using pressuring language (e.g., “You should”; “You have to”; “You’ve got to”), controlling teachers tend to escalate their pressure (“You’ve got to, right now!”) until students give in and comply with the teacher’s demands. 4. Controlling teachers impatiently grab the learning materials and say, “Here, do it like this,” or “Here, let me do this for you,” as they push students toward answers, solutions, and desired ways of behaving as if the point of the instructional time was not learning and skill development but merely proving that one can reproduce a modeled behavior or a right answer. 5. Instead of acknowledging and accepting students’ expressions of resistance and negative emotions, controlling teachers counter and try to change students’ “bad attitude” into something more acceptable to the teacher. For example, instead of saying the aforementioned “Yes, this is hard; it can make anyone feel frustrated. What could we do differently?” controlling teachers tend to say, “Quit your whining; if you would have practiced like I told you to, then this wouldn’t be so hard. So, shape up, and get to work.”

While a controlling motivating style is more commonplace in the classroom than is an autonomy-​supportive style, teachers can learn how to become significantly more autonomy supportive toward students. In a meta-​analysis of 20 training programs designed to teach people how to be autonomy supportive, the average effect size for the training group (compared to a control group) was an impressive d = .63 (Su & Reeve, 2011). Evidently, given focused training and support, teachers can learn how to become significantly more autonomy supportive than they were. This is exciting because the students of teachers who participate in these autonomy-​ supportive training programs show clear and meaningful subsequent benefits from their teachers’ enhanced motivating style, including greater autonomous motivation

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

151

(Tessier, Sarrazin, & Ntoumanis, 2010), engagement (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004), and achievement (deCharms, 1976).

Music and Motivation Several broad themes help organize the somewhat diverse research literature on the motivation to pursue music learning.  There have been a number of reviews of this literature in recent years, each with its own focus on model-​building (Hallam, 2002), pedagogical implications (O’Neill & McPherson, 2002), developmental considerations (Austin, Renwick, & McPherson, 2006), and the wider achievement-​ motivation literature (Maehr, Pintrich, & Linnenbrink, 2002).  Here we provide a brief overview of some major theoretical constructs related not only to SDT but also to achievement motivation—​self-​efficacy beliefs, task value, goal orientations, flow, and interest—​before focusing on the application of these theoretical constructs to research in the context of music teaching and learning and their relevance to SDT.

Self-​Determined Motivation In the often intense teacher-​student relationship of music education, a strong effect of teachers’ autonomy-​supportive or controlling behavior might be expected, as in the Pelletier et  al. (2001) study of swimmers and their coaches.  Evans (2009, 2016) conducted an intriguing study asking young adults who had learned a musical instrument to reflect on the extent to which their musical participation had satisfied their need for autonomy, competence, and a sense of belonging. At the time of choosing to discontinue music participation, the participants reported feeling a lower sense of these needs being satisfied than when starting in elementary school. As with other educational contexts, the learning environment is associated with music students’ perceptions of their level of autonomy, with extrinsic motivation associated with the frequency of competitive performances, for instance (Rohrer, 1993).  Anguiano (2006) investigated middle-​school instrumentalists’ perceptions of their teachers’ autonomy support with questionnaire items such as “my band director tries to understand how I see a situation before suggesting how to deal with it.” This measure of autonomy support predicted both the perceived autonomy of the students in their music classroom and their adoption of learning goals (e.g., “I like music I’ll learn from, even if I make a lot of mistakes”). These self-​beliefs in turn predicted students’ motivation to continue with their music participation. Our own recent research (Renwick, McCormick & McPherson, 2009) has focused on relations between students’ beliefs about their autonomy and their learning

152

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

strategies when practicing their instruments. We explored a range of reasons a student might give for striving in their music-​making (see fig. 8.1), ranging from purely intrinsic (e.g., “because I love playing my instrument”) to completely external (e.g., “because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t”). With a sample of students aged 8–​19 years, internal motivation was the strongest predictor of effective forms of practicing, such as effort management, monitoring of accuracy, and use of corrective strategies. Extrinsic forms of motivation that emerged, such as the desire to avoid negative emotions and to attain approval from the teacher, provided a more differentiated conception of motivation than had previously been empirically demonstrated in music learning (Renwick, 2008).  Our questionnaire and qualitative data suggested that young people are certainly not merely “motivated” or “unmotivated.” Case studies (Renwick, 2008)  suggest that these extrinsic motives are very real for the young musicians, but in many cases they may only motivate a student to make a minimal effort to engage in practicing, such as adopting a “run-​through” approach.  This would suggest that attempts by teachers and parents to enhance learning by increasing the salience of external, social, and shame-​related motives are likely to be ineffective: it is predominantly internal motivation that must be developed and recruited in order for students to engage in effective music learning. Although intrinsic motivation may be the primary driver of musical engagement “for the love of it,” there are clearly many aspects of musical training that require an adaptive form of extrinsic motivation (Renwick, 2008), because of the many aspects of deliberate practice that are not inherently enjoyable.  In this sense, SDT’s theory of internalization and integration can be seen as a useful lens for understanding the motivation of music students as they struggle with the enormous demands of acquiring musical expertise.

Self-​Efficacy Beliefs The motivational effects of people’s beliefs about their own competence have been central to a range of dominant motivational theories focusing on the question “Can I do this task?” Self-​efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). While general competence beliefs relate to people’s global feelings of ability in a subject area such as music, self-​efficacy relates to people’s level of confidence in their ability to perform very specific tasks, such as a difficult section of a piece. Self-​efficacy has been found to be a strong predictor of academic achievement, independent of the effect of actual cognitive competence (Bouffard-​Bouchard, Parent, & Larivée, 1991). This effect was mediated by students’ increased use of strategies such as monitoring of time, persistence, and knowing when to accept a correct hypothesis. These results have been replicated with young musicians (McPherson & McCormick, 2006), showing self-​efficacy to be a strong predictor of achievement in music examinations.

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

153

Task Value Expectancy-​value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000)  suggests that students’ competence beliefs are the strongest predictor of their actual achievement.  The other main element of the theory—​the extent to which people value an activity—​is a strong predictor of their decisions to continue with their engagement. People’s estimations of the value of an achievement activity are thought to comprise four main components:

• Attainment value: the perceived importance of success in the activity • Utility value: its usefulness in everyday life • Intrinsic interest: the pleasure to be gained from engagement in the activity itself • Perceived cost: the sacrifice of other activities and emotional resources that engagement entails (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000)

Developmental research has found that this multifaceted conception of task value emerges from a more holistic one throughout the school years; young children will not typically draw the fine distinctions between aspects of task value as do adolescents (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In elementary school, children’s perceptions of their own competence and valuing of music generally declines rapidly even before most have had any formal instruction in the area (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).  Alarmingly, this decline is far more pronounced with music than reading and mathematics, and even occurs before school music is introduced in many countries. Despite this general decline, children’s perceptions of music as interesting and important, and their feelings of being good at it, predict the time they will devote to practicing and their choice of whether or not to participate in music over rival activities such as sport.  McPherson and McCormick (1999) found that task value predicted students’ engagement in several aspects of music practice. A  follow-​up study (McPherson & McCormick, 2000)  investigated the effects of task value on students’ examination results.  Together with a strong effect of self-​efficacy, only task value added to the ability to predict achievement scores.  Factors traditionally assumed to play a major role, such as self-​reported practice time and anxiety, did not predict the music examination result when controlling for the measures of perceived competence and task value.  Wigfield and Eccles (2000) have theorized that the nature of task value would change as children mature.  Young children primarily value activities for their inherent interest and enjoyment, whereas in elementary school, children’s experience of a wider variety of activities gives them a greater sense of the difference between the utility, importance, and enjoyment of a pursuit such as music.  In high school, as young people approach career decisions, their choices start to be determined more by their perception of the usefulness of the activity and their expectation of being successful in it (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).  This change may be particularly relevant in its effect on the choices that adolescents make about continuing or discontinuing their involvement in music. 

154

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

Interest Interest has emerged as an important aspect of motivation research (Renninger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992).  Researchers have distinguished between two types of interest: (1) a personal interest, which might develop from a casual interest into a central part of a person’s identity, and (2) situational interest, where particular aspects of a learning environment, such as novelty, spark an increase in attention.  Our case study (Renwick & McPherson, 2002) of a 12-​year-​old girl is an example of both: a student clarinetist was observed practicing a particular piece with a highly atypical level of attention, persistence, and strategy use, later revealing that this was a piece that the student had chosen herself, in contrast to the usual process of teacher assignment.  This choice appeared to have been motivated by the situational interest in the particular piece, as well as an emerging personal interest in jazz.

Goal Orientations A predominant perspective guiding achievement motivation research in recent times has been goal theory. The work of several theorists (e.g., Dweck, 1986) compares two sets of goals that students are likely to use in guiding their academic behavior.  On the one hand, learning goals focus on learning for its own sake, and basing one’s achievement on how much is learned. On the other hand, performance goals are in place where the student is primarily motivated to outperform others (a performance-​ approach goal) or to avoid failure based on peer comparisons (a performance-​avoid goal; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Early work on goal theory has found that learning goals are associated with use of deeper cognitive strategies, higher levels of achievement, and students attributing their successes to effort (and their failures to a lack of effort). Performance goals, on the other hand, are often associated with an absence of these adaptive patterns of learning (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). Considerable research has investigated the extent to which classroom practices affect the goal orientation of individual students (e.g., Ames, 1992), with various aspects of high school teaching, such as ability groupings and public assessment, typically fostering a performance-​goal orientation. In the context of the school instrumental ensemble, Sandene (1998) investigated students’ attitudes toward their classrooms as promoting ego goals or task goals. Just as self-​determination researchers have investigated students’ perceptions of their own motivation alongside their perceptions of their learning environment, Sandene’s goal orientation measures were supplemented with assessments of how the participants perceived their classrooms—​as fostering either learning goals or ego goals. Perceived classroom performance goals predicted the adoption of performance goals in individual class members, and perceived classroom learning goals predicted personal

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

155

learning goals, as well as perceived competence.  In turn, personal learning goals and perceived competence were associated with higher levels of motivation in music. Observations of the individual classrooms found that readily measured behaviors, such as the ratio of negative to positive feedback, were strongly associated with students’ perception of the motivational climate of the classroom. These perceptions may take time to develop, however: Austin (1991) found that experimental manipulation of competitive versus noncompetitive goals had little effect on the behavior of young musicians. O’Neill (1997) conducted a groundbreaking music education study investigating the effects of children’s habitual responses to failure.  Children who were soon to commence learning an instrument were given an experimentally manipulated experience of failure in a problem-​solving task, in order to gauge their adaptive (mastery-​oriented) or maladaptive (helpless) response in subsequent attempts.  After a year, children showing a mastery orientation showed musical achievement superior to the helpless children’s, beyond the effects of other crucial factors, such as time spent practicing. 

Flow In contemplating the typical pattern of disenchantment with formal music learning that occurs in adolescence (Sloboda, 2001), it is worth reminding ourselves that music is inherently engaging for infants and young children. This attraction involves music’s physicality and its potential for the child to manipulate skill and challenge, possibly resulting in the concentrated feeling of total immersion in an activity defined as flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).  Flow is thought to occur when there is a match between a high level of skill and a high level of challenge, in contrast, for instance, to a high level of challenge and a lower level of skill, which is likely to produce anxiety.  O’Neill (1999) found interesting differences in the reported frequency of flow experience among teenage musicians of different abilities: those attending a nonspecialist school and high achievers at a specialist music school reported feeling in flow more often than moderate achievers at the specialist school.  This finding would suggest that even for young musicians who have made a commitment to pursuing specialist musical training, a mismatch of skill and challenge could be detrimental to the motivation to persist. 

Implications for Educational Practice The key implication of research for systems of teaching and learning is that the development of a sense of autonomy and competence need to be supported if young

156

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

musicians are to gain the capacity to motivate themselves and employ the self-​ regulatory skills they will need for lifelong musical engagement. These mean that music teachers need to learn how to support students’ autonomy, how to support students’ competence, and how not to be controlling toward students.

Supporting Autonomy The master-​apprentice tradition of music learning is often characterized by authoritarian approaches that undermine autonomous student learning (Persson, 1994). This is a problem because the greater the perceived difference in status, expertise, or social power that exists between any two people interacting, the greater the likelihood that the higher status person (master) will relate to the lower-​status person (apprentice) in a controlling way. Many music teachers are highly controlling in the way they decide student issues such as repertoire choice, examination enrollment, and required approaches to practicing, often with little sense of negotiation with the student (Renwick, 2008). Recognizing the temptation for powerful instructors to be controlling, the enactment of an autonomy-​supportive motivating style explicitly seeks to empower students by taking and valuing their perspective and by inviting and welcoming their thoughts, feelings, and actions into the flow of instruction to the point that instruction becomes a codetermined, rather than a unilateral, activity. To become more autonomy supportive and to work toward greater teacher–​ student codetermination, music teachers might consider the following acts of instruction that parallel the five autonomy-​ supportive instructional behaviors introduced earlier. • To nurture students’ inner motivational resources. Instead of unilaterally telling students what to do, ask students what music-​relevant goals they have for themselves, discover what is most interesting and valuable to them about music, and integrate a sense of challenge, curiosity-​induction, and intrinsic motivation into the structure of every lesson plan. • To provide explanatory rationales. Before asking students to engage in potentially uninteresting activities, such as learning scales, provide a rationale that explains in a satisfying way why the activity is truly worth the students’ effort. The explanatory rationale will help students internalize the value of the activity in a way that allows them to transform their otherwise vulnerable motivational state (e.g., “Why do I have to do this?”) into a more volitional agency (e.g., “Yes, now that you explain it, this is worth doing.”). • To rely on noncontrolling, informational language. Rather than uttering pressure-​packed communications that students have to do this and must do that, use communications that encourage students to discover their own optimal learning strategies. As problem-​solving tasks change, scaffold

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

157

students’ efforts to learn ever more adaptive and sophisticated learning strategies. • To display patience to allow time for self-​paced learning to occur. Displaying patience means giving students the time they need to set goals, make plans, revise strategies, monitor progress, deeply understand what they are trying to do, diagnose problems, and formulate and test out problem-​solving strategies. This means encouraging students to think about and monitor their personal goals, choose their own repertoire, and work at their own pace, and it does not mean pushing students toward answers and idealized performances. • To acknowledge and accept students’ expressions of resistance and negative emotions. Teachers might support students in managing their frustration and other negative emotions by acknowledging and accepting that these are part of the process of skill development.

Supporting Competence When music teachers support autonomy, they support much more than students’ psychological need for autonomy. An autonomy-​ supportive motivating style nurtures not only students’ need for autonomy (Reeve & Jang, 2006) but also their need for competence (Deci et  al., 1981; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). To understand this relationship between autonomy support and greater perceived competence, consider how the following autonomy-​supportive ways of relating to a student can grow an authentic sense of competence:  taking the time to listen; offering helpful and timely hints when students seem stuck; providing encouragement for initiative and effort; praising signs of progress; postponing advice until first understanding the student’s goal and perspective; and providing scaffolding when it is needed and when it is invited. The more teachers use these strategies, the more competent students tend to perceive themselves to be. What autonomy-​supportive teachers are doing that grows students’ sense of competence is fostering students’ self-​beliefs that they are fully capable of engaging successfully in the challenges involved in acquiring musical excellence. The satisfaction and positive emotion that arise from making progress and from successfully completing one’s own self-​regulatory cycles (McPherson & Renwick, 2011) tend to spur musicians on to consolidating their skills so that they become increasingly motivated to address future challenges. It is in these times of making progress and experiencing spontaneous satisfactions such as joy and intrinsic motivation that one’s sense of competence grows. The question for music educators is then “How do I help students make progress and experience interest, flow, and enjoyment?” One evidence-​based answer to this crucial question is to relate to students with an autonomy-​supportive motivating style.

158

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

How Not to Be Controlling Toward Students It is easy to recommend that music instructors support students’ autonomy and competence, yet it is hard to see how this is either possible or practical in an era of high-​stakes external evaluations and accountability. Most teachers are not controlling because they want to be. Instead, most teachers adopt a controlling style because they themselves feel such pressure to produce student successes in examinations and competitions (Reeve, 2009). The music curriculum is populated with pressure-​ inducing motivations, such as to do well on examinations, concerts, and competitions, to please parents, to be accepted into a selective ensemble or school by audition, and other high-​stakes goals. Recognizing that music teachers face a relentless presence of implicit and explicit pressures, researchers recommend the following three steps that teachers can use to become less controlling and more autonomy supportive. The first task in becoming more autonomy supportive is to become less controlling—​to avoid controlling sentiment, controlling language, and controlling behaviors. To do so, teachers need to become mindful of all the pressures that unconsciously push them toward a controlling style—​such as the dual burdens of being responsible and accountable for student performances—​so that teachers can make instructional decisions based on choice and on sound pedagogical practice, rather than on the ever-​present daily demands and circumstances. The second task is to truly want to support students’ autonomy. A sincere commitment to support students’ autonomy typically comes from an appreciation of just how beneficial autonomy support is to both students and teachers. That is, with autonomy support, students display higher quality motivation, engagement, healthy development, learning, performance, and well-​being (Reeve, 2009), while teachers experience less emotional exhaustion and an increased sense of personal satisfaction from their teaching (Roth et al., 2007). Finally, the third task is to learn the “how-​to” of autonomy support. To answer the commonly asked question “Okay, autonomy support sounds nice in theory, but what specifically would I do?” the chapter has offered five specific autonomy-​supportive acts of instruction. A wealth of intervention-​based research makes it clear that by integrating these five acts of instruction into the way they relate to students on a daily basis (1) teachers can learn how to be more autonomy supportive and (2) students do benefit when their teachers become more autonomy supportive (Reeve, Jang, et al., 2004).

Reflective Questions

1. How much freedom did you have over your musical choices while at school? Has this influenced your musical engagement since leaving school?

Supporting Motivation in Music Education



159

2. As a music learner, you may have observed teaching behavior that takes a highly controlling approach, but that appears to “work.” How would you explain these observations in light of the research evidence presented in the chapter? 3. How has your sense of competence as a musician evolved over the years? Has its importance increased? Has it become more competitive or more focused on improvement of your skills on their own terms?

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Johnmarshall Reeve’s contribution was supported by the WCU (World Class University) Program funded by the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, consigned to the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (Grant no. R32–​2008-​000–​20023-​0).

KEY SOURCES Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the self-​determination of human behavior. New York: Plenum. Evans, P. (2016). Motivation. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 325–​339). Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Motivation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 31–​46). New York: Oxford University Press. Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–​175.

WEBSITE University of Rochester (1996–​2008). Self-​determination theory: An approach to human motivation & personality. Available at http://​www.psych.rochester.edu/​SDT/​index.php.

REFERENCES Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms:  Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–​271.

160

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

Anguiano, K. R. (2006). Motivational predictors of continuing motivation and achievement for early adolescent instrumental music students. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3229641). Austin, J. R. (1991). Competitive and noncompetitive goal structures: An analysis of motivation and achievement among elementary band students. Psychology of Music, 19, 142–​158. Austin, J. R., Renwick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Developing motivation. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 213–​238). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-​efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bouffard-​ Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivée, S. (1991). Influences of self-​ efficacy on self-​regulation and performance among junior and senior high-​school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 153–​164. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row. Davidson, J. W., & Jordan, N. (2007). “Private teaching, private learning”: An exploration of music instrument learning in the private studio, the junior and senior conservatories. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (Vol.1, pp. 729–​744). Dordrecht: Springer. deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the self-​determination of human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–​650. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–​1048. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–​475. Evans, P. A. (2009). Psychological needs and social-​cognitive influences on participation in music activities. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3362780). Evans, P. (2016). Motivation. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 325–​339). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hallam, S. (1998). The predictors of achievement and dropout in instrumental tuition. Psychology of Music, 26, 116–​132. Hallam, S. (2002). Musical motivation:  Toward a model synthesising the research. Music Education Research, 4, 225–​244. Maehr, M. L., Pintrich, P. R., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2002). Motivation and achievement. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 348–​372). New York: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-​ regulated learning components of musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98–​102. McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2000). The contribution of motivational factors to instrumental performance in a music examination. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 31–​39. McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-​efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34, 322–​336.

Supporting Motivation in Music Education

161

McPherson, G. E., & Renwick, J. M. (2011). Self-​regulation and mastery of musical skills. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (eds.), Handbook of self-​regulation of learning and performance (pp. 234–​248). New York: Routledge Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-​approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–​86. O’Neill, S. A. (1997). The role of practice in children’s early musical performance achievement. In H. Jørgensen & A. C. Lehmann (eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 53–​70). Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole. O’Neill, S. A. (1999). Flow theory and the development of musical performance skills. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 129–​134. O’Neill, S. A., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Motivation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 31–​46). New York: Oxford University Press. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-​regulation, and persistence:  A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279–​306. Persson, R. S. (1994). Control before shape—​on mastering the clarinet:  A case study on commonsense teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 11, 223–​238. Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–​175. Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-​determination theory:  A dialectical framework for understanding the sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Big theories revisited (Vol. 4, pp. 31–​59). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–​218. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–​169. Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (eds.) (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Renwick, J. M. (2008). Because I love playing my instrument: Young musicians’ internalised motivation and self-​regulated practising behaviour. Unpublished doctoral diss., University of New South Wales. http://​handle.unsw.edu.au/​1959.4/​36701 [accessed November 1, 2010]. Renwick, J. M., McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2009, August 12−16). Defining relationships between motivational beliefs and self-​regulated practising behaviours using a structural equation model. Paper presented at the seventh triennial conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, Jyväskylä, Finland. Renwick, J. M., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Interest and choice: Student-​selected repertoire and its effect on practising behaviour. British Journal of Music Education, 19, 173–​188. Rohrer, T. P. (1993). A study of students from competitive and noncompetitive Florida high school bands using an adaptation of the Academic Motivation Scale and the Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 9320341). Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-​Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-​determined teaching may lead to self-​determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761–​774.

162

James M. Renwick and Johnmarshall Reeve

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-​determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-​being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–​78. Sandene, B. A. (1998). An investigation of variables related to student motivation in instrumental music. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 9811178). Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Emotion, functionality and the everyday experience of music: Where does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3, 243–​253. Sosniak, L. A. (1990). The tortoise, the hare, and the development of talent. In M. J. A. Howe (ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 149–​164). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Su, Y.-​L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-​analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159–​188. Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). The effect of an intervention to improve newly qualified teachers’ interpersonal style, students motivation and psychological need satisfaction in sport-​based physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 242–​253. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-​determination and persistence in a real-​ life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–​1176. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–​value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–​81.

Chapter 9

BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER: TOWARD A THEORY OF TRANSFORMATIVE MUSIC ENGAGEMENT Susan A. O’Neill

In this chapter, I argue for a shift in thinking about what it means to be a music learner and how we engage music learners in the twenty-​first century. Over the past 15 to 20 years, a large body of literature, by a growing number of music education scholars, has emphasized the need for transformations in music education. This work marks the beginning of what I believe is a major paradigm shift in thinking by researchers, educators, and policy-​makers. Agents of change drive paradigm shifts as “one conceptual world view is replaced by another” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 10). Shifts are taking place in the way we think about what music learners do, should do, and can do, as well as what music learners need, what initiates and sustains music learning, and what people get out of music learning. Sociocultural theorists have shown us that learners bring prior knowledge and their personal worlds with them to learning situations and they acquire knowledge, values, and understandings through meaningful interactions with others (Gee, 1992; Vygotsky, 1986, Wells, 1999). Researchers have demonstrated that the music education profession has become more diverse over the past several decades, “changing, focusing, specializing” and this has further emphasized the need for coherence between theory, research, and practice (Colwell & Webster, 2011). Practitioners in music education have begun to explore

164

Susan A. O’Neill

new pedagogical and curriculum initiatives involving inquiry and reflective practice (Reynolds & Beitler, 2007), transformational professional development (Upitis, Smithrim, & Soren, 1999), and collaborative teaching and learning (Conkling, 2004; Luce, 2001; Mills, 2005). We need to build on these shifts in thinking and continue to expand our awareness of the lens through which we view music learners in a digital age, examine more deeply and collaboratively the meaning and purpose of music learning, and develop music learning opportunities that promote connectivity across diverse perspectives, contexts, and cultural ecologies. The American psychologist Carl Rogers (1961) asserted that a person or learner is not a state of being but is always in the process of becoming. Rogers also described what Buber (1958) refers to as confirming the other, which means accepting the whole potentiality of the other—​the person that she has been created to become. Whereas the idea of being a music learner suggests a bounded and static entity, with a nature that is prescribed, determined, or unchangeable, becoming a music learner is infused with notions of unfolding, openness, and dynamic potential (Fromm, 1976). We are always in a continuous process of becoming music learners, while our memories simultaneously connect us to our past “lived experiences” (Althusser, 2001). There is a temporal and spatial dimension to music learning and both need to be considered in our efforts to understand and engage music learners. As Wells (2000) points out, “any activity is situated in place and time; although there may be common features across activities and settings, each activity is unique, since it involves the coming together of particular individuals in a particular setting with particular artifacts, all of which have their own histories which, in turn, affect the way in which the activity is actually played out” (p. 59). Shifting our thinking about music learners from being to becoming provides a perspective transformation toward a theory of positive and meaningful music learning that is more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective, and integrative of experience (Mezirow, 1996). I refer to this theory as transformative music engagement and suggest that this framework is capable of acting as a vehicle or catalyst for change across a broad and diverse group of music learners. I believe this theory offers the possibility for change that moves us beyond merely solving problems and providing adequate opportunities for learners to acquire the basic skills and knowledge necessary for music learning. Alternatively, it provides a framework for engaging music learners as active agents in their own musical development. This involves empowerment (transformative means having the power to transform) that enables autonomous or self-​directed learners (O’Neill, 2016) to construct their own form of “music learning authenticity” (Green, 2005). It combines a sense of connectedness and emotional engagement (Furrer & Skinner, 2003) with a capacity for critical reflective or reflexive self-​awareness (Ridley, 1991) and an impassioned spirit that continually seeks “visions of still untapped possibility” (Greene, 1990, p. 67) for all music learners. Transformative music engagement is a dynamic, transformational, and multidimensional theory that operates on many interdependent levels (personal, sociocultural, systemic). It is a braiding of psychodevelopmental or lifelong learning perspectives on transformational learning theory (Taylor, 2007), critical and transformative pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2008; McCaleb, 1997), and positive music

Becoming a Music Learner

165

engagement—​a concept that focuses on motivation and meaningful participation in a learning activity by individuals with a well-​informed understanding and valuing of the activity, from which they derive a sense of relevance, purpose, and fulfillment (O’Neill, 2006). This notion of engagement “underpins learning and is the glue that binds it together” (Bryson & Hand, 2007, p. 60). Although the use of the term engagement has increased tremendously in recent years, it remains a relatively underdeveloped and loosely defined construct. It usually refers to a form of involvement or participation in an activity that has both a psychological component (e.g., values, meaningfulness, identity, sense of belonging) and a behavioral component (e.g., effort, intensity, focused concentration). It also has a dynamic nature that is moderated by individual differences and is context-​dependent within interrelated personal, social, and systemic ecologies (Rose-​Krasnor, 2009). In working toward a theory of transformative music engagement, I have selected several elements or features to highlight in this chapter. I believe they offer a particular challenge or extension to some of our current theoretical conceptualizations, research approaches, and educational practices. They are emergent and repetitive themes from the research I  have undertaken with colleagues and graduate students over the past 20 years involving interviews and surveys with thousands of music learners in the United Kingdom (Harrison & O’Neill, 2000; Mills & O’Neill, 2002; North, Hargreaves, & O’Neill, 2000; O’Neill, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005; Senyshyn & O’Neill, 2001), United States (Eccles, O’Neill, & Wigfield, 2005), and Canada (O’Neill, 2011a, 2011b, 2017). Senyshyn & O’Neill, 2011). My colleagues and I  have listened to children and adolescents tell their stories about what they do in their music classrooms and instrumental music lessons, how they feel about themselves and others as music learners, what they value about music learning, what they find most relevant or useful and purposeful about music learning in their everyday lives, the challenges they encounter as music learners, how they overcome obstacles and barriers, what initiates and sustains their music learning, the support they receive from parents, teachers, and peers, the benefits they derive from music learning, the musician role models that they admire and why they admire them, and their dreams and aspirations for the future. Recently, with my colleague Gary McPherson, we have analyzed survey data that explored the musical beliefs and values of over 22,000 elementary and secondary school students from Brazil, China, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, México, and the United States (McPherson & O’Neill, 2010). A globalized notion of music learning is emerging that is embedded in value systems replete with tensions and negotiations around interrelated messages and assumptions about music, such as tradition and innovation, reproduction and creation, credentialism and understanding, commodification, aesthetic and cultural capital, and personal expression (Cook, 1998). I have attempted to bring together some of the key messages that I have learned from this research and some of the theoretical frameworks that I  have used to make sense of these messages and the assumptions that construct their meaning in particular ways. I hope that readers might make their own connections between interrelated dimensions. Findings from my previous studies emphasize the importance of viewing music learners as part of an intricate sociocultural web involving particular structures and practices that empower some and prevent others from

166

Susan A. O’Neill

purposeful and positive music engagement. To understand what becoming a music learner means in the twenty-​first century, we must first expand the lens through which we view their musical worlds. When we attempt to identify and explore distinct elements or features, it usually requires us to disentangle them, at least temporarily, from their complex interrelationships. And yet, in doing so, we must not fall into the trap of reductionism and base our understanding solely on the identification and measurement of discrete variables (Wrigley, 2004). Nor should we decontextualize music learners from their everyday life experiences and cultural contexts (Määttänen & Westerlund, 2001). As DeNora (2000) reminds us, “music’s ‘effects’ come from the ways in which individuals orient to it, how they interpret it and how they place it within their personal musical maps, within the semiotic web of music and extra-​musical associations” (p. 61). I hope that this chapter will provide both an introduction and a catalyst for dialogue and future research in response to how we might better understand what becoming a music learner means in the twenty-​first century and how we might provide educational experiences that encourage positive, meaningful, and transformative music engagement.

Shifting the Paradigm Toward Transformative Music Engagement Transformative music engagement begins with a paradigmatic shift in how we think about music learners. In particular, it is about shifting the focus from viewing music learners from within a deficit versus talent/​expertise framework. It focuses instead on the idea that all music learners in all contexts of development have musical strengths and competencies. Transformative music engagement is about identifying and developing these competencies, reflecting on their meaning and how they are experienced and shared, as well as harnessing emergent and expansive learning opportunities in ways that empower learners to build on these competencies for further growth and change. It is also about shifting the focus from merely instructing and supporting learners to fostering the resiliency necessary for sustaining music engagement and overcoming negative constraints on learning (O’Neill, 2011c; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1997). From the perspective of transformative music engagement, musical skills and knowledge are no longer viewed as the domain of a relatively few talented individuals. Instead, the focus shifts to participatory cultures that work toward common endeavors while creating highly supportive and generative learning environments (Gee, 2005; Jenkins, 2009). Adopting the perspective of transformative music engagement also makes other important shifts in thinking possible. For example, we might begin to consider alternatives to the “community of practice” model (Lave & Wenger, 1991)  that has permeated much of our thinking in music education for the past 20 years. Although this framework has been a rich resource for both research and practice, particularly in

Becoming a Music Learner

167

relation to the notion of fostering a sense of “belongingness” among music learners who occupy a shared space, it has also become entwined with an inclusiveness agenda that emphasizes common or shared experiences and memberships. However, music learners do not necessarily share the same meanings after engaging in similar experiences. Nor do they always share a sense of membership or ties that bond them together when they are part of a particular learning community. Further, learning communities do not necessarily acknowledge and mediate a sense of difference or learner autonomy. The notion of communities of practice has been used primarily as a mechanism for the purpose of identification and categorization between groups or forms of music learning. In many cases, this has obscured their function as a social practice. Our social affiliations are not merely important for music learning because they provide support and like-​minded peers, they are a crucial component in our ability to compare and contrast differences that act as a vehicle and a catalyst for growth and change, identity constructions, creative processes, and artistic expressions. Social affiliations are used to inform, challenge, broaden, and transform our conceptualizations and representations of what music learning means in our everyday lives. They are a fluid, changeable, and dynamic feature of transformative music engagement. Shifting the paradigm toward transformative music engagement asks us to adopt a critical, questioning approach to understanding our expectations of what music learners know and are capable of. Too often, the exchange of different forms of knowledge or know-​how is neither encouraged nor valued in formal music education settings. This can create an authoritarian and/​or prejudiced approach to knowledge that is deemed different from one’s own. And in order for certain forms of knowledge to remain privileged, they must be actively policed. This is achieved through intolerant practices that ignore, thwart, or suppress other knowledge, potential, and possibilities (O’Neill, 2009; Senyshyn, 1999). This inhibits emerging and expansive music learning opportunities. And yet these types of learning opportunities in particular are capable of fostering the reflection necessary for a critical sense of the value of any knowledge, including knowledge that will form part of our evolving future musical world.

Adopting a Critical Approach to Our Beliefs and Expectations Adopting a critical, questioning approach is a necessary precursor for optimizing the learning experiences of all music learners. However, our common sense assumptions about what constitutes a music learner can become so ingrained in our thinking that they may begin to escape our notice, let alone our critical scrutiny. Our assumptions become active prescriptions that shape how we experience, talk, and think about music learners. We become bounded by these expectations, and this can limit our ability to explore other possibilities (Daignault, 1991). Overcoming

168

Susan A. O’Neill

these bounded expectations requires a critical approach that recognizes the ways particular epistemologies have become ideologies of power that indoctrinate us into the beliefs, values, and images that construct and perpetuate our sense of music learners in particular ways (O’Neill & Senyshyn, 2011). Since at least the 1960s, disciplinary knowledge in developmental and educational psychology in particular has been used to inform music educators’ understanding of music learners in terms of their musical development, learning strategies, achievement, and performance. Embedded within this disciplinary knowledge or positivist epistemology is an assumption that the scientific study of music learners (in terms of learning models, processes, and behavioral outcomes) is capable of revealing knowledge about the nature of music learners that can help educators figure out the best way to teach them. The idea that developmental or educational psychology can provide the necessary knowledge for understanding music learners has informed much of our current thinking in music education. In Hargreaves’s (1986) book on developmental psychology of music he stated that explanations of musical development “should form the natural foundation for music education” (p.  213) and that “the specification of objectives for music education involves breaking down musical skills into their cognitive, affective, and psychomotor components, and the evaluation of these objectives draws heavily on psychological assessment procedures” (p. 226). This was of course a common assumption at the time, especially in relation to theories in developmental and educational psychology that attempted to classify learners, such as Gagné’s (1965) eight types of learning from his influential book The Conditions of Learning and Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Such approaches have actually increased the focus on performance achievement outcomes as indicators of learning and perpetuated the simplistic notion that if we discover the optimal conditions of learning through rigorous, systematic research, we will become better music learners, or by implication, better teachers. Rooted in empiricism, rationalism, and scientific method, positivistic researchers seek to study music learning in the same way that scientists study phenomena such as global warming based on presuppositions about its nature and existence as a discrete phenomenon. The aim is to discover a set of immutable and generalizable laws through observation, prediction, and control. Some of the most influential ideas, concepts, beliefs, values, and practices that have come to represent (and in some cases limit) as well as shape our understanding of music learners are found in positivist discourses associated with behaviorisim and its preoccupation with skill acquisition or training (Ozomon & Craver, 1992). Linear, hierarchical, and stage approaches to learning are all manifestations of positivist education. Behaviorist teaching methods rely on consistent repetition in order to provide the necessary effective reinforcement of response patterns. The commonly used maxim that “practice makes perfect” is an example of this focus on repetition and reinforcement. Other methods include question (stimulus) and answer (response) frameworks in which questions gradually increase in difficulty, guided practice, regular reviews of material, and rewards in the form of grades and awards.

Becoming a Music Learner

169

Positivist educational reforms, such as No Child Left Behind in the United States, and reductionist pedagogical practices, such as “skill and drill” exercises in instrumental “band” method books, are all examples of the unrelenting grip that positivism exerts on music performance-​based education practices in North America and many other parts of the world that adopt formal “classical conservatoire” approaches to music learning. The problem with positivist assumptions is not so much the desire to create an ordered understanding of music learners; rather, it is the way that music learners are decontextualized and removed from their everyday life learning situations. It confines our understanding of music learners to linear, cause-​and-​effect explanations based on observations in controlled environments and laboratory-​like conditions. According to Kincheloe (2008), “the rationalistic and reductionist quest for order refuses in its arrogance to listen to a cacophony of lived experience and the coexistence of diverse meanings and interpretations” (p.  29). The assumptions embedded in a particular learning theory or overarching perspective creates or sets up certain expectations toward music learners. These expectations orientate us toward favoring or legitimating particular teaching approaches or practices, even if they might not be effective for the way people learn today or the most effective approaches to use in all learning situations. This approach positions music educators as “information deliverers, not knowledge-​producing professionals or empowered cultural workers” (p. 29). If our goal is to make deliberate curriculum or pedagogical choices based on our explicit knowledge and understanding of music learners, and we know that the way music students learn is always transforming in relation to their changing contexts, we might be better off conceptualizing learners’ musical worlds as zones of complexity (Kincheloe, 2008) and engaging in more critical and reflective explorations of specific contexts and relationships. We might also encourage music learners to engage in the same critical reflections as part of a learning process aimed at bringing about positive and meaningful transformative change.

Learning Contexts and Zones of Complexity There is no shortage of discussion in music education today about how dramatically different young people’s music learning experiences are compared to even a generation ago (Sloboda, 2001). Music learners in the twenty-​first century have undergone a transformation in how they learn and in their learning relationships. Living in the current information era means that a vast number of music learners experience increasingly fast-​paced and high-​tech lives. They have instantaneous access to varied music resources and an immeasurable amount of music choices. Technology has created an unprecedented amount of autonomy in their musical lives, and it has exploded the boundaries of what music learners are capable of achieving.

170

Susan A. O’Neill

Green and Bigum (1993) argued that because young people today have grown up in a computer-​connected world, which has altered their body of knowledge or know-​how to such an extent, it is like having “aliens in the classroom.” It might also be argued that in the current information era, teachers and researchers can also feel like aliens in the music classroom (O’Neill, 2010). This can occur on many levels, and it is not always easy to unravel the layers of complexity that result from the interconnectivity of technology, personal experiences, media and popular culture, and other cultural understandings (O’Neill, 2014). There is an increasing sense that our knowledge and values differ between generations and between cultural groups and this can alienate students, teachers, and researchers from one another. And yet, as Stetsenko (2009) points out in her arguments that draw heavily on the ideas of Vygotsky (1997), “persons are agentive beings who develop through embeddedness in sociocultural contexts and within relations to others” (p. 3). Becoming a music learner in the twenty-​ first century is inextricably linked to the tensions and negotiations that take place between the different positions that people take up and occupy in relation to one another. Rather than seek a consensus or unified position, there is great potential and possibility in the spaces between different positions. The elusive goal of unity becomes less important than the process of listening to and learning from the ideas of others. Dewey (1916) provided some of the first influential insights into the importance of context and contextual dynamics in understanding learners. Rather than view learners as self-​contained, Dewey argued that learners could never be separated from their interconnected relationships and common experiences. In recent years, Kincheloe and Steinberg (1993) have articulated the need for researchers and educators to do more in terms of attending to the setting or context in which learning activities take place. They argue for the importance of “uncovering various levels of connections between mind and ecosystems—​revealing larger patterns of life forces” (p. 510). According to the critical theorist Paulo Freire (1998), “our relationship with the learners demands that we respect them and demands equally that we be aware of the concrete conditions of their world, the conditions that shape them. To try to know the reality that our students live is a task that the educational practice imposes on us: Without this, we have no access to the way they think, so only with great difficulty can we perceive what and how they know” (p. 58). One of the most influential descriptions of the complexity involved in individual and interdependent systems of relationships or ecologies is Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). This theory takes into account the complex layers and interactions between a learner’s family/​school/​community immediate environment, the society and wider culture in which it is situated, and the learner’s own maturation. Changes or conflicts in any one layer send a ripple effect throughout the other layers. This underscores the interconnectedness of multiple learning contexts and the dynamic and unpredictable nature of music learning. Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasized the instability and unpredictability of learning contexts and our need to prepare learners with knowledge and strategies to deal with a complex world.

Becoming a Music Learner

171

Bronfenbrenner argued that we should foster societal attitudes that value the contributions to learning that are made on all levels: parents, teachers, community workers, policy-​makers, musicians, and so on. A few years ago I was involved in research at a large secondary school in Canada where the music teacher was having problems recruiting and retaining students. Although many music educators share this concern it had become an alarming issue at this particular school. To put it bluntly, the students were afraid to go to the music room for their classes. The music room was located at the back of the school, at the end of a long corridor that contained mostly unoccupied rooms. This location made good practical sense to the school administrators because any sounds coming from the music room were unlikely to disturb other classes. However, the same isolated and deserted corridor provided a great place for a gang of troublesome students to gather without supervision. They would occupy this space before and after school, and at various other times during the day. Members of this gang would bully and intimidate the students who attempted to walk past them to get to the music room. The gang also threatened to beat up any student who told a teacher about what they were doing, and the gang was very good at avoiding detection by the teachers and staff at the school. Music students starting dropping out of music classes, and it became increasingly difficult to recruit students to play in the school’s music ensembles. The music teacher complained repeatedly to the school authorities about the situation, and the gang would get moved on from the corridor for a week or two, but these efforts were not sustained, and the gang would resume their occupation of the corridor. For those music students who remained in the music program, morale was at an all-​time low. This was not only because of the gang of students who bullied them but also because no one seemed to notice, or if they did notice they did not seem to care enough to do something to change the situation. This incident reminds us that just because we may have an adequate space (physical and geographical) and amount of time (length and duration) for music education, we also need a place that offers opportunities for meaningful participatory music engagement. We are self-​locating creatures by nature, both literally and metaphorically. Consider how important location and place is by how often we use the preposition “in,” for example: “in a band,” “in a choir,” “lost in the music,” “in the middle of learning a new song,” “in the school musical,” “in second place in the competition.” The American philosopher Edward Casey (1996), who is known for his important work on indigenous approaches to place, reminds us that “to live is to live locally, and to know is first of all to know the place one is in” (p. 18) We must first understand where we are in order to adapt to the various obstacles and advantages that we might encounter as we navigate toward our destination. Helping music learners acquire a new power of navigation can make all the difference by opening up possibilities for imagining new destinations and for negotiating the various pathways that they might encounter on the way. Although a systems theory offers an insight into the complexity and multidimensionality of music learners, there is a danger of reducing the music learner to an

172

Susan A. O’Neill

objectification of a system process (i.e., to focus attention on the quality and context of the music learner’s environment to the detriment of the subjective experience of the individual learner). To overcome this tendency, Kincheloe (2008) argues that we should view the contexts and relationships that connect learner, culture, teaching, knowledge production, and curriculum as zones of complexity. Understanding learning within a zone of complexity is viewed as a necessary part of becoming a critical educator (Radford, 2006). According to Kincheloe, “critical educators place great emphasis on the notion of context and the act of contextualization in every aspect of their work. When problems arise, they stand ready to connect the difficulty to a wider frame of reference with a wide array of possible causes” (2008, p. 33). Critical music educators and researchers understand the importance of gaining multiple perspectives and the need to problematize or think critically about established forms of knowledge and seek a “proliferation of ideologies and methodologies,” rather than “uniformity or conformity” (Gates, 1993, p. 126). Since no two learners are alike and there is no such thing as a right way to learn something, each music learner experiences music-​making through her own particular historical and cultural lens or frame of conscious awareness. I believe that before we engage in further research and critical pedagogical explorations, we must deepen our understanding of music learners in terms of who they are and what constitutes their current musical and cultural ecologies.

Participatory Cultures and Learning Relationships To gain a sense of the transformations that are already taking place in the lives of music learners, we need look no further than popular television shows such as Pop Idol, which currently has versions in over 40 territories around the world, and the musical drama television series Glee. What do these shows have to offer music learners, and how do they impact on their expectations for music learning? In terms of actual music engagement, we need to consider the rapidly expanding music “participatory cultures” (Jenkins, 2009)  that take place on YouTube and the internet. For example, Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir involved over 2,000 people from around the world who supported each other through a network of online social media to learn and record their choral parts. Apple’s GarageBand provides access to over 100 virtual instruments, multitrack audio recording, online collaborations with other musicians, and prerecorded music lessons that include lessons by the famous musicians and songwriters who composed the songs being taught. These participatory cultures encourage the sharing of distributed knowledge and emphasize the importance of mediators that connect or network people so that they can access more knowledge and expertise than they could within existing structures and practices (Gee, 2005). Gee (2004, 2005) refers to “affinity spaces” as

Becoming a Music Learner

173

places where individuals from a variety of backgrounds and with different kinds of knowledge (e.g., tacit, intensive, extensive) come together to pursue a common endeavor; one that offers various pathways to participation, informal mentorship, and a shared sense of status in supporting each others’ growth, artistry, and creativity. They become places to share expertise and knowledge without the barriers of age, class, race, gender, and education. Further, distinctions between formal and informal learning become less important as the lines between these practices are blurred and the use of old and new media converge (Jenkins, 2006)  within emerging learning practices, such as blended learning (Bonk & Graham, 2006) and crowed-​sourced learning (Juhasz, 2011). This is in contrast to traditional formal or hierarchical learning environments that favor hegemonic forms of knowledge and provide relatively few opportunities for individual creative expression or autonomous learning. The notion of “participatory” involvement has its origins in grassroots advocacy as an approach (rather than a method) that acknowledges young people as active agents with the capacity to make valued and valuable contributions. This broad vision is an increasing part of the participatory culture that youth experience through digital media, the internet, and online social networking sites, but it can also be applied to many musical learning communities. According to Jenkins (2009), a participatory culture is “a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created)” (p. 3). Participatory learning involves the conscious attempt to create more equitable and collaborative opportunities for exchanging knowledge and understanding on topics that matter and make a difference to the lives of those personally affected. In participatory music engagement, there is a demystification of what constitutes an “expert” music “knower.” Young people are encouraged to support each other in the creation and sharing of their own artistic expressions and multimodal representations of music. There is a qualitative difference between music learning that cultivates a participatory culture and one that maintains a “singular vision” or fixed agenda. For music learning to be fully participatory, it is necessary for participants to “own” the process by being involved in key music learning decisions from the outset. By involving music students in learning to ask questions and think about what questions are the most important to ask, they begin to find themselves at the center of the learning process. Initiatives that provide for greater autonomy or student voice are recognized by a growing number of researchers and practitioners in music education who embrace transformative pedagogical practices that “reside in notions of respect, reciprocity, engagement, autonomy, empowerment, community, democracy and dialogue” (Flutter, 2010). A well-​known example is the work by Lucy Green (2001, 2008)  on the informal learning component of the Musical

174

Susan A. O’Neill

Futures project (http://​www.musicalfutures.org.uk/​). In a recent study, we added youth-​led participatory inquiry and critical reflection to the practice of collaborative, informal music learning and found that this approach not only fostered transformative music engagement, it created a ripple effect that influenced thinking about music learning by music teachers, parents and the wider school community (O’Neill & Bespflug, 2011). Music learners in the twenty-​first century have undergone a transformation not only in how they learn but also in their learning relationships. School-​family-​ community learning relationships have long been recognized as offering protective factors that foster educational resiliency in young people (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Waxman, Gray, & Padron, 2003). Protective factors are associated with caring and supportive adult relationships and opportunities for meaningful student engagement in schools and communities (Benard, 1993, 1995; Wang et al., 1997). For example, Herbert (1999) conducted a study with 18 culturally diverse, high-­​­achieving students in an urban high school. The results indicated that several factors have a positive influence on students’ resiliency. Among these factors were supportive adults at home, at school, and in the community; extracurricular after-​school, Saturday, and summer enrichment programs; challenging educational experiences; a network of achieving peers; and a strong sense of self. These findings are not surprising and correspond with many studies that have demonstrated the importance of social support in musical performance achievement (Creech & Hallam, 2003; Moore, Burland, & Davidson, 2010). However, school-­​­family-​ community relationships offer more than just support for an individual’s music learning, they also provide a catalyst for both shaping and transforming a music learner’s landscape. In addition, they can foster the protective factors and resiliency that mediate motivational and other learning constraints (O’Neill, 2011d). As such, they are capable of assisting music learners along various pathways to meaningful transformative music engagement.

Values, Motivation, and Constraints on Music Learning In today’s technological and globalized world, many music learners experience uncertainties and contradictions over what constitutes valued and valuable forms of music-​making. Music learners are not passive recipients but active constructors not only of knowledge, meanings, and identities but also the values that live within and among the musical communities they inhabit. Values have an odd life cycle, one that transcends the dichotomy between the individual and the social. Values can only thrive (or fail to develop) within relationships between individuals. They contribute to the way that knowledge is constructed, used, and exchanged in the present

Becoming a Music Learner

175

and the future. Only through critical reflection and dialogue can educators and learners create the conditions and circumstances in which they can search together collaboratively for more comprehensible, authentic, and morally appropriate ways of valuing and engaging in musical practices. This requires pedagogical approaches that can act as catalysts, rather than constraints, for expanding equitable learning opportunities that are reflective, dialogical, collaborative, participatory, interactive, integrative, value-​driven, and strength-​based. The values that music learners develop will serve as points for orientation for key decisions that they make about music learning in the future; decisions such as whether or not they continue music learning, whether or not they attend concerts or what kind of concerts they attend, whether or not they want their own children to learn music, whether or not they support music education in the schools and communities in which they live. A recent study of learners from eight different countries found that learners generally hold lower expectations for becoming competent in music and value music less than other subjects at school (McPherson & O’Neill, 2010). The meaning of music, the central role it plays in the emotional lives of music learners, and informal learning strategies are often at odds with many formal or school music education agendas (Green, 2001). In a climate of public accountability and demands for improved standards of performance, “it is all too easy for the ‘person’ of the learner and the processes and relationships of learning to be eclipsed by a ‘high stakes’ focus on learning outcomes” (Deakin Crick & Wilson, 2005, p. 6). In a systematic review of research from around the world on the impact of summative assessment on students’ motivation for learning, researchers found that this “overfocus” on performance outcomes has a negative impact on what learners think and feel about themselves as learners, how they perceive their capacity to learn, and their energy for learning (Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003). In terms of motivation, values are associated with interest, importance, and usefulness, and they tend to predict the choice of activities that learners pursue and their long-​term involvement in music activities (Eccles, O’Neill, & Wigfield, 2005). Dweck (2006) provides compelling evidence that a growth mindset is a crucial component of achieving positive motivation and successful performance outcomes. A growth mindset is characterized by a passion for learning, the active seeking of challenges, a valuing of effort, and the resiliency necessary to persist in the face of obstacles or adversity. I have found consistent evidence to indicate that the positive valuing of music participation is one of the most important reasons why young people choose to continue with music learning. The most common responses are: “Music gives my life meaning and purpose,” “Music helps me express myself,” and “Music connects me to others” (O’Neill, 2011b). And yet, as I  have pointed out previously, research and practice in the area of positive youth development or “positive youth musical engagement” (O’Neill, 2006) suggests that it is all too easy to view music learners within an achievement-​oriented focus that considers high levels of music performance achievement to be an indicator of healthy and effective music learners. This lens or framework for viewing music learners may have merit and has been a focus for much of the psychology of music research on

176

Susan A. O’Neill

music learning in the past, but it is not sufficient on its own. As soon as we apply this model to the multiplicity of factors associated with individual learners, our expectations and the strategies we might use become limited to those that might “fix” or solve performance-​related problems only. No matter how good our intentions, there is something fundamentally limiting about viewing music learners in terms of their musical performance problems (or lack thereof) instead of their potential. For many young music learners, the construction of the artist/​musician in society is inextricably linked to famous people in the media and entertainment industry (Gioia, 2007). In a study of 381 adolescents in the United Kingdom, Ivaldi and O’Neill (2008) found that the most valued role models in music were famous musicians from popular culture. Musical aspects (e.g., whether or not she played an instrument) were of little importance in the reasons young people gave for being inspired by their role model (Ivaldi & O’Neill, 2009). It was the role model’s dedication, image, and resiliency in the face of adversity that was valued most (Ivaldi & O’Neill, 2010). In individualistic societies, we prefer to place the responsibility for adjusting to challenging and often alienating environments on the shoulders of individuals–​—​it is up to music learners to keep up with the times and try to adjust. This resonates with many young music learners (O’Neill & Peluso, 2010) as well as those who have experienced a sense of alienation during formal music classes or instrumental music lessons that they found “difficult to relate to” (Green, 2001, p. 148). It is useful to explore the various conditions and contexts that promote, sustain, and enhance music engagement, particularly in relation to specific obstacles or barriers that music learners might encounter. Both short-​and long-​term influences on motivation need to be identified, as well as the different pathways, factors, and strategies that foster adaptive self-​theories and resiliency. There is a tendency to view musical ability, self-​identity, and character as separate or distinct aspects of music learners. However, growing evidence suggests that there is a common underlying influence that can shape these attributes, particularly when they relate to purposeful and transformative music engagement. If we accept the premise put forward by Good and Dweck (2006) for achieving success in nonmusical domains, music educators would do well to focus their efforts on fostering the reasoning skills that contribute to the development of musical skills, the resiliency that constructs identity in a particular way, the responsibility that helps to define the character and lifelong engagement of music learners, and the learning relationships that bring about positive transformative change.

Dialogical Inquiry and Transformative Pedagogy Learning transformations occur when individuals change their frames of reference by reflecting critically on their assumptions and beliefs and consciously making and implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their worlds (Mezirow,

Becoming a Music Learner

177

1997; Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Dialogue-​directed reflection is central to this process, encouraging listeners to test their own perspectives about unfamiliar personal paradigms that can accommodate different points of view (Mezirow, 1990; McNamee & Shotter, 2004). According to Mezirow (1991), changing our meaning schemes (specific beliefs, attitudes, and emotional reactions) “make(s) possible a more inclusive, discriminating, and integrating perspective” (p.  167). In other words, perspective transformations occur when individuals change their frames of reference by becoming aware of, and reflecting critically on, their assumptions and beliefs, and consciously making and implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their understanding (Brookfield, 2000; Goldblatt, 2006). Dialogical inquiry (Wells, 2000)  and transformative pedagogy (McCaleb, 1997)  both focus on developing the skills and qualities necessary for learners to become effective communicators and active citizens in today’s globalized world. It requires a learning environment that builds trust and facilitates the development of caring relationships. Hermans (2001) draws on the work of Bakhtin and emphasizes narrative as “juxtaposition” in order to acknowledge that voices engaged in dialogue, including those that occur between people involved in learning relationships, are “neither identical nor unified, but rather heterogeneous and even opposed” (p. 249). These oppositional spaces provide what Hermans refers to as contact zones, which offer a meeting point where “meanings and practices of the contacting partners change as a result of communication, understandings and misunderstandings” (p. 273). Contemporary critical educators talk about the necessity of creating “zones of interaction” or contact zones “where new ways of seeing, researching, understanding, and acting in the world can be mutually developed” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 149). Contact zones are replete with multifaceted opportunities for transformative engagement, self-​organization, and creative innovation (Larson, 2000). They also offer the potential for meaningful dialogue between learners from different musical interests, backgrounds, and perspectives. Another key feature of transformative music engagement involves the creation of expansive learning opportunities that are facilitated through transformative pedagogy. According to McCaleb (1997), transformative pedagogy “attempts to facilitate a critical capacity within the classroom while promoting the integration of students, families, communities, and the world” (p. 1). Similarly, transformative music engagement involves students in a critical exploration of their own knowledge of music through representations that involve existing artistic, media, and cultural ecologies. Transformative pedagogy is not a method of teaching but rather a set of principles that guide teaching and learning interactions. These principles vary between different epistemologies and perspectives; however, several key elements are common to most approaches, as follows: • Teaching begins with student knowledge. Opportunities for expansive learning are provided that enable learners to manipulate or interact within their own artistic and cultural ecologies in a way that helps them make meaningful connections.

178

Susan A. O’Neill

• Skills, knowledge, and voices develop from engagement in the activity. Learners are asked to create, express, or display their own representations of a particular issue, event, or phenomenon. • Teaching and learning are both individual and collaborative processes. The role of the instructor is one of facilitator, organizer, leader, and source of knowledge on the topic, but not the primary source of learning. • Teaching and learning are transformative processes. Learners share their creative representations with others and engage in a process of dialogue, shared meaning making, and sociocultural and sociopolitical associations. There are obvious and not so obvious opportunities and constraints that enable some learners or limit the potential of others (Gladwell, 2008). Increasing our understanding of music learners is not only about knowing who they are but also about knowing what enables or prevents them from being considered as, or from considering themselves to be, music learners. For this, we need to adopt a relational-​ developmental perspective (Overton, 1998)  so that becoming a music learner is understood as “an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.  50). We create possibilities for more expansive learning opportunities through knowledge and critical understandings of the contexts and complexity that construct and shape learners’ musical worlds in ways that are both diverse and particular. We deepen our understanding of what it means to be a music learner through a focus on personhood (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1998), which is the entire situated person in relation to her music learning. We empower music learners by nurturing their reflexive capacity to reflect inwardly about connections between the self, music, and their sociocultural understandings. Music learners use language and stories as a way of expressing who they are and representing their musical worlds to others. An interesting feature of stories is that the narrative unfolds according to crucial events, rather than through a strict adherence to time sequences. Ricoeur (1984) refers to this as “humanly relevant time” because crucial events are used to preserve the significance and meaning of the experience being told. We use stories to order and structure our lives; they help us make sense of our fragmented and sometimes confusing experiences by arranging them into coherent messages that offer a sense of meaning, unity, and purpose. Increasingly, music education researchers are attempting to understand the personal knowledge associated with music learning through the study of narrative accounts of lived experience (e.g., Barrett & Stauffer, 2009; Younker & Hickey, 2007; Wingstedt, 2005). This approach has great potential for identifying crucial components of transformative music engagement through an interrelated, relational, and critically reflective methodology. It helps us address the question: How do we define music learning and what prevents people, processes, and performances from enacting positive and meaningful transformative change? Seeking shifting and evolving transformations in the way we conceptualize learners is also central to “dialogical inquiry” (Wells, 2000), which draws on Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of artifact-​mediated joint activity involving change and

Becoming a Music Learner

179

transformation of participants and settings over time (O’Neill, 2011c). According to Wells: • Purposeful activities involve whole persons. Transformation of learners occurs as a function of engagement in activities that have real meaning and purpose; learning is not simply the acquisition of isolated skills or items of information, but involves the whole person and contributes to the formation of individual identity. • Curriculum is a means not an end. If the aim is to engage with particular learners in productive activities that are personally as well as socially significant, “covering” the curriculum should not be thought of as the ultimate goal of education. Instead, the specified knowledge and skills that make up the prescribed curriculum should be seen as items in the cultural tool-​kit that are to be used as means in carrying out activities of personal and social significance. • Outcomes are both aimed at and emergent. Outcomes of activity cannot be completely known or prescribed in advance; while there may be prior agreement about the goal to be aimed for, the route that is taken depends on emergent properties of the situation—​the problems encountered and the human and material resources available for the making of solutions. • Activities must allow diversity and originality. Development involves “rising above oneself,” both for learners and communities. Solving new problems requires diversity and originality of possible solutions. Without novelty, there would be no development; both individuals and societies would be trapped in an endless recycling of current activities, with all their limitations.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for shifts in our thinking about music learners to emphasize the dynamic potential of each individual and the social affiliations that promote music learning, as well as the need for music learning to be conceptualized as positive and purposeful transformative music engagement. I  suggested that we might begin with a conscious effort to scrutinize the origins of our expectations of music learners, how music learners make sense of their own experiences, and our understanding of those experiences. I also discussed the need to expand our awareness of the multifaceted ways that music learning is taking place in today’s digital age and to examine more deeply what it means to prepare and engage music learners in multimodal and participatory forms of music-​making. The transition to a new paradigm for music learning will be complete when transformations have occurred in how we view music learners in relation to their own musical worlds, the methods we use to study them so that they

180

Susan A. O’Neill

take into account particular contexts and cultural ecologies, and the goals we pursue to empower learners as active agents in their own musical development. According to Deakin Crick and Wilson (2005), “a sense of self as a learner is formed in relationship, and understood as one learns to tell one’s own story, as a participant in the c­ onversation of the learning community” (p. 359). And yet music learners do not always know how to tell their own story in a way that will take them beyond simply meeting the criteria of being involved in music and into the realm of becoming an engaged music learner. Current music education practices may not prepare music learners for reflective self-​ awareness or foster the resiliency necessary for continued transformative music engagement. The aesthetic education philosopher Maxine Greene (1997) describes this notion as “a matter of awakening and empowering today’s young people to name, to reflect, to imagine, and to act with more and more concrete responsibility in an increasingly multifarious world” (p.  10). Transformative music engagement is about empowering all of us to take “an imaginary leap from a world ‘as it is’ to a glimpse of the world ‘as it could be’ ” (Wadsworth, 1998, p. 6).

Reflective Questions



1. How might shifting our thinking about music learners from being to becoming provide a perspective transformation or a paradigmatic shift toward a theory of transformative music engagement? 2. Think of your own experiences as a music learner in relation to Bronfenbrenner’s notion of the interconnectedness of multiple learning contexts and the dynamic and unpredictable nature of music learning. Has music learning changed in the twenty-​first century? 3. How might adopting a critical approach to music education theory, research, and practice help reveal and open up possibilities for emergent and expansive music learning opportunities? 4. In what ways might a focus on narrative inquiry and dialogical inquiry help music learners articulate their own understanding of their musical worlds? 5. How do participatory cultures and affinity spaces engage and empower students into the realm of becoming lifelong music learners?

KEY SOURCES Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation:  Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. McPherson, G. E., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Students’ motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects:  A comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(2), 1–​37.

Becoming a Music Learner

181

O’Neill, S. A. (2016). Youth empowerment and transformative music engagement. In G. Spruce, C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, & P. Woodward (eds.), Oxford handbook of music education and social justice (pp. 388–​405). New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A. (2017). Young people’s musical lives: Learning ecologies, identities, and connectedness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Meill (eds.), Oxford handbook of musical identities (pp. 79–​104). New York: Oxford University Press. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES Althusser, L. (2001). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses:  Notes towards an investigation. In Lenin and Philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–​186). (B. Brewster, trans.). New York: Monthly Review Press. Barrett, M. S., & Stauffer, S. L. (2009). Narrative inquiry in music education. Netherlands: Springer. Benard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership, 51, 44–​48. Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resilience in children. Urbana, IL:  ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:  Cognitive domain. New  York:  D. McKay Co. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (eds.) (2006). The handbook of blended learning:  Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (eds. in chief), & R. M. Lerner (vol. ed.), Theoretical models of human development:  Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 793–​828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Brookfield, S. D. (2000). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow & Associates (eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 125–​148). San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007, July). Promoting student engagement. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australia Conference, Adelaide. Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Casey, E. (1996). How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time: Phenomenological prolegomena. In S. Feld & K. H. Basso (eds.), Senses of place (pp. 13–​52). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families:  Creating essential connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press. Colwell, R., & Webster, P. R. (eds.) (2011). MENC Handbook of Research on Music Learning. Vol. 1: Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press. Conkling, S. (2004). Music teacher practice and identity in professional development partnerships. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 3(3), 1–​15. Retrieved from http://​act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Conkling3_​3.pdf. Cook, N. (1998). Music: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

182

Susan A. O’Neill

Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2003). Parent-​teacher-​pupil interactions in instrumental music tuition: A literature review. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 29–​44. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1998). The development of the person: An experiential perspective on the ontogenesis of psychological complexity. In W. Damon (series ed.) & R. M. Lerner (vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 635–​684). New York: Wiley. Daignault, J. (1991). Curriculum as composition: Who is the composer? Research Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences, 16, 1–​34. Deakin Crick, R., & Wilson, K. (2005). Being a learner: A virtue for the 21st century. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 359–​374. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Company. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Eccles, J. S., O’Neill, S. A., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-​perceptions and subject task values in adolescents and children. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 237–​249). New York: Springer. Flutter, J. (2010). International perspectives on the students’ voices movement: Sonorities in a changing world. In J. Finney & C. Harrison (eds.), Whose music education is it? The role of the student voice (pp. 16–​23). Solihull, West Midlands, UK: National Association of Music Educators. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum. Fromm, E. (1976). To have or to be? New York: Continuum. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–​162. Gagné, R. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gates, H. L., Jr. (1993). Loose canons:  Notes on the culture wars. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning:  A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (eds.), Beyond communities of practice (pp. 214–​232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gioia, D. (2007). Trade easy pleasures for more complex and challenging ones. Retrieved from http://​news-​service.stanford.edu/​news/​2007/​june20/​gradtrans-​062007.html. Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Goldblatt, P. F. (2006). How John Dewey’s theories underpin art and art education. Education and Culture, 22(1), 17–​34. Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Motivational orientations that lead students to show deeper levels of reasoning, greater responsibility for their academic work, and greater resilience in the face of academic difficulty. In R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (eds.), Optimizing student success in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience, and responsibility (pp. 39–​58). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (2005). Musical meaning and social reproduction: A case for retrieving autonomy. In D. K. Lines (ed.), Music education for the new millennium: Theory and practice futures for music teaching and learning (pp. 75–​90). Oxford: Blackwell.

Becoming a Music Learner

183

Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate. Green, B., & Bigum, C. (1993). “Aliens in the classroom”. Australian Journal of Education, 37(2), 119–​141. Greene, M. (1990). The passion of the possible:  Choice, multiplicity, and commitment. Journal of Moral Education, 19(2), 67–​76. Greene, M. (1997). Teaching as possibility:  A light in dark times. Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism & Practice, 1(1), 1–​10. Hargreaves, D. J. (1986). The developmental psychology of music. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 169–​208. Harrison, A., & O’Neill, S. A. (2000). Children’s gender-​typed preferences for musical instruments: An intervention study. Psychology of Music, 28(1), 81–​97. Herbert, T. R. (1999). Culturally diverse high-​achieving students in an urban school. Urban Education, 34, 428–​457. Hermans, H. J.  M. (2001). The dialogical self:  Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–​281. Ivaldi, A., & O’Neill, S. A. (2008). Adolescents’ musical role models: Whom do they admire and why? Psychology of Music, 36(4), 395–​415. Ivaldi, A., & O’Neill, S. A. (2009). Talking “privilege”: Barriers to musical attainment in adolescents’ talk of musical role models. British Journal of Music Education, 26(1), 1–​1 4. Ivaldi, A., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Adolescents’ attainability and aspiration beliefs for famous musician role models. Music Education Research, 12(2), 179–​197. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Juhasz, A. (2011). Learning from YouTube. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Open access video book available at http://​vectors.usc.edu/​projects/​learningfromyoutube/​. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. (1993). A tentative description of postformal thinking: The critical confrontation with cognitive theory. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 296–​320. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1) 170–​183. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:  Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Luce, D. W. (2001). Collaborative learning in music education: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(2), 20–​25. Määttänen, P., & Westerlund, H. (2001). Travel agency of musical meanings? Discussion on music and context in Keith Swanwick’s interculturalism. British Journal of Music Education, 18, 261–​274. McCaleb, S. P. (1997). Building communities of learners:  A collaboration among teachers, students, families, and community. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass.

184

Susan A. O’Neill

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 158–​172. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning:  Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (ed.), New directions for adult and continuing education:  No. 74. Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp. 5–​12). San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation:  Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. McNamee, S., & Shotter, J. (2004). Dialogue, creativity, and change. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. J. Cissna (eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 91–​104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McPherson, G. E., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Students’ motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects: A comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(2), 1–​37. Mills, J. (2005). Music in the school. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mills, J., & O’Neill, S. A. (2002). Children as inspectors? Evaluating school music provision for children aged 10–​11 years. British Journal of Music Education, 19, 285–​301. Moore, D., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2010). The social context of musical success: A developmental account. British Journal of Psychology, 94(4) 529–​549. North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & O’Neill, S. A. (2000). The importance of music to adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 255–​272. O’Neill, S. A. (1999). Flow theory and the development of musical performance skills. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141(2), 129–​134. O’Neill, S. A. (2001). Young people and music participation project: Practitioner report and summary of findings. Unit for the study of musical skill and development, Keele University, UK. Retrieved from O’Neill, S. A. (2002). The self-​identity of young musicians. In R. A.  R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 79–​96). Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A. (2005). Youth music engagement in diverse contexts. In J. L. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after school and community programs (pp. 255–​273). Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Neill, S. A. (2006). Positive youth musical engagement. In G. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician:  A handbook of musical development (pp. 461–​474). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A. (2009). Revisioning musical understandings through a cultural diversity theory of difference. In L. Bartel (series ed.), E. Gould (vol. ed.), & J. Countryman, C. Morton, & L. Stewart Rose (eds.), Exploring social justice: How music education might matter, Vol. 4. CMEA Biennial Series: Research to Practice (pp. 70–​89). Waterloo, Ontario: Canadian Music Educators’ Association. O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Aliens in the music classroom? Promoting effective knowledge exchange. Canadian Music Educator, 52(1), 26–​28. O’Neill, S. A. (2011a, May). Exploring artistic worlds: An interview study of the initiating and sustaining factors and benefits of youth music engagement in formal and informal learning contexts. In S. A. O’Neill (chair), Youth artistic participatory culture and music engagement: Implications for curricula and expansive learning. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE), University of Fredericton & St. Thomas University, New Brunswick, Canada. O’Neill, S. A. (2011b). Personhood and music learning: Theory, research, narratives and practice, Vol. 5. CMEA Biennial Series:  Research to Practice. Waterloo, Ontario:  Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

Becoming a Music Learner

185

O’Neill, S. A. (2011c). Learning in and through music performance: Understanding cultural diversity via inquiry and dialogue. In M. Barrett (ed.), A cultural psychology for music education (pp. 179–​200). New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A. (2011d). Developing a young musician’s growth mindset: The role of motivation, self-​theories and resiliency. In I. Deliège & J. Davidson (eds.), Music and the mind: Essays in honour of John Sloboda (pp. 31–​46). New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A. (2014). Music and media infused lives: An introduction. In S. A. O’Neill (series ed. & vol. ed.), Research to practice: Vol. 6. Music and media infused lives: Music education in a digital age (pp. 1–​15). Waterloo, ON, Canada: Canadian Music Educators’ Association. O’Neill, S. A. (2016). Youth empowerment and transformative music engagement. In G. Spruce, C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, & P. Woodward (eds.), Oxford handbook of music education and social justice (pp. 388–​405). New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A. (2017). Young people’s musical lives: Learning ecologies, identities, and connectedness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Meill (eds.), Oxford handbook of musical identities (pp. 79–​104). New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, S. A., & Bespflug, K. (2011). Musical Futures comes to Canada: Engaging students in real-​world music learning. Canadian Music Educator, 53(2), 25–​27. O’Neill, S. A., & Peluso, D. (2010). Media convergence culture:  Exploring young people’s musical worlds. In Proceedings of the Media Literacy Conference (p. 50). London: Media Literacy Conference. O’Neill, S. A., & Senyshyn, Y. (2011). How learning theories shape our understanding of music learners. In R. Colwell & P. Webster (eds.), MENC handbook of research on music learning (pp. 3–​34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Overton, W. F. (1998). Relational-​developmental theory:  A psychological perspective. In D. Gorlitz, H. J. Harloff, G. Mey, & J. Valsiner (eds.), Children, cities, and psychological theories: Developing relationships (pp. 315–​335). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co. Ozomon, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (1992). Philosophical foundations of education (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Radford, M. (2006). Researching classrooms:  Complexity and chaos. British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 177–​190. Reynolds, A. M., & Beitler, N. S. (2007). Reflective practice in a middle-​school instrumental setting. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 173, 55–​69. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ridley, D. S. (1991). Reflective self-​awareness:  A basic motivational process. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1) 31–​48. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rose-​ Krasnor, L. (2009). Future directions in youth involvement research. Social Development, 18(2), 497–​509. Senyshyn, Y. (1999). The passionate teacher and the curriculum police:  Perspectives on modes of subjectivity and the curriculum as art. Journal of Educational Thought, 33(2), 153–​173. Senyshyn, Y., & O’Neill, S. A. (2001). Subjective experience of anxiety and musical performance: A relational perspective. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 9(1), 42–​53. Senyshyn, Y., & O’Neill, S. A. (2011, May). Youth and the arts: Toward a responsible intersubjectivity in the curriculum. In S. A. O’Neill (chair), Youth artistic participatory culture and music engagement: Implications for curricula and expansive learning. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE), University of Fredericton & St. Thomas University, New Brunswick, Canada.

186

Susan A. O’Neill

Sloboda, J. (2001). Conference keynote emotion, functionality and the everyday experience of music: Where does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3(2), 243–​253. Stetsenko, A. (2009). Personhood:  An activist project of historical becoming through collaborative pursuits of social transformation. New Ideas in Psychology. doi:10.1016/​ j.newideapsych.2009.11.008. Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–​2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173–​191. Upitis, R., Smithrim, K., & Soren, B. (1999). When teachers become musicians and artists: Teacher transformation and professional development. Music Education Research, 1(1), 23–​35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W. Rieber (ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The history of the development of higher mental functions, Vol. 4 (pp. 1–​251). New York and London: Plenum Press. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). Fostering educational resilience in inner-​city schools. Children and Youth, 7, 119–​140. Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International, Paper 2.  Retrieved from http://​www.scu.edu.au/​schools/​gcm/​ar/​ari/​p-​ywadsworth98. html. Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P., & Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on educational resiliency. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51–​85). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wingstedt, J. (2005). Narrative music. Towards an understanding of musical narrative functions in multimedia. (Licentiate thesis). Luleå, Sweden:  Luleå University of Technology. Wrigley, T. (2004).School effectiveness: The problem of reductionism. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 227–​244. Younker, B. A., & Hickey, M. (2007). Examining the profession through the lens of social justice: Two music educators’ stories and their stark realizations. Music Education Research, 9(2), 215–​227.

Chapter 10

INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS: IN SEARCH OF A DEMOCRATIC MUSIC EDUCATION Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

At the moment when we started to write this chapter, the first decade of the twenty-​first century was about to be complete. A decade whose characteristics were profoundly contradictory and disappointing in many senses our hopes that a better and more just world was possible. A decade of troublesome uncertainty, but also one where, coming from various domains of human action, a number of experiences gave us signs of a world where inclusiveness and solidarity may not be vain words. This was the time of Daniel Barenboim’s book Everything Is Connected, where the power of music is described as a strong metaphor for life, urging us to think about music “in the same way as human existence” (2008, p. 133). This was the time to witness the increased importance of communities of practice (Wenger, 2006, 2015), where young people engage in diverse artistic domains, in a process of collective learning, sharing and surviving through engagement with the arts, and in spite of all adversities (Dillon, 2006). We believe that any redefinition of music education goes hand in hand with the recognition that it cannot be a neutral endeavor in the face of the great challenges that are posed to all educators in this century. Part of our disquiet is that we cannot be indifferent to contexts of injustice, inequality, and violence, so the search for a democratic music education calls for a multilayered reflection for which we are all

188

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

indispensable. In this context, we are in tune with recent developments in bringing together music/​arts and conflict transformation/​peace building (Bergh, 2007; Bergh & Sloboda, 2010; O’Connell & Castelo Branco, 2010; Urbain, 2014; Benedict et al., 2015; Bates, 2016). In fact, Bergh and Sloboda (2010) provided an excellent account of literature reporting on the positive and negative use of music in conflicts and how it may help to promote peace and play a role in conflict transformation. As a premise for our understanding of a “democratic (music) education” as it will be used throughout this essay, we acknowledge the legacy of John Dewey (1916) and his established link between education, democracy, and social reform (see Woodford, ­chapter 37). In Giroux’s words, Dewey “reminds us that education can function either to create passive, risk-​free citizens or to create a politicized citizenry educated to fight for various forms of public life informed by a concern for justice, happiness, and equality” (Giroux, 1989, p. 184). These ideas are well connected with Wayne Bowman’s assertion that “we are unlikely to make meaningful progress until and unless we recognize that the relationship between musical issues and social ones is not peripheral or contingent but constitutive” (2007, p. 110). Within this framework, this chapter intends to be a contribution to the above suggested multilayered reflection. We will begin by situating the principles for advocacy, providing a rationale where these will be discussed from the perspective of different authors, including our critical argument. The next section establishes a framework for what we think could be a sustainable music education program from the perspective of a democratic approach. Then, we will address the issue of initial and continuing music teacher education, pointing to a professional profile that will be capable of working in diverse formal and nonformal music educational contexts, while maintaining an ongoing reflexive critical attitude. In the final section of the chapter we will present a number of research findings about the implementation of social projects involving music education in Brazil, and one project of social inclusion through engagement with music that is being implemented in Portugal. We will finish by summarizing the main points covered in the chapter and its broad implications for a redefinition of music education.

Reframing Advocacy Following the establishment in 2004 of the first official Advocacy Standing Committee of the International Society for Music Education (ISME), the International Journal of Music Education (2005) dedicated a whole issue to advocacy for music education (this is available for downloading at www.isme.org). Through the lenses of various prominent authors, the IJME issue presented a broad account grouped around the why, the how, the where, and the what of music education advocacy. We will concentrate here on the why music essays, as we want to stress that the core of this endeavor clearly resides on the discourse that we, musicians and educators, are able to produce about why music cannot be abrogated from any educational program.

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

189

We begin by summarizing the arguments that were brought forward, taking into account our identification of three different domains in the formulated ideas, plus the approaches of two authors that we choose to consider separately. First, advocacy appears as a logical form of lobbying, a professional activity that should be performed by those that are in the best position to tell and persuade politicians why music education is essential “for our students, our communities, our nations, and to civilization” (Mark, 2005, p. 95). This, almost immediate, collage of advocacy to a political undertaking will be later addressed through Wayne Bowman’s crucial positioning in this matter. A second set of arguments builds on the cognitive neurosciences and related disciplines. Taking a broad range of solid research on brain and genetic dispositions, it is argued that music has the power to connect activated brain areas and to stimulate the growth of brain structures, while musical practice has the power to develop fine motor coordination and phonology (Gruhn, 2005). Isabelle Peretz (2005) evokes the arguments produced by developmental psychology and neuropsychology to introduce the uniqueness of music, where abilities seem to flourish independently from the intervention of other cognitive and affective systems. This uniqueness is further explored by Donald Hodges (2005), first through looking for a definition of education, and second through examination of modern conceptions of human intelligence, among them Howard Gardner’s (1983) identification of a musical intelligence. Hodges claims that music represents an in-​built knowledge system that allows human beings to gain insights into their inner and outer worlds, but one that needs the input of learning to attain its full potential (2005, pp. 111–​115). Through an account of singing development and its significance in the appearance of our individual musical identities, Graham Welch builds on Hodges’s argument with a consistent emphasis on the ideas of educational “fostering” or “hindering,” an obligation to offer the right opportunities to celebrate our musicality (2005, pp. 117–​119). His plea for music (“we are musical”) can be both situated in our identified second set of advocacy ideas as in the third one, namely the consistent defense of a holistic view of education. The same approach is taken from an ethnomusicological perspective expressed by Bruno Nettl (2005), claiming that ethnomusicologists are in the best position to conclude that what music brings to the lives of human beings cannot be otherwise fulfilled, either by nature or culture. Although built on a similar premise (“we cannot live without music”), Robert Walker (2005, pp. 135–​138) stays clearly out of the previously formulated pleas. By arguing that music is basically something we listen to rather than something we do, he constructs an overarching argument for the need to educate young people to become conscious and critical listeners, rather than making an investment in performance, essentially because “most children will never develop very far as performers.” To finish our account, we will invoke Wayne Bowman’s (2005) and Bennett Reimer’s (2005) contribution to this debate. While they intersect by having a similar claim in what concerns the need to face possible educational failings prior to advocacy, they provide us with two distinguished views that, therefore, deserve our attention.

190

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

The focus in Bowman’s approach starts with the consideration of the very essence of advocacy, its limitations and potential dangers. Like Mark, he assumes that advocacy is political endeavor, a form of lobbying and, as such, a conservative undertaking toward the maintenance of the status quo. Bowman (2005) situates his argument as follows: indeed music’s power itself, always depends upon (a) how, (b) by whom, (c) for whom, and (d) under what circumstances we engage in the process of (e) musicking and (f) teaching. All our ambitious claims for music depend upon extenuating circumstances and contextual variables, circumstances and variables our bold claims must acknowledge because they are things over which we often have relatively little control. (p. 126)

To follow on this, Bowman explicates music’s values as being always sociopolitically contextualized, and therefore always possible to be refuted, grounded in human action and socioculturally situated. At the end of these observations, Bowman places the musical experience in “the nexus of mind and body, of individual and social, of action and understanding” (2005, p. 127). Finally, in his summary of the suitability of music’s meanings and values to educational ends, he acknowledges that “the best source of valid, reliable, and responsible advocacy arguments is the qualified professional whose charge it is to deliver ‘the goods’ ” (p. 128). Bennett Reimer, while not denying the importance of the various reasons that have been put forward by music educators to advocate the cause of music in schools, calls our attention to the ever lurking danger that stems from most music educators’ unexamined belief that what we are doing “(1) does in fact develop musical intelligences; (2) does in fact serve the needs of the great majority of students . . . and (3) does in fact help students gain the deepest satisfactions music can offer” (2005, p. 140). His argument strongly dissuades proselytism in view of the more needed critical examination of our music educational practices. Ultimately, our successful deliverance of “the goods,” in Bowman’s words, could make the need for advocacy completely useless. We will now critically situate our concept of reframing advocacy, first in connection with the previous stated ideas, and second by adding another dimension. We offer no restrictions in positioning our concept of advocacy in tune with the various arguments that appeal to a well-​rounded and balanced education where music has its deserved place. In fact, they all contribute to configure music’s meaning and value for its own sake and, as such, its claim to be mandatorily included in the school curriculum. However, and as Wayne Bowman so clearly points out, it is not music that may be facing a crisis but rather music education. In fact, what might need to be evidenced is the link between the full strength of music in people’s lives and music education as a means of personal empowerment to which everyone has the right of access (see Bowman, ­chapter 2). Although we are not claiming to “discover” the essential final argument, we still would like to make a significant contribution to the advocacy issue. We want to

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

191

begin by refuting the consideration that advocacy is not a philosophical endeavor but rather a political, and a conservative, one. For this we will draw on the thought-​ provoking work of the philosopher Simon Critchley (2007), and his concept of ethical experience conjugated with his view of “true democracy.” Reviewing all advocacy arguments, we sense a profound discomfort. However seminal the ideas that have been produced to reshape music education, it still appears that “beatitude-​like” musical experiences happen completely apart from the outside world. Therefore, we will start by accepting Critchley’s statement that “philosophy begins in disappointment” and consider its implications in view of an apparent incapacity to place music education at the core of a democratic education. Critchley claims that there can be no sense of the good—​in this case understood as a music education of quality for all people—​“without an act of approval, affirmation or approbation” (2007, p. 15). And as far as approval is always of something, it turns out to be a demand, a demand that requires approval. Therefore, it is this structure of demand and approval that shapes an ethical experience. “The essential feature of ethical experience is that the subject of the demand—​the moral self—​affirms that demand, assents to finding it good, binds itself to that good and shapes its subjectivity in relation to that good” (p.  17). This means the obvious acceptance that an ethical experience presupposes an experiencing subject. “Applying this ethics argument to the advocacy endeavor is to accept its philosophical character as well as an understanding of politics not as the mere defense of the status quo but in a totally different perspective” (Critchley, 2007, p. 120): If ethics without politics is empty, then politics without ethics is blind. The world that we have in sight overwhelms us with the difficult plurality of its demands. My view is that we need ethics in order to see what to do in a political situation.

In this sense, we assume that reframing advocacy means both to add the ethical argument and to place it as a political undertaking that calls for our infinite responsibility as music educators. Responsibility in another, more radical view of politics enacted as “praxis in a situation that articulates an interstitial distance from the state, and which allows for the emergence of new political subjectivities” (Critchley, 2007, p. 114). In a similar line of thought, Bowman asserts that “as a fundamentally social phenomenon and a powerful means of mediating inclusion and exclusion, music is always an undertaking with profoundly ethical dimensions and implications” (2007, p. 110). For Critchley, “true democracy” means cooperative alliances that contribute to call the state into question and the established order to account “in order to better it or to attenuate its malicious effects” (2007, p. 117). We see ourselves engaged in such cooperative alliances, those that begin and end in the very essence of the musical experience as a multifaceted human activity, involving an understanding of how people engage in diverse communities of musical practice. In this view, advocacy for music education is also a democratic endeavor, contributing to a reshaping of the discourse of democracy.

192

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

Constructing Sustainability The following two situations set the tone of our contribution for the discussion around constructing sustainability. The first is the description of a personal musical experience. The second brings the elements of a music education intervention in the words of John Eliott Gardiner. Sitting in a full concert hall in Porto, Portugal, we listen to a performance of the arrangement by the German composer Hans Zender for small orchestra and tenor of Franz Schubert’s late work the “Winterreise.” The tickets were cheap, and the audience is varied, including many young people. Beyond the strings and wind instruments the orchestra includes a harp, a guitar, an accordion, and a huge variety of percussion instruments, plus two wind machines. It is supposed to be a “composed interpretation” rather than a mere orchestration or arrangement of the Schubert piece. For about 85 minutes the audience lives an experience of intense moments, where effects, textures, movement of the musicians, or amplification of sound transmit both physical and psychological evocations. The magnificent voice of the tenor, Christophe Prégardien, moves fluently from the most ethereal cantabile to an intensive drama or to spoken singing. While the whole musical material is creative and highly imaginative, it never loses the spirit of the Schubert work, leaving intact its profound dramatic intensity. At the end, the audience stands for an enthusiastic applause of a ravishing musical experience. John Eliott Gardiner, in an interview to a Portuguese newspaper, speaks about his most recent involvement in pedagogical projects: “Our next project is called ‘Take a Bow’ and it will take place in Paris, in June, again with the London Symphony Orchestra. It will involve string students at all levels, from the very beginners to the most advanced ones. We will have a concert where everybody can participate.” This Schubert concert indicates how (classical) music is a lively, continuously evolving art, capable of reaching out to a wide audience, including many young people. Gardiner’s interview shows the ever growing interest of many great musicians in the music pedagogical domain, and in how to bring more and more children and young adults to engage vividly with music. We would like to suggest that both situations convey significant elements for the construction of sustainability in a music education program. First, we will distinguish between internal and external sustainability. Under internal sustainability we understand the construction of a number of educational principles that may guarantee the musical consistency of the program and its adequacy to the social and cultural contexts where it should be implemented. The external sustainability considers the issue of social responsibility in the construction of a coherent network that will establish the link between the schools, teachers, students, families, and stakeholders. In the construction of internal sustainability of any music education program we will consider the three reciprocal principles of educational activity as elaborated by Peter Abbs (2003). The first, Education is existential in nature, indicates that education cannot happen without an engaged participation of the

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

193

students. Abbs parallels existence “to make ourselves visible, to declare ourselves, to confess ourselves, to become the free and willing agents of our own actions and understanding” (2003, p.  15). The implications for a music education program is the acknowledgment that students’ musical biography, noting that even the youngest children will have one, must be part of the whole musical encounter that is to take place within the educational program. These ideas, while intimately connected with the previous section in this chapter, also remind us of Maxine Greene’s (1995) elaboration on discovering a pedagogy, and the notion of giving young persons the possibility to approach and construct multiple realities, starting by naming their own worlds. The young can be empowered to view themselves as conscious, reflective namers and speakers if their particular standpoints are acknowledged, if interpretative dialogues are encouraged, if interrogation is kept alive. Idiomatic understandings are always likely, but the construction cannot but be in terms of the culture to which the young belong or intend to belong. It becomes all the more important that they tap the full range of human intelligence and that as part of our pedagogy, we enable them to have a number of languages to hand and not verbal or mathematical languages alone. Some children may find articulation through imagery; others through body movement; still others, through musical sound. (p. 57)

Students must be protagonists of their own learning, and the music program should contain open doors for unknown music, moments of reflection and revision, “gaps which constantly invite, provoke, unsettle and support [their] deep self-​ involvement” (Abbs, 2003, p. 15). The second principle, Education is essentially a collaborative activity, purports an elaboration of the idea that we do not exist without the other, and therefore the individual who is to be educated needs to be within a community. Abbs argues that the existential educational act cannot take place in the absence of dialogue, without the exploration of others’ conceptions in a pursuit of common understanding. Our understanding of this principle is that musical activities must be conceived as moments of collaboration, making sense of musical appreciation, performance, improvisation, and composition. The third principle, Education is always a cultural activity which has to be continuously deepened and extended, is intended as an expansion of the previous existential and collaborative processes, calling for a progressive initiation of the students into the culture of a certain discipline (Abbs, 2003, p. 17). According to this third principle education exists to set up a conversation down the ages and across cultures, across both time and space, so that students are challenged by other ways of understanding and, at the same time, acquire ever new material—​metaphors, models, ideas, images, narratives, facts—​for shaping and reshaping and testing again that never finished process, their own intellectual and spiritual lives.

For a music education program, this last principle strongly evokes the need to go beyond confined walls, to move back and forth across musical epochs, styles,

194

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

and genres in a process where the teacher must make the connections “across time to weave the cultural cloth.” (Abbs, 2003, p. 17). Together with the other two principles, it builds, from our point of view, a framework where internal sustainability is constructed and reconstructed in a process of appropriation by students and teachers, and therefore appears as the mean to secure its continuity. Maxine Greene gives us a number of exciting ideas to begin an interrogation of how to involve a community, in the broad sense of the word, in the building of what we called the external sustainability of a music education program. A community may be thought of as a network of schools, students, families, and those willing, for whatever reasons, to invest in a new program. Immediately, however, we are faced with the problem of reconciling different political and socioeconomic demands. While the state has often in mind the production of “happy” statistics to say out loud that we are developing in the right direction (Guinote, 2007; UNICEF, 2008, 2016) private stakeholders are urged to understand the crucial role of investing in culture and education. On this matter, the Executive Summary of the OECD (2002) clearly states: However, it takes more than great expectations to achieve the benefits that can flow form a greater investment in human capital. It takes a good understanding of the nature and role of human capital and how to design specific measures to enhance its supply. At present, these issues are imperfectly understood and measured in terms of capturing human capital in its various forms, analyzing its relationships with individual and social outcomes, and measuring human capital formation, stock, and returns. (p. 6)

To explore these contradictions is not an easy task, calling for a major effort and imagination—​“it may be the recovery of imagination that lessens the social paralysis we see around us and restores the sense that something can be done in the name of what is decent and humane” (Greene, 1995, p. 35). Such a community must adopt a number of ideas as their own, which means that all parts involved—​schools, students, families, and other stakeholders—​share what may be thought of as the common good (Steer & Smith, 2015). In a music program, and especially if it is to be implemented with populations at risk (such as many Brazilian NGOs’ projects developed with socioeconomically impoverished populations), there must be the need to fight for an enlarged acceptance, of taking the program in collective hands, caring for its continuation, being prepared to defend it from external threats, both social and economical. While there will be different roles to fulfill, all actors in the network should commit to the program much in the sense of Greene’s words: “democracy, we realize, means a community that is always in the making” (Greene, 1995, p. 39). Summarizing this section, we would affirm the complementary character of both sides of building sustainability in a music program, namely internal and external. It is the way the program can sustain itself internally, through its foundational principles, that may involve the whole community in its acceptance and defense.

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

195

Initial and Continuing Music Teacher Education Following on from the previous sections, the process of analysis and reflexive thinking about initial and continuing music teacher education identifies major challenges that should not be ignored by music educators. It seems that the time has come to critically reflect on what it means to teach music to populations across diverse cultures and educational settings. As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, music education must not be a “neutral” endeavor. The following comment by Bowman (2007, p. 119) stresses his great concern to situate issues of social justice within music and thus within music education. Music is cultural and social (and therefore, I believe, political)—​always and already. That being the case, whether issues like equity and social justice can or should be addressed or confronted in music education is not really the question. The real questions are (a) Whose interests have been served by excluding and ignoring them, as we have done historically? and (b) What kinds of musics and values and insights and people have been kept out by our territorial tactics?

Such thoughts confront us inevitably with the need to assume that the core of teacher education has not been sufficiently reflexive in terms of a music education whose pluralism and diversity may be “a direct function of the diversity and pluralism of our membership, our musical practices, and their attendant curricula” (Bowman, 2007, p.  119). In a similar line of thinking, Bruner (1996) emphasized the role of culture in education, which could be translated into the idea that both teachers and pupils have musical life stories, and that those experiences must be shared in different ways so as to acknowledge a musical universe being present in music classes in diverse social and cultural contexts. A supposedly “neutral” approach to music education has been strongly denounced by Sloboda (2001) in what he calls the dominant music educational paradigm during the twentieth century. His argument was that everything has been constructed so as to serve a significant minority who are to be taught in the understanding and performance of the classical canon. This dominant paradigm was, unfortunately, still being practiced in the first decade of the twenty-​first century in many countries, including Brazil (Figueiredo, 2004a; Penna, 2002). More recently, Benedict explores the concept of alienation when referring to the implementation in music classrooms of Orff and Kodaly methods, away from the free play and creativity as initially purported by its authors, and alienating “both teacher and student from musicking” (Benedict, 2009, p. 213). She maintains that methods may “become a form of production that serves to reproduce systems of domination as well as a very particular form of cultural capital” (p. 213). These ideas are central in the work of the sociologist Philipp Perrenoud (2008), in which “the reflexive paradigm” appears as the possibility of reconciling scientific and practical reasoning, knowing of universal processes and knowing of practical doings, ethics, implications, and efficacy. From this perspective, teacher and

196

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

student may work as coauthors of the development of music in class, and therefore eliminate the idea that students are passive receivers of transmitted knowledge. We suggest that the reflexive teacher assumes that he or she does not have the answers for all questions, and is therefore prepared to cope with many unexpected situations while placing herself in the condition of an apprentice, such that solutions for the proposed problems are constructed in a coshared process. To recognize that not everything is under control points to an essential paradigmatic revision, whenever initial and continuing teacher education for the contemporaneity is in debate. Edgar Morin (2000) also identifies the need for a paradigmatic rather than a programmatic reform in education, one that is primarily concerned with our ability to organize knowledge. Rather than a more-​or-​less deterministic conception of the evolution of societies, the teacher could bring into his practice a notion of “knowing about knowing,” while underlining uncertainty, discussing errors and illusions, inherent to all pedagogical interactions in the construction of knowledge (Morin, 2000). The authors briefly revisited here call our attention to ideas that may be paramount to the construction of any program in initial and continuing music teacher education. While the literature systematically describes the predominant presence of the so-​called Western high art music (Boyce-​Tillman, 2004; Jorgensen, 2003) in music education graduate courses, it might be better for continuing education to let other perspectives be part of a more encompassing teaching practice. Embracing the principle of balance is stressed in one of the latest works of Estelle Jorgensen (2008, p. 33), in the sense that it requires “embracing complexity”: The principle of balance is especially helpful in a pluralistic worldview because it recognizes the claims of values that may sometimes be contradictory or in tension.  . . .  In music, these tensions can be evident in the diversity of musical traditions and the common threads that seem to run through them: musical orality and literacy, instrumental and vocal music, great and little musical traditions, and musical transmission and transformation.

In fact, many music teachers feel uncomfortable with a number of practices they never experienced in their own education: if they have never been involved in improvisation, they feel they will never be able to perform it; in the same way, if they never played or sang folk music, it feels as if this is an ability they will never acquire (Boyce-​ Tillman, 2004; Higgins & Mantie, 2013). Continuing education is, therefore, a precious tool for involving teachers in multiple musical practices and providing continuing development and sharing among a community that is apt to have similar needs.

Educating Music Teachers Today: Setting the Principles Several authors have been proposing a number of essential components of a contemporary music teacher education, capable of bringing about significant changes. In the following we present and discuss some of those core aspects.

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

197

A philosophical attitude. Throughout the previous sections in this chapter we hope we have made clear the importance of philosophy in reflection on music teaching and learning in today’s diverse contexts. The need to adopt a critical and reflexive attitude in the teaching endeavor is highly desirable if we are to permanently revise our practices in the field (Figueiredo, 2004b; Pollard & Tann, 1997; Schön, 2009). Borrowing again on Morin’s idea of philosophy being most significant as a force of interrogation of the great problems of knowledge and human condition in connection with the concept of “philosophy beginning with disappointment” by Critchley, we might get at the essence of a teacher that does not accept “absolute truth” and is permanently available to critically approach what is relevant in the educational context. Education is part of a much larger and complex cultural process, which demands a professional able to engage beyond the classroom walls. In this sense, we believe that the metaphor of the teacher as a philosopher amplifies significantly the role of the music educator (see Elliott, ­chapter 4). The importance of context. The discussion on the importance of the context in the educational process has grown significantly in the last decades (Bowman, 2001, 2002; Hargreaves & North, 1997). Contemporary music education recognizes that music fulfills a number of different functions. While diverse institutions direct their programs almost exclusively to the education of future music professionals, music as a social practice calls for our attention. In this sense, Small (1998, p. 208) alerts us that the big challenge to music educators today seems to me to be not how to produce more skilled professional musicians but how to provide that kind of social context for informal as well as formal musical interaction that leads to real development and to the musicalizing of the society as a whole.

The great challenge lies on the recognition that in today’s world we need to understand teacher education as a much larger endeavor, one that not only provides a wide range of musical skills but also empowers the future educator with the tools to be able to value musics of different cultures and understand what they represent in the lives of many people (see O’Neill, ­chapter 9). The curriculum issue. Our previous subsectionsphilosophical attitude and importance of the context—​call attention to the issue of curriculum. Estelle Jorgensen (2002, p. 56) refers to the multiple and many times conflicting ways to approach curriculum, and here, too, we would like to take sides. Starting from her broad account of curriculum visions, and considering the purposes of this section, we embrace a view of Curriculum as Discourse. The notion of discourse draws on postmodern ideas in education and the social sciences about the frames of reference in which individuals and institutions construct realities that encompass ways of conceptualizing and talking about ideas and the variety of practices that exemplify, flow from, and reinforce them. (Jorgensen, 2002, p. 56)

By doing so, we believe that we are being consistent with our previous theoretical affiliations, for example Maxine Greene and Henry Giroux, while accepting that this view of curriculum calls for a music teacher critically engaged in the development of a coherent, plural, and meaningful music education for the diverse

198

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

students’ populations that she may encounter in the course of her professional life. Further, the connection between thought and action is crucial for the above suggested trilogy of coherence, plurality, and meaningfulness. Coherent because it is aimed at the understanding of musical experience as part of a sociocultural context that may be explored, known, and recognized through music. Plural in focus, as it enables the real experiencing of the multiple forms that human beings have been developing to enact music. Meaningful because it emphasizes musical experiences that promote “self-​growth, self-​knowledge, musical enjoyment, flow, and the happiness that arises from these” (Elliott, 1995, p. 308). Finally, the foregoing proposal for initial and continuing music teacher education needs to find a strong ally in research as the fundamental tool to understand and find solutions for the issues that arise from every day’s practice. Thus, music teachers will be more apt to take decisions, live with the unpredictable, and be motivated to search for new solutions for upcoming problems.

Promoting Social Inclusion Through Engagement with Music Considering a growing literature that brings evidence of significant gains whenever children and young adults participate in activities involving singing and ensemble playing, what follows gives a brief account of two realities that, given the ideas previously discussed in this chapter, may shed light on what can be understood under the concept of a democratic music education.

Music Education in Social Projects in Brazil Today, in Brazil, social projects are generally equated with the development of a variety of actions mostly directed to socioeconomically impoverished populations, and taking place in different contexts. While music education in the school curriculum is poorly developed, social projects are taking over a relevant function by providing for many young people unique opportunities of participation in music activities. Many of these projects are developed by NGOs that are, in this way, implicitly assuming a good part of the responsibility to ameliorate the life conditions of socially and economically excluded populations. This is, in fact, a peculiar situation

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

199

of the Brazilian society: while the state does not have a consequent policy for music education for all, it supports, sometimes even funds, music education activities undertaken by NGOs for a restricted part of the population. (Santos, 2005, p. 32) While relieving itself from providing music education for all within the school system, the state offers small funding for musical activities administered by NGOs. For the vast majority of students what remains is a poor school for poor people. (Santos, 2005, p. 32)

There is no doubt that such musical activities have been producing significant gains for the involved populations (Figueiredo, 2008). However, the fact that they are in many cases implemented by NGOs favors its discontinuity, mostly due to limited financial means. A number of issues have been raised in research concerning social projects involving music. These include:

• Promoting citizenship and social inclusion, sense of belonging, and development of group identity through music as a social practice (Kleber, 2006; Souza, 2002) • Self-​esteem and improvement of quality of life through the possibility of professional engagement with music (Lima, 2003; Santos, 2005; Souza, 2004) • Promoting new life’s perspectives through the musical experience, especially in projects working with populations severely excluded due to race, drug abuse, and violence (Hikiji, 2006) • Valuing of the popular musical culture through shared experiences involving teachers, students, and musicians; breaking barriers between high art music and popular music (Braga, 1997, p. 134)

From this brief summary of research findings from social projects in Brazil it is possible to ascertain that, while issues in music and in pedagogy represent the core of the music educator’s challenge, they are also all the more complex in the acknowledgment that different contexts call for differentiated music pedagogical approaches. The success or failure of the offered experiences is inexorably linked with the context where they take place in an integrated continuum: music always happens in a given context, as, conversely, every context has music as one of its social manifestations.

The Project Orquestra Geração In Portugal, the creation in 2007 of the project Orquestra Geração was inspired by the state funded Venezuelan Youth and Children Orchestra National System, internationally known as El Sistema. It began with a partnership between the municipality of Amadora

200

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

and the School of Music of the National Conservatory in Lisbon. Like the Venezuelan Project, the Orquestra Geração builds its action on a perspective of social inclusion through involvement with music, primarily directed toward children and adolescents undergoing greater educational and social risk and vulnerability. The first nucleus of the Orquestra Geração appeared in October 2007 supported by the European Community program EQUAL and the Gulbenkian Foundation, integrating children from grades 5, 6, and 7 of a secondary school in Amadora. In 2008–​2009, another nucleus was created in another deprived neighborhood, this time supported by a commercial group owning a chain of shopping centers, and between 2009–​2010 and 2014–​2015, further expansions were implemented within the Lisbon metropolitan area, as well as five in the north of Portugal, amounting to more than 700 participants. This project has been distinguished as an initiative integrating the 50 best practices in Europe1. Children attend three weekly classes: general music education, choir, and ensemble playing. Classes are taught by music specialists, among them several Venezuelan teachers who are currently employed in Portuguese orchestras and who grew up in El Sistema. Music classes take place in schools during allocated extracurricular time. There have been already a number of public presentations, either by the initial nucleus (July 2008 at the Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon, and November 2009 in Brussels at the European Parliament) or by the orchestras that performed in the most emblematic concert venues in Portugal. These concerts can usually count on a highly participative audience, mainly constituted by the children’s families and friends. This project appears to be a paradigm of action and intervention whose characteristics already were systematically investigated (Boia & Boal-​Palheiros, 2016; Veloso, 2015, 2016; Mota et al., 2016) according to the following key concepts, among others: • Recognition: the cultural domination associated with another culture, which is perceived as alien and/​or hostile to one’s own (Fraser, 1997, 2000), that is, the relationship between the musical styles and genres practiced by the Orquestra Geração versus what counts in the participants’ everyday lives as “their” music. The fact that classical music plays a major part in the taught repertoire called attention to the need to understand the high level of children’s adherence to the program in view of the confrontation with their own musical traditions. • Inherent meanings and delineated meanings: in Lucy Green’s account (2006), negative experiences of inherent meanings may arise “when we are unfamiliar with the musical style, to the point that we do not understand what is going on, and thus find the musical syntax “boring’ ”; or negative responses to delineations may arise “when we feel that the music is not ours.” In her view, “music celebration” occurs “when we are positively inclined both ways” (2006, p. 103). • Critical pedagogy: this refers to music pedagogical practices in terms of the social construction of knowledge as a “product of agreement or consent

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

201

between individuals who live particular social relations (e.g., of class, race, gender) and who live in particular junctions in time” (McLaren, 2009, p. 63). Throughout these considerations, which we maintain are at the core of the full comprehension of both the Brazilian projects and the Portuguese project Orquestra Geração, it will be a challenge to investigate how their internal and external sustainability may be guaranteed, that is, (1) by securing, in light of Peter Abbs’s three reciprocal principles of educational activity, both their musical consistency and adequacy to the social cultural context where they are being implemented, and (2) by fostering social responsibility in the construction of a coherent network involving the schools, teachers, students, families, and stakeholders.

Conclusion In writing this chapter we approached the idea of initiating music programs in new contexts from the point of view of an engaged and democratic music education. We argued that this could be done by way of a reframing of the concept of advocacy, admitting that this is not a mere political pleading for the status quo, but rather a philosophy-​informed endeavor that unites the ethical argument with the political responsibility. Building on this, we discussed sustainability in any music program as a dual and principled process, capable of supporting its own continuance. Issues in initial and continuing teacher education were approached in the light of all these ideas, and we hope that the final presentation of distinct but related realities in our two countries may contribute to creating a significant open space for reflexive thinking and fruitful discussions.

Reflective Questions



1. How can a democratic and engaged music education be defined and strategized? 2. To what degree do convergent and divergent points of view define music education? Can you give an example of how this might be exemplified in socially focused projects and music education within the school curriculum? 3. What constraints limit the implementation of nonformal music education practices within formal school settings?

202

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

KEY SOURCES Abbs, P. (2003). Against the flow:  Education, the arts and postmodern culture. London: Routledge. Critchley, S. (2007). Infinitely demanding:  Ethics of commitment, politics of resistance. London: Verso. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Morin, E. (2000). Les Sept Savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur. Paris: Seuil. Perrenoud, P. (2008). Développer la pratique réflexive dans le métier d’enseignant. Nanterre: ESF Editeur.

NOTE 1. http://​ec.europa.eu/​regional_​policy/​en/​projects/​best-​practices/​portugal/​2686, [accessed May 18, 2016].

REFERENCES Barenboim, D. (2008). Everything is connected. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Bates, V. (2016). Foreword:  How can music educators address poverty and inequality? Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 15(1), 1–​9. act.maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Bates15_​1.pdf Benedict, C. (2009). Processes of alienation: Marx, Orff, and Kodaly. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 213–​224. Benedict, C., Schmidt, P., Spruce, G., & Woodford, P. (eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bergh, A. (2007). I’d like to teach the world to sing:  Music and conflict transformation. Musicae Scientiae (Special issue 2007), 141–​157. Bergh, A., & Sloboda, J. A. (2010). Music and arts in conflict transformation: A review. Music & Arts in Action, 2(2), 2–​17. Boia, P. S., & Boal-​Palheiros, G. (2016). Making music in Orquestra Geração: From discipline to empowerment? In G. Boal-​Palheiros (ed.), International perspectives on music education:  Proceedings of the 26th International Seminar of the ISME Commission on Research, London 18–​22 July 2016 (pp. 31–​41). London:  International Music Education Research Centre (iMerc) Press. Bowman, W. (2001). Music education and post-​secondary music studies in Canada. Arts Education Policy Review, 103(2), 9–​17. Bowman, W. (2002). Educating musically. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 63–​84). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Bowman, W. (2005). To what question(s) is music education advocacy the answer? International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 125–​129.

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

203

Bowman, W. (2007). Who is the “We”? Rethinking professionalism in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(4), 109–​131. Boyce-​Tillman, J. (2004). Towards an ecology of music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 12(2), 102–​125. Braga, J. M. (1997). Projeto Tocando a Vida. In Anais do VI Encontro Anual da ABEM e I Encontro Latino-​Americano de Educação Musical (p. 134). Salvador: ABEM. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Dillon, S. (2006). Assessing the positive influence of music activities in community development programs. Music Education Research, 8(2), 267–​280. Elliott, D. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Figueiredo, S. L.  F. (2004a). The music preparation of generalist teachers in Brazil. Unpublished Ph.D. Diss. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University. Figueiredo, S. L. F. (2004b). Teaching music in the preparation of generalist teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/​162, 73–​81. Figueiredo, S. L. F. (2008). Educación musical e proyectos sociales en Brasil: La producción de la Asociación Brasileña de Educación Musical—​ABEM. Eufonia, 42, 32–​47. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus:  Critical reflections on the “post-​socialist” condition. New York: Routledge. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3(May-​June), 107–​120. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Giroux, H. A. (1989). Schooling for democracy:  Critical pedagogy in the modern age. London: Routledge. Green, L. (2006). Popular music education in and for itself, and for “other” music: Current research in the classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 101–​118. Gruhn, W. (2005). Children need music. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 99–​101. Guinote, P. (2007). “Educação, Mentiras e Estatísticas.” A Educação do meu Umbigo. http://​educar. wordpress.com/​2007/​02/​27/​educacao-​mentiras-​e-​estatisticas/​ [accessed February 20, 2012]. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1997). The social psychology of music. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Higgins, L., & Mantie, R. (2013). Improvisation as ability, culture, and experience. Music Educators Journal, 100(2), 38–​44. Hikiji, R. S. G. (2006). A música e o risco: etnografia da performance de crianças e jovens. São Paulo: Edusp. Hodges, D. A. (2005). Why study music? International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 111–​115. International Society for Music Education. (2005). Special focus issue on advocacy for music education, 23(2), 91–​184. Jorgensen, E. (2002). Philosophical issues in music education. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 48–​ 62). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jorgensen, E. (2008). The art of teaching music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kleber, M. O. (2006). A prática de educação musical em ONGs: Dois estudos de caso no contexto urbano brasileiro. In Anais do XV Encontro Anual da ABEM, CD Rom. João Pessoa: ABEM.

204

Graça Mota and Sergio Figueiredo

Lima, M. H. (2003). Educação musical/​educação popular:  Projeto música & cidadania, uma proposta de movimento. In Anais do XI Encontro Anual da ABEM, CD Rom. Florianópolis: ABEM. Mark, M. L. (2005). Why does our profession need advocacy? International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 95–​98. Mota, G., Baker, G., Ilari, B., O’Neill, S. and Senyshyn, Y. (2016). Social inclusion and non-​ formal music learning—​in the shadow of Venezuela’s El Sistema. In S. O’Neill (series ed.) and R. Wright, B. A. Younker, & C. Beynon (vol. eds.), Research to practice: Vol. 7. 21st-​ century music education: Informal learning and non-​formal teaching approaches in school and community contexts (pp. 38–​54). Waterloo, ON, Canada: Canadian Music Educators’ Association. Nettl, B. (2005). An ethnomusicological perspective. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 131–​133. O’Connell, J. M., & Castelo Branco, S. (eds.) (2010). Music and conflict. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD). (2002). “Financing education:  Investments and returns (executive summary)”. http://​www.uis.unesco.org/​ TEMPLATE/​pdf/​wei/​WEI_​ExecSummary_​Eng.pdf [accessed June 10, 2010]. Penna, M. (2002). Professores de música nas escolas públicas de ensino fundamental e médio: Uma ausência significativa. Revista da ABEM, 7, 7–​19. Peretz, I. (2005). The nature of music. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 103–​105. Pollard, A., & Tann, C. S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom. London: Continuum. Reimer, B. (2005). The danger of music education advocacy. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 139–​142. Santos, M. A. C. (2005). Educação musical na escola e nos projetos comunitários e sociais. Revista da ABEM, 12, 31–​34. Schön, D. A. (2009). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and leaning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Emotion, functionality, and the everyday experience of music: Where does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3(2), 243–​255. Small, C. (1998). Musicking. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press. Souza, J. R. T. (2002). As “Oficinas de música da Casa Pequeno Davi”: Uma experiência de educação musical numa organização não governamental na cidade de João Pessoa. In Anais do XI Encontro Anual da ABEM, CD Rom. Natal: ABEM. Souza, J. V. (2004). Educação musical e práticas sociais. Revista da ABEM, 10, 7–​11. Steer, L., & Smith, K. (2015). Financing education: Opportunities for global action. https://​ www.brookings.edu/ ​ w p- ​ c ontent/ ​ uploads/ ​ 2 016/​ 07/​ F inancingForEducation2015.pdf [accessed November 4, 2016]. UNICEF. (2008). Education statistics: Portugal. UNICEF, Division of Policy and Practice, Statistics and Monitoring Section. http://​www.childinfo.org/​files/​IND_​Portugal.pdf [accessed February 20, 2012]. UNICEF. (2016). The state of the world’s children 2016: A fair chance for every child. http://​ www.unicef.org/​publications/​files/​UNICEF_​SOWC_​2016.pdf [accessed November 1, 2016]. Urbain, O. (ed.) (2014). Music and conflict transformation: harmonies and dissonances in geopolitics. London: I. B. Tauris, in association with the Toda Institute Book Series on Global Peace and Policy Research.

Initiating Music Programs in New Contexts

205

Veloso, A. L. (2015). This is my voice in music:  Creating new life opportunities from collective musical participation. In N. Economidou & M. Stakelum (eds.), Democracy and inclusion on music education: Every learner counts (Vol. 4, pp. 241–​256). Innsbruck, Austria: Hebling. Veloso, A. L. (2016). Más allá de la Orquestra Geração: El retrato de Manuella, una joven que soñaba com ser clarinetista profesional. Revista Internacional de Educación Musical, 4, 25–​33. Walker, R. (2005). A worthy function for music education. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–​138. Welch, G. F. (2005). We are musical. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 117–​120. Wenger, E. (2006). “Communities of practice. A brief introduction.” Communities of practice. http://​www.ewenger.com/​theory/​ [accessed November 30, 2009]. Wenger-​Trayner, E. & Wenger-​Traymer, B. (2015). Communities of practice. A  brief introduction. http://​wenger-​trayner.com/​introduction-​to-​communities-​of-​practice/​. [accessed November 1, 2016].

Chapter 11

IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH FOR MUSIC TEACHING AND LEARNING Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

Neuroscientific discoveries have skyrocketed in recent years. This explosion of information has created unprecedented opportunities in many fields, not the least in education, generally, and in music education, specifically. The purpose of this chapter is to share ways that these new findings influence our understanding of music teaching and learning. We begin with a general overview of neuroscience and its contributions to educational concerns. We continue with specific findings related to music learning, and conclude with implications for the field of music education.

Neurosciences and Learning In this section, we present brief synopses of different methods used in neuroscience. We follow this with a discussion of basic information versus practical applications of neuroscience to learning.

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

207

Current Modalities Used in Neuromusical Research Modern neuroscience has many new tools with which to peer into the brain. None of these technologies provides all the necessary information; some are better for examining structure, some are better for observing function, some are better for zeroing in on tiny locations, and some are better for providing a more global view. Results of brain imaging studies should always be placed in the context of music perception and cognition studies, involving trained and untrained listeners, infants, or clinical patients (e.g., brain-​damaged or cognitively impaired). For this chapter, we present a very brief overview of brain imaging methods, along with one illustrative musical application for each. Electroencephalography (EEG) monitors the electrical activity of millions of neurons that lie directly under electrodes placed on the surface of the scalp (Andreassi, 2007). Electrical activity in the brain is constantly changing and is measured in terms of frequency, amplitude, form, and distribution (Gur & Gur, 1994). Researchers utilized EEG to determine brain regions active during practice sessions for beginning pianists (Bangert & Altenmüller, 2003). Participants who practiced in 20-​minute sessions registered connective activity in audio-​motor regions within the first practice session and over the five-​week instructional period developed significantly greater activity in the right frontal region of the brain. Event-​related potentials (ERPs) are very brief fragments of the EEG signal that register immediately after a stimulus (Arnadottis, 1990). Analysis of ERPs involves positive or negative direction of the wave pattern, intensity or strength of the wave, and length of time from stimulus to response (usually on the order of 100 to 600 milliseconds). ERPs provide a marker of the speed and strength of brain response to an external or internal event. For example, Itoh and colleagues (2005) found that participants with absolute pitch needed only 150 milliseconds to perform pitch discrimination tasks and that neural activity occurred in the left auditory association cortex. Those with relative pitch took 300–​900 milliseconds to discriminate pitches, and their neural activity occurred in more widely distributed areas of the brain. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a means of measuring rapid neural responses based on changes in magnetic fields in the brain (Kuhl & Rivera-​Gaxiola, 2008). When the lips of trumpet players were stimulated, MEG data indicated a positive response peak in multimodal somatosensory areas within 33 milliseconds (Schulz, Ross, & Pantev, 2003). Control participants showed a negative response with a peak at 60–​80 milliseconds. In Positron Emission Tomography (PET), researchers monitor radioactively tagged blood as it flows to specific parts of the brain engaged in a given task (Carey, 2008). Researchers gathered cerebral blood flow data in amateur singers as they performed a series of vocal tasks (Brown et al., 2004). They found that blood flow increased in a specific region of the temporal lobes during the more difficult tasks,

208

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

indicating that this area was more responsible for higher level musical processing than the frontal operculum or secondary auditory cortex, which were involved in all the tasks. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides detailed information about brain structure (Patoine, 2005). A powerful magnet realigns hydrogen protons, and the computer tracks the difference between this state and the return to normal alignment. One group of researchers used MRI to determine differences in brain structure between a brain-​damaged patient who suffered from amusia (loss of musical skills) and normal controls (Satoh et al., 2005). The amusia patient had damage in frontal temporal areas of both hemispheres; these locations were paired with the patient’s inability to discriminate pitches or to recognize melodic patterns. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is a means of detecting amounts of oxygen-​rich blood in various parts of the brain (Raichle, 2000). The assumption is that this is an indication of brain activity; fMRI provides information on both structure and function. Menon & Levitin (2005) asked untrained listeners to listen passively to pleasant and unpleasant music while undergoing fMRI scans. By this means, they were able to identify pathways linking music listening to reward and pleasure systems. Neuroscientists use transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to temporarily disrupt or excite neural transmissions as a means of mapping cortical pathways (Hallett, 2000). Researchers used TMS to demonstrate that singing activated bilateral neural networks that were different from those for reading text aloud (Lo et al., 2003). Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allows researchers to trace white matter pathways, by tracking the diffusion of water molecules in brain tissue (Filley, 2005). Schmithorst and Wilke (2002) used DTI to demonstrate that there were differences in white matter architecture between musically trained and untrained individuals and that based on the brain regions involved, these differences were a result of cognitive and motor learning during musical training. Network science is a relatively new approach that creates a connectivity map of the brain during real-​time processing. Using this approach, researchers demonstrated that increased activity occurred in the default mode network (DMN) when young adults listened to their all-​time favorite music (Wilkins et al., 2014). The DMN is a set of interconnected regions of the brain that are activated during moments of inward-​ directed consciousness (e.g., meditation, daydreaming) and that are implicated in the processing of autobiographical memories and self-​relevant emotions. Recently, researchers have begun to explore the advantages of using more than one approach with the same group of subjects. Kim and colleagues (2004) combined fMRI and TMS to study the effects of learning to play a string instrument. They found that learning a string instrument led to reorganization of sensorimotor and temporal regions of the brain. One goal of the study was to coordinate functional MRI data with motor output maps obtained through TMS. Accordingly, two teams of researchers gathered data from the two approaches independently of one another. Using both fMRI and TMS led to confirmation of certain data sets, as well as information unique to each approach.

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

209

Expectations from Neuroscience: Basic Information Versus Practical Application Modern societies aspire to base decisions on strong empirical evidence. As a result, brain research is assuming an increasingly prominent role in educational debates, providing some powerful reasons to support new teaching strategies. Music practitioners, politicians, and many parents build their hope on results coming from neuromusical research to advocate for music in the school curriculum. However, they should make a careful differentiation between research findings that may affect teachers’ understandings of how music is learned and methodical prescriptions for music learning and teaching. The latter pretends to offer a shortcut from brain research to music education that does not exist in such a simple way. Here, we will briefly discuss general directions, music and intelligence, and practical applications.

General Directions from Brain Research Many facets of neuromusical research reconfirm what is already known intuitively or what has come out of studies on learning in developmental and educational psychology. This concerns the importance of social and environmental interaction, the role of intrinsic motivation and arousal, the integration of new knowledge into familiar structures, the consequences of a stimulating, enriched environment, the function of sensitive periods, and the development of neuronal networks. Therefore, brain research can explain why some strategies work better than others. For example, it is well documented that motor learning needs consolidation in phases of rest or sleep when no input is presented (Albert, Robertson, & Miall, 2009). On the contrary, the emphasis on early childhood activities is often based on the argument that the high plasticity or malleability of the maturing brain provides the best opportunity to feed the brain with information. However, this attitude may mislead parents into over-​stimulating the child because there is a common misconception that the learning window might close and parents could miss the right moment for learning. Here, brain research may help to prevent this error and correct this misbelief (Bruer, 1999). Children’s brains always learn, and anything learned is reflected by changes in brain structure. However, it is difficult to predict the right moment when a particular experience offers the most appropriate stimulation. Rather, a complex and rich environment, characterized by a broad variety of qualitatively different stimuli, presents many options for neural adaptation and assimilation (Spitzer, 2008). Music learning, as well as learning in general, is grounded in the neuroplastic structure of the brain. Learning always results in structural and functional changes

210

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

in the brain, such as the growth of new neuronal spines, which increases the transmission capacity (Muller, Toni, & Buchs, 2000). The more engaged children are in learning and experimental activities, the more productive is the creation of new synapses (Huttenlocher, 1994).

Music and Intelligence The word intelligence normally refers to higher functions of cognitive processing. A person shows evidence of intelligence if she or he has broad knowledge, evaluates situations based on rational thought, creates practical solutions for new problems, develops innovative ideas in special domains, and recognizes causal links between facts and ideas quickly and precisely. If this observation from everyday life is correct, then intelligence could be defined in terms of cognitive brain functions, creative strategies, and processing speed. New connectionist models and chronometric approaches have uncovered remarkable mental differences in time and effort spent on decision-​making (Fiske, 2004). These functions are not domain specific, but refer to a general potential that is founded in genetically determined brain structures and is influenced by environmental stimuli. Obviously, there are qualitative differences in human cognitive behavior that can be traced back to differences in mental abilities. Scientific research has been concerned with the determination of the degree of heritability and environmental influences. Advanced methods in brain research and molecular genetic studies were successful in uncovering specific genes that contribute to individual differences in cognitive functions. However, the effects of genetically and environmentally influenced portions of intelligence are not due to a static gift, but rather to a dynamic process. Developmental studies have demonstrated that “as children mature from infancy through adolescence the magnitude of h2 [heritability] increases and c2 [environmental influences] decreases” (Thompson & Plomin, 2000, p. 158). This is because environmental effects can only arise within genetically determined conditions. Recent research has shown that interhemispheric connections between regions that integrate various executive processes form the core of general intelligence (Gläscher et al., 2010), and that these become more influential during maturation. Therefore, it is very likely that the same genetic disposition may have different effects under varying environmental conditions. “That is, small genetic differences may snowball as we go through life creating environments that are correlated with our genetic propensities” (Plomin, 2004, p. 344). There is considerable debate whether intelligence is grounded in one general brain capacity or encompasses many special abilities. By analyzing a collection of intelligence tests, it was found “that mental abilities . . . tend to collect together in pools that have especially close associations” (Deary, 2001, p. 11). These pools build subgroups, such as working memory, processing speed, verbal comprehension, and perceptual organization, that relate more highly to each other than to other abilities.

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

211

Although intelligence can be regarded as the total of all mental competencies, there is no single intelligence center in the brain (as there is also no single music center in the brain). Therefore, it seems reasonable to look for the neural correlates that reflect processes of individuals with higher capacity (or IQ). In the literature three structural correlates of higher intelligence are discussed:  brain size, mental speed, and processing efficiency (Neubauer, 2001): • Brain size results from a remarkable growth of the brain, especially in early childhood. This is due not only to the growth of new neurons but also to the increase of the volume of gray matter as a consequence of an exuberant growth of synapses. In later years, the process of myelination enhances the growth of brain volume. A layer of myelin around the axons provides isolation for signal transmission and increases the conduction speed. The higher the synaptic density, the better and faster the communication between neurons can be performed. Therefore, it is plausible that more gray matter is associated with higher intellectual capacity in discrete areas, including frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes (Haier et al., 2004). Twenty professional pianists were found to have a greater volume of gray matter in widely diffuse areas compared to 20 amateur pianists and 40 nonmusicians (Gaser & Schlaug, 2003). The correlation between brain volume and IQ for adults is reported as r = .35 (Eliot, 1999). • Mental speed generally refers to faster decision-​making processes and shorter reaction times. One of the factors for mental speed is neural transmission speed, which directly relates to myelination. Transmission speed can be recorded from event-​related potentials (ERP), with the highest correlation exhibited during the first 200 milliseconds (P200) immediately after the stimulus. But this early reaction is mainly an indicator of the sensorial reaction time, whereas the P300 wave (which is missing in young children) accounts for higher cortical activities. If we compare the ERPs of children with high and low IQ we find differences not only in the speed, but in the shape of the brainwave (Anderson, 1992). In an eye-​ tracking experiment it was demonstrated that musicians tended to show faster reaction times and a faster suppression of spontaneous reactions than nonmusicians (Gruhn et al., 2006). This indicates an interaction of musical practice and mental speed. • Processing efficiency refers to neural resources required for thinking and responding. As brain-​imaging technologies have shown, persons with a higher IQ spend less energy as reflected by the glucose metabolism (Eliot, 1999). It has also been demonstrated that more effective processing needs less activation power and smaller activated areas. For example, students who received five months of training in harmonic discrimination tasks showed a decrease in overall cortical activation during music ­listening tasks compared to controls who did not receive musical training (Altenmüller, Gruhn, Parlitz, & Liebert, 2000). With respect to these findings, one can state that

212

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn in those with longer practice and adequate musical training, the brain operates more efficiently and economically.

All three indicators—​brain size, processing speed, processing efficiency—​are concerned with the entire brain and confirm that intelligence in general as well as musical intelligence (musicality) cannot be localized to one part of the brain. However, there are also indices in the cortex where higher cognitive functions are processed. Here the prefrontal cortex, where sensory input is processed and information from the limbic system (emotions) and from subcortical regions (arousals) are collected and processed, plays a crucial role, namely for the inhibition of distracting activities. In a PET study of professional pianists, there was a 43% greater deactivation (i.e., less activation) in frontal, prefrontal, and other areas while they performed Bach than when they performed scales (Parsons et al., 2005). This indicated a deeply attentive state and a suspension of distracting brain processes. In signal transmission of firing neurons, we differentiate between excitatory (i.e., stimulating a cell to carry a signal) and inhibitory (i.e., preventing a cell from firing) processes. The function of synaptic inhibition is more important for effective processing than facilitating signal transmission by firing neurons. Finally, cortical asymmetry calls for an efficient exploitation of the particular potential of both hemispheres. Therefore, the strength of interhemispheric collaboration is another indicator for intelligence. This neuro-​anatomic situation clearly demonstrates that intelligent behavior based on intellectual capacity is a general brain function and not only domain specific. However, there are mental predispositions that are necessary, but not sufficient, for the development of special abilities such as music aptitude.

Practical Applications of Brain-​Based Teaching and Learning The term “neuro-​pedagogy” (or neuro-​didactics) was introduced with the intention of making seminal knowledge of brain research accessible to pedagogy (Preiss, 1998). The educational aim was to adapt the curriculum and its implementation in schools to the neurobiological state of a child rather than to adapt the child to a given curriculum. This application is also described as “brain-​based teaching and learning,” where learning is defined in terms of neurobiological procedures. Especially in European countries, the introduction of neuro-​ pedagogy (Neurodidatik or Neuropädagogik) has become intriguing to many educators and researchers (e.g., Herrmann, 2006); its core issues are debated from different perspectives (Stern & Herrmann, 2009). There are many researchers in education who argue that detailed knowledge of brain structures and neuronal processing functions cannot be directly transferred to shaping an adequate learning environment in school settings. What has caused a tremendous change in education has been

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

213

based on groundbreaking insights from progressive education (Reformpädagogik) and can be sufficiently explained by general principles of the psychology of learning and observational research on learning (Stern, 2005). Therefore, researchers and educators should never ignore brain research findings, but treat all incoming information carefully; for there are some fundamental facts and findings that can affect education and may be very supportive to the design of teaching and learning modes. A new understanding of music learning was opened by the introduction of neurobiological concepts (Gruhn & Rauscher, 2008). Here, music learning was defined as the development and gradual differentiation of neural representations that are genuinely musical. Every activity produces a sensorial input that activates those neurons that are specialized for particular musical properties (pitch, loudness, timbre, rhythm, etc.). The more often a particular cell assembly is activated, the stronger the connectivity between the neurons becomes. Continual use of neuronal connections results in powerful memory traces. By this, the brain develops a neural network within its general architecture according to the environmental demands and individual use. Learning in this sense is always and indispensably grounded in changes and alterations of the synaptic transmission process. This was shown in an EEG study where younger students were taught using procedural versus declarative teaching styles (Altenmüller et al., 2000). Learning the same content in different ways caused a significant difference in brain activation patterns. Observing the learning process through the lens of neurobiology initiates a new understanding of learning and may provoke altered teaching attitudes. Furthermore, brain research illuminates how the brain processes information. The brain does not simply store information, rather it generates rules and higher order structures from the incoming input. That is, the brain productively develops the structures that are needed for cognitive processing. The brain does not function like a hard disc storing information, but as a rule-​generating device. This must have consequences for the way educators introduce new information. Another clear connection between brain research and music pedagogy becomes apparent in the mechanism of audio-​vocal learning. From observation we know that some animals (such as songbirds and some cetaceans) and humans are able to imitate sound exactly just by ear (Brainard & Doupe, 2002). It is reported that birds in a city park learned to imitate cellphone tunes. In the same way, infants learn their mother tongue just by listening and exploring vocal sounds. The underlying neural mechanism links incoming auditory information with a motor activity that is needed in vocalization. The integration of motor and auditory activation presumably occurs already in the inferior colliculus, a portion of the auditory transmission pathway in the upper part of the brainstem. In a study it has been shown that poor singers often do not lack the ability of perceptive differentiation, but fail in a correct motor integration of what is perceived correctly (Pfordresher & Brown, 2008). In learning how to speak and sing one must connect a model sound with a muscle tension in the larynx. Consequently, if singing and speaking use the same basic neural mechanisms, one can assume that a person who can speak should also be capable of producing

214

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

vocal sounds in songs (Gruhn, 2008). The origins of language and music have been debated in light of evolutionary biology. However, both modes can be traced back to the same neural mechanism. Therefore, language and music evolved simultaneously in the human lineage and reflect changes in special brain areas (Patel, 2008). Finally, two extremely important aspects for education come from brain research: the involvement of the body and movement in the learning process and the role of emotion and motivation. (1) Body movement and motor control build an essential (if not the primary) function of the brain, as Daniel Wolpert (2011) has pointed out. If learning is seen as the development of mental representations, it is crucial to understand that the only way to build representations in the cortex is through body movement. By afferent and efferent neural pathways the body responds to any sensorial input. Therefore, to build a mental representation of a musical phenomenon it is fairly inefficient to present a verbal explanation instead of initiating a corporeal experience that then can be associated with a term or symbol (Hüther, 2006). From language acquisition we know that even young infants perceive characteristics of the syntax of their mother tongue through parental movements long before the children start speaking. The same is true in music where the experience of time and space mutually interacts (Phillips-​Silver & Trainor, 2007). Another aspect of motor involvement in music perception and cognition is obvious in expressive gestures that accompany music performance (Godøy & Leman, 2010). This becomes effective in making gestural learning an important part of embodied learning. Embodiment marks a new trend regarding the corporeal dimension of music learning by focusing on the interaction of the body and mind and determining its neural conditions (Kronland-​Martinet et al., 2016). (2) Emotion and motivation build the most powerful stimulation for learning. Emotionally arousing stimuli are more memorable than input from neutral material (Nielson & Lorber, 2009). Moreover, an unexpectedly efficient experience initiates a powerful self-​rewarding mechanism by which the nucleus accumbens produces neuropeptides that are disseminated to the ventral striatum and frontal cortex and cause an opioid effect that makes us feel good (Breiter et al., 1997). This brain-​specific, naturally produced, self-​rewarding system is active during positive experiences. This was demonstrated when listening to pleasant music led to increased levels of dopamine (Menon & Levitin, 2005). Therefore, long-​term, effective learning is deeply connected with emotionally arousing, positive experiences.

The Relationship of Neuroscience to Music Teaching and Learning From a general discussion of neuroscience and learning, we now turn to specific relationships between neuroscience and music learning. We will discuss the effects

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

215

of music learning on brain structure and on brain function. Then we will consider sensitive periods and musical performance.

The Effects of Music Learning on Brain Structure Neural plasticity refers to the notion that brain morphology (structure) is constantly changing. Changes in brain structure arise from both genetic instructions and learning experiences. Musicians are excellent models of brain plasticity (Münte et  al., 2002), as changes resulting from music learning experiences have been observed in the following: • Auditory cortex. Numerous studies have shown significant increases in gray matter volume in the auditory cortices of trained musicians compared to untrained individuals (e.g., Bermudez & Zatorre, 2005). • Corpus callosum. Most musical performance requires the coordination of the two hands. Early and intensive musical training causes an increase in the number of fibers in the corpus callosum, a major pathway connecting the two hemispheres (Lee, Chen, & Schlaug, 2003). Although genes play a role in shaping the brain, as previously discussed, researchers have confirmed that observed changes in the corpus callosum, and elsewhere in the brains of musicians, are mainly due to intensive training (Schlaug et al., 2009). • Cerebellum. The cerebellum monitors sensory integration in preparation for motor output and is involved in cognitive functioning and motor learning. Male musicians were found to have greater cerebellar volume than both controls and female musicians (Hutchinson et al., 2003). • Gray matter. Musicians have a greater volume of gray matter than controls in widely distributed areas involving musical performance, such as motor, auditory, and visuospatial systems (Bermudez & Zatorre, 2005). • White matter. Trained musicians have a greater volume of white matter fibers in the core of the brain than do untrained controls (Bengtsson et al., 2005). • Sensorimotor cortex. Musical performance requires exquisite motor control, and trained musicians have visually identifiable differences in sensorimotor cortex not seen in controls (Bangert & Schlaug, 2006). • Multimodal integration areas. Primary sensory areas send information to convergence zones, where raw data are merged into a coherent whole. There are structural differences in these multimodal integration areas between trained and untrained musicians (Bangert et al., 2006). These changes are more likely to occur or are likely to be more pronounced in individuals who began serious music studies at a young age (Steele, Bailey, Zatorre,

216

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

& Penhune, 2013). While there is still the possibility that some of the changes are genetic in nature, Hyde and colleagues (2009) demonstrated that significant changes were due to intensive musical practice. They did this by comparing the brains of young beginning piano students before and after 15 months of piano study.

The Effects of Music Learning on Brain Function Just as studying music changes brain structure, it also changes brain function. In fact, the two go hand in hand; when one changes, they both change. This is captured in a common saying among neuroscientists:  Neurons that wire together, fire together, and neurons that fire apart, wire apart (e.g., Zull, 2002). In general, trained musicians are more efficient at musical processing; whether that transfers to other domains is discussed in a subsequent section. In one experiment, two groups of untrained participants received musical training for two weeks (Lappe et al., 2008). One group, dubbed the sensorimotor-​ auditory (SA) group, learned how to play a short sequence on the piano. The other, auditory (A) group merely listened to the music performed by the SA group. MEG was used to record cortical plasticity, with the SA group showing greater changes than the A group. Thus, learning to play the piano caused cortical plastic changes in the auditory cortex. In another experiment, trained musicians were much faster and more accurate than controls in making pitch and timing judgments (Hodges, Hairston, & Burdette, 2005). Subsequent fMRI scans revealed that the trained musicians had significantly greater activation in higher-​order visual cortices for multisensory tasks.

Brain Maturation and Sensitive Periods in Early Childhood Music Learning In infancy and early childhood the brain maturation process is distinguished by periods of intense neuronal development that are sensitive to a particular stimulation within a certain time window. Fetal and neonatal brain development are characterized by phases of extensive neuronal growth (Gos et al., 2008). For language acquisition, it is crucial to differentiate speech sounds. In the first few months of life infants are able to perceive differences in phonetic contrasts even between

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

217

phonemes that are not present in their environment and that adults cannot discriminate (Sebastián-​Gallés, 2006). Many studies have documented a decline of nonnative phonetic discrimination between 6 and 12 months (e.g., Kuhl et al., 2006). However, if children continue to listen to a nonnative language such as Mandarin, the mere listening experience increases the perceptual differentiation of unfamiliar phonetic categories (Cohen & Segalowitz, 1990). A similar situation is given with absolute pitch (AP), which clearly evolves as a function of age and the onset of musical training (Deutsch et  al., 2009). If musical training does not start during early childhood there is little chance to develop AP later in life or even to keep it. The neural network used in AP has to be developed in early years (Wu et al., 2008). Schlaug and coworkers have shown that the maturing brain is functionally and structurally shaped by musical training in early childhood. By fMRI studies, researchers identified structural changes related to behavioral changes through musical training and demonstrated a striking example of training-​induced brain plasticity in early years (Hyde et al., 2009; Schlaug et al., 2009). The existence of time periods sensitive to the development of clearly specified abilities does not mean that learning in general takes place only during this window of time and is finished after it has been closed. Learning happens throughout life; however, there are sensitive periods when experience-​induced activities facilitate structural and functional brain changes. Therefore, a profound knowledge of sensitive periods might support educational endeavors.

Neurosciences and Musical Performance Music-​making is intensely physical, and several brain systems operate together to facilitate musical performance: the sensorimotor cortex receives incoming sensory input and controls voluntary muscle output; the basal ganglia coordinate large muscle groups; and the cerebellum regulates intricate muscle movements and stores learned patterns (Altenmüller, Wiesendanger, & Kesselring, 2006). With intense musical training over time, motor maps and networks are redrawn and become more efficient (Doidge, 2007). There are limitations on brain imaging technologies during live performances, but a few studies have been conducted on the following groups of musicians: • Pianists. Long-​term training increases representation in the motor cortex of areas that control the fingers (Meister et al., 2005). Piano performances activated many motor and auditory areas in both hemispheres (Parsons et al., 2005). Imagined and real piano performances activated the brain similarly (Pascual-​Leone et al., 1995).

218

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

• Violinists. Results of studies with violinists were very similar to those with pianists (Elbert et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2004; Kristeva et al., 2003; Langheim et al., 2002; Nirkko et al., 2000). • Singers. Auditory cortices, motor cortex, and frontal operculum were activated during singing (Brown et al., 2004). • Conductors. By training and experience, conductors are able to access auditory and visual information in multisensory zones more efficiently than controls (Hodges, Hairston, & Burdette, 2005). • Guitarists. When eight pairs of guitarists performed together, their EEG rhythms were entrained, indicating synchronous cortical activity (Lindenberger et al., 2009). As indicated, motor systems adapt and reorganize with repeated experience. Although Bangert & Altenmüller (2003) found that auditory and motor areas began to change within 20 minutes of beginning piano instruction, it takes approximately 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over a period of at least 10 years to reach a high level of musicianship (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-​Römer, 1993). Changes in the brain are variable depending on the stage of development. For example, when pianists learned a complex finger-​tapping task, activation increased in the motor cortex throughout learning, but decreased in the cerebellum (Hund-​Georgiadis & von Cramon, 1999). Similarly, Jäncke, Shah, and Peters (2000) demonstrated that primary and secondary motor areas were activated in professional pianists to much less a degree than control subjects on one-​and two-​handed tapping tasks. The results of both experiments can be explained by recognizing that long-​term training leads to greater efficiency; once a task is learned, fewer neural resources are required.

Implications for Music Education Neuromusical research cannot answer the question of what and why to teach. However, insights from brain research may affect how to teach. For this, further long-​term studies on the persistence of the observed structural and functional brain changes are needed, namely in music perception and cognition, but also with regard to complex motor activities and the refinement of motor coordination. Furthermore, the neural mechanisms of audio-​vocal learning in humans call for a better understanding of the interaction between motor and aural stimulation. In this respect, the function of mirror neurons—​neurons that fire when a person observes another person’s behavior—​may be involved in audio-​vocal matching in song (pitch matching) and speech (phonetic sound matching) and should be investigated more intensively. The mirror function may be relevant to both audio-​ vocal and visuo-​manual processes (Brown et al., 2004). However, the audio-​vocal loop (which refers to the neural connection between the auditory and motor brain

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

219

areas) strongly accounts for the process of audio-​vocal matching (Pfordresher, Halpern, & Greenspon, 2015). As stated, emotions play a crucial role in learning. Work on brain processes involved in emotional responses to music listening is just beginning, and it will take some time and considerably more research before there is a clearer understanding of this core aspect of music experiences. Understanding the specific role of emotions in music learning will likely take even longer. Another timely issue is whether a musical education confers benefits on other domains. Forgeard and colleagues (2008) review the literature on near transfer (from music training to music perception skills) and far transfer (from music training to other domains). Their review shows mixed results for music and general IQ and spatial, verbal, and mathematical skills. In their study of the effects of learning a musical instrument, children who received at least three years of instrumental music training outperformed their control counterparts on two outcomes closely related to music (auditory discrimination abilities and fine motor skills) and on two outcomes distantly related to music (vocabulary and nonverbal reasoning skills). Duration of training also predicted these outcomes. Contrary to previous research, instrumental music training was not associated with heightened spatial skills, phonemic awareness, or mathematical abilities. On the basis of studies like this one, we must downshift all exaggerated expectations by politicians, the public, and teachers themselves that brain research can solve educational problems. However, this is not to say that brain research will not continue to contribute to a greater understanding of the music teaching-​learning process. With time and patience, music practitioners are likely to reap substantial benefits from the work of neuroscientists. In the meantime, a cautiously optimistic and watchful attitude may be the best position to adopt.

Reflective Questions

1. How important is an understanding of neuromusical functions for music educators? 2. What are the most important findings that neuroscientists have to offer music educators? 3. Have neuroscientists discovered enough about music processing in the brain that practitioners can benefit from this knowledge in music classrooms and rehearsals? 4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying neuromusical findings to music pedagogy? 5. Neuroscientists stress the importance of body movement, emotion, and motivation to learning. What observations in music classrooms and rehearsals support this notion?

220

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

KEY SOURCES Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. New York: Penguin. Gläscher, J., Rudrauf, D., Colom, R., Paul, L. K., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Adolphs, R. (2010). Distributed neural system for general intelligence revealed by lesion mapping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(10), 4705–​4709. Goldøy, R., & Leman, M. (2010). Musical gestures:  Sound, movement, and meaning. New York: Routledge. Gruhn, W., & Rauscher, F. (eds.). (2008). Neurosciences in music pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Pub. Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A., & Schlaug, G. (2009). Musical training shapes structural brain development. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3019–​3025. Koelsch, S. (2012). Brain and music. Chichester: Wiley. Schnupp, J., Nelken, L., & Kind, A. (2011). Auditory neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

WEBSITES PBS. The Secret Life of the Brain: http://​www.pbs.org/​wnet/​brain/​index.html. National Geographic. The Brain: http://​science.nationalgeographic.com/​science/​health-​and-​ human-​body/​human-​body/​brain-​article/​. Sylvius Interactive Brain Anatomy Dictionary:  http://​highered.mheducation.com/​sites/​ 0073123870/​student_​view0/​sylvius_​interactive_​brain_​anatomy_​dictionary.html

REFERENCES Albert, N., Robertson, E., & Miall, R. (2009). The resting human brain and motor learning. Current Biology, 19(12), 1023–​1027. Altenmüller, E., Gruhn, W., Parlitz, D., & Liebert, G. (2000). The impact of music education on brain networks: Evidence from EEG-​studies. International Journal of Music Education, 35, 47—​53. Altenmüller, E., Wiesendanger, M., & Kesselring, J. (2006). Music, motor control, and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, M. (1992). Intelligence and development. A  cognitive theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Andreassi, J. (2007). Psychophysiology: Human behavior and physiological response (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Arnadottis, G. (1990). The brain and behavior. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby. Bangert, M., & Altenmüller, E. (2003). Mapping perception to action in piano practice: A longitudinal DC-​EEG study. BMC Neuroscience, 4. Available at http://​www.biomedcentral. com/​1471–​2202/​4/​26 [accessed August 27, 2008]. doi: 10.1186/​1471–​2202-​4–​26.

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

221

Bangert, M., Peschel, T., Schlaug, G., Rotte, M., Drescher, D., Hinrichs, H., Heinze, H.J., & Altenmüller, E. (2006). Shared networks for auditory and motor processing in professional pianists: Evidence from fMRI conjunction. NeuroImage, 30, 917–​926. Bangert, M., & Schlaug, G. (2006). Specialization of the specialized in features of external human brain morphology. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 1832–​1834. Bengtsson, S., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forssberg, H., & Ullen, F. (2005). Extensive piano practicing has regionally specific effects on white matter development. Nature Neuroscience, 8(9), 1148–​1150. Bermudez, J., & Zatorre, R. (2005). Differences in gray matter between musicians and nonmusicans. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 395–​399. Brainard, M., & Doupe, A. (2002). What songbirds teach us about learning. Nature, 417(6886). Breiter, H., Gollub, R., Weisskoff, R., & Kennedy, D. (1997). Acute effects of cocaine on human brain activity and emotion. Neuron, 19(3), 591–​611. Brown, S., Martinez, M., Hodges, D., Fox, P., & Parsons, L. (2004). The song system of the human brain. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 363–​375. Bruer, J. (1999). The myth of the first three years. A new understanding of brain development and lifelong learning. New York: The Free Press. Carey, J. (2008). Brain facts. Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience. Cohen, H., & Segalowitz, N. (1990). Cerebral hemispheric involvement in the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Brain and Language, 38(3), 398–​409. Deary, I. (2001). Intelligence. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deutsch, D., Dooley, K., Henthorn, T., & Head, B. (2009). Absolute pitch among students in an American music conservatory: Association with tone language fluency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2398–​2403. Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. New York: Penguin. Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Wienbruch, C., Rockstrub, B., and Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science, 270(5234), 305–​307. Eliot, L. (1999). What’s going on in there? How the brain and mind develop in the first five years of life. New York: Bantam Books. Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-​Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–​406. Filley, C. (2005). White matter and behavioral neurology. In J. Ulmer, L. Parsons, M. Moseley, & J. Gabrieli (eds.), White matter in cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New  York Academic of Sciences, 1064, 162–​183. Fiske, H. (2004). Connectionist models of musical thinking, vol. 112. Lewiston, NY:  Edwin Mellen. Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Norton, A., & Schlaug, G. (2008). Practicing a musical instrument in childhood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning. PLoS ONE 3(10): e3566. doi:10.1371/​journal.pone.0003566. Gaser, C., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Gray matter differences between musicians and nonmusicians. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 514–​517. Gläscher, J., Rudrauf, D., Colom, R., Paul, L. K., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Adolphs, R. (2010). Distributed neural system for general intelligence revealed by lesion mapping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(10), 4705–​4709. Goldøy, R., & Leman, M. (2010). Musical gestures:  Sound, movement, and meaning. New York: Routledge. Gos, T., Bock, J., Poeggel, G., & Braun, A. (2008). Stress-​induced synaptic changes in the rat anterior cingulate cortex are dependent on endocrine developmental time window. Synapse, 62(3), 229–​232.

222

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

Gruhn, W. (2008). Who can speak can sing. Paper presented at the International ISME Research Seminar, Porto, Portugal (July 13–​18). Gruhn, W., Litt, F., Scherer, A., Schumacher, T., Weiß, E., & Gebhardt, C. (2006). Suppressing reflexive behaviour:  Saccadic eye movements in musicians and nonmusicians. Musicae Scientiae, 10(1), 19–​32. Gruhn, W., & Rauscher, F. (eds.) (2008). Neurosciences in music pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Gur, R., & Gur, R. (1994). Methods for the study of brain-​behavior relationships. In A. Frazer, P. Malinoff, & A. Winokur (eds.), Biological bases of brain function and disease (pp. 261–​280). New York: Raven Press. Haier, R., Jung, R., Yeo, R., Head, K., & Alkire, M. (2004). Structural brain variation and general intelligence. Neuroimage, 23(1), 425–​433. Hallett, M. (2000). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the human brain. Nature, 406, 147–​150. Herrmann, U. (ed.) (2006). Neurodidaktik. Grundlagen und Vorschläge für gehirngerechtes Lehren und Lernen. Weinheim: Beltz. Hodges, D., Hairston, W., & Burdette, J. (2005). Aspects of multisensory perception:  The integration of visual and auditory information in musical experiences. In G. Avanzini, L. Lopez, S. Koelsch, & M. Majno (eds.), The neurosciences and music II (pp. 175–​185). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060. Hund-​ Georgiadis, M., & von Cramon, D. (1999). Motor-​ learning-​ related changes in piano players and nonmusicians revealed by functional magnetic-​resonance signals. Experimental Brain Research, 125(4), 417–​425. Hutchinson, S., Lee, L., Gaab, N., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Cerebellar volume of musicians. Cerebral Cortex, 13(9), 943–​949. Hüther, G. (2006). Die Macht der inneren Bilder. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Huttenlocher, P. (1994). Synaptogenesis, synapse elimination, and neural plasticity in human cerebral cortex. In C. Nelson (ed.), Threats to optimal development. The Minnesota Symposia on child development (vol. 27, pp. 35–​54). Hillsdale NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A., & Schlaug, G. (2009). Musical training shapes structural brain development. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3019–​3025. Itoh, K., Suwazono, S., Arao, H., Miyazaki, K., & Nakada, T. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of absolute pitch and relative pitch. Cerebral Cortex, 15(6), 760–​769. Jäncke, L., Shah, N., & Peters, M. (2000). Cortical activations in primary and secondary motor areas for complex bimanual movements in professional pianists. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(3), 177–​183. Kim, D., Shin, M., Lee, K., Chu, K., Woo, S., Kim, Y., Song, E., Lee, J., Park, S., & Roh, J. (2004). Musical training-​induced functional reorganization of the adult brain: Functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation study on amateur string players. Human Brain Mapping, 23(4), 188–​199. Kristeva, R., Chakarova, V., Schulte-​Mönting, J., & Spreer, J. (2003). Activation of cortical areas in music execution and imagining: A high-​resolution EEG study. Neuroimage, 20(3), 1872–​1883. Kronland-​Martinet, R., Aramaki, M., & Ystad, S. (eds.). (2016). Music, mind, and embodiment. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Kuhl, P., & Rivera-​Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 511–​534.

Implications of Neurosciences and Brain Research

223

Kuhl, P., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12  months. Developmental Science, 9(2), F13–​F21. Langheim, F., Callicott, J., Mattay, V., Duyn, J., & Weinberger, D. (2002). Cortical systems associated with covert music rehearsal. Neuroimage, 16(4), 901–​908. Lappe, C., Herholz, S., Trainor, L., & Pantev, C. (2008). Cortical plasticity induced by short-​ term unimodal and multimodal musical training. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(39), 9362–​9639. Lee, D., Chen, Y., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Corpus callosum:  Musician and gender effects. NeuroReport, 14(2), 205–​209. Lindenberger, U., Li, S-​C., Gruber, W., & Muller, V. (2009). Brains swinging in concert:  Cortical phase synchronization while playing guitar. BMC Neuroscience, 10(22), doi:10.1186/​1471–​2202–​10–​22. Lo, Y., Fook-​Chong, S., Lau, D., & Tan, E. (2003). Cortical excitability changes associated with musical tasks: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 352(2), 85–​88. Meister, I., Krings, T., Foltys, H., Boroojerdi, B., Muller, M., Topper, R., et al. (2005). Effects of long-​term practice and task complexity in musicians and nonmusicians performing simple and complex motor tasks: Implications for cortical motor organization. Human Brain Mapping, 25(3), 345–​352. Menon, V.& Levitin, D. (2005). The rewards of music listening: Response and physiological connectivity of the mesolimbic system. NeuroImage, 28(1), 175–​184. Muller, D., Toni, N., & Buchs, P. A. (2000). Spine changes associated with long-​term potentiation. Hippocampus, 10(5), 506–​604. Münte, T., Altenmüller, E., & Jäncke, L. (2002). The musician’s brain as a model of neuroplasticity. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 473–​478. Neubauer, A. (2001). Elementar-​kognitive und physiologische Korrelate der Intelligenz. In J. Guthke (ed.), Perspektiven der Intelligenzforschung (pp. 43–​67). Lengerich: Pabst Science. Nielson, K., & Lorber, W. (2009). Enhanced post-​ learning memory consolidation is influenced by arousal predisposition and emotion regulation but not by stimulus valence or arousal. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92(1), 70–​79. Nirkko, A., Baader, A., Loevblad, K.-​O., Milani, P., & Wiesendanger, M. (2000). Cortical representation of music production in violin players:  Behavioral assessment and functional imaging of finger sequencing, bimanual coordination and music specific brain activation. Neuroimage, 11(5, Supplement 1), S106. Parsons, L., Sergent, J., Hodges, D., & Fox, P. (2005). The brain basis of piano performance. Neuropsychologia, 43, 199–​215. Pascual-​Leone, A., Nguyet, D., Cohen, L. G., Brasil-​Neto, J. P., Cammarota, A., & Hallett, M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74(3), 1037–​1045. Patel, A. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. New York: Oxford University Press. Patoine, B. (2005). Peering into the brain: New frontiers in neural imaging. BrainWork: The Neuroscience Newsletter, 15(4). Washington, DC: Dana Press. Pfordresher, P., & Brown, S. (2008). Poor-​pitch singing in the absence of “tone deafness.” Music Perception, 25(2), 95–​115. Pfordresher, P., Halpern, A., & Greenspon, E. (2015). A mechanism for sensorimotor translation in singing: The multi-​modal imagery association (MMIA) model. Music Perception, 32(3), 242–​253.

224

Donald A. Hodges and Wilfried Gruhn

Phillips-​Silver, J., & Trainor, L. (2007). Hearing what the body feels: Auditory encoding of rhythmic movement. Cognition, 105(3), 533–​546. Plomin, R. (2004). Genetics and developmental psychology. Merrill-​Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 341–​352. Preiss, G. (ed.). (1998). Neurodidaktik. Theoretische und praktische Beiträge. Herbolzheim: Centaurus. Raichle, M. (2000). A brief history of human functional brain mapping. In A. Toga & J. Mazziotta (eds.), Brain mapping: The systems (pp. 33–​75). San Diego: Academic Press. Satoh, M., Takeda, K., Murakami, Y., Onouchi, K., Inoue, K., & Kuzuhara, S. (2005). A case of amusia caused by the infarction of anterior portion of bilateral temporal lobes. Cortex, 41(1), 77–​83. Schlaug, G., Forgeard, M., Zhu, L., Norton, A., Norton, A., & Winner, E. (2009). Training-​ induced neuroplasticity in young children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 205–​208. Schmithorst, V., & Wilke, M. (2002). Differences in white matter architecture between musicians and nonmusicians:  A diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuroscience Letters, 321(1–​2), 57–​60. Schulz, M., Ross, B., & Pantev, C. (2003). Evidence for training-​induced crossmodal reorganization of cortical functions in trumpet players. NeuroReport, 14(1), 157–​161. Sebastián-​Gallés, N. (2006). Native-​language sensitivities: Evolution in the first year of life. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6), 239–​241. Sergeant, D. (1969). Experimental investigation of absolute pitch. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17, 135–​143. Spitzer, M. (2008). Selbstbestimmen:  Gehirnforschung und die Frage:  Was sollen wir tun? Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Steele, C., Bailey, J., Zatorre, R., & Penhune, V. (2013). Early musical training and white-​ matter plasticity in the corpus callosum:  Evidence for a sensitive period. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(3), 1282–​1290. Stern, E. (2005). Pedagogy meets neuroscience. Science, 310(5749), 745. Stern, E., Grabner, R., & Schumacher, R. (2005). Lehr-​Lern-​Forschung und Neurowissenschafte n: Erwartungen, Befunde und Forschungsperspektiven (Vol. 13). Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Stern, E., & Herrmann, U. (2009). Frischer Wind im Klassenzimmer. Gehirn und Geist, 2009(6), 60–​65. Thompson, L., & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K. Heller, F. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 157–​164). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wilkins, R., Hodges, D., Laurienti, P., Steen, M., & Burdette, J. (2014). Network science and the effects of music preference on functional brain connectivity: From Beethoven to Eminem. Nature Scientific Reports, 4, 6130. doi: 10.1038/​srep06130. Wolpert, D. (2011). The real reason for brains. TED Talk: TEDglobal. https://​www.ted.com/​ talks/​daniel_​wolpert_​the_​real_​reason_​for_​brains?language=en Wu, C., Kirk, I., Hamm, J., & Lim, V. (2008). The neural networks involved in pitch labelling of absolute pitch musicians. Neuroreport, 19(8), 851–​854. Zull, J. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Part 2

CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE ACTION Part Editor GARY E. MCPHERSON AND GRAHAM F. WELCH

Chapter 12

COMMENTARY: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE ACTION Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch

The critical reflections in the second half of this volume comprise 25 commentaries from established scholars and music educators who were invited to provide a personal, critical insight on a topic or issue that they cared deeply about and believed deserved to be aired within an international setting. The selection of authors for this part of the volume was the personal choice of the two chief editors, so we would not suggest that the list represents all facets or views within the profession more generally. Rather, we based our selection on recommendations from other part editors and authors whom we believed had something of significance to say to the profession, and whose experience positioned them to make critical reflections that would help summarize where music education is up to at the time of publishing this volume. We wanted this last part of the first volume to address additional issues that would not be covered elsewhere within the five volumes. Most important, we wanted each author to “speak from the heart.” In so doing, we encouraged authors to tackle an issue, aspect, or dimension of music education that each believed needed to be stated for an international audience, within the parameters of the Oxford Handbook of Music Education’s mission, which is to provide a resource that will help update and redefine music education, broadly conceived. The 25 contributions are listed alphabetically by author name, and the emergent themes provide insights for all music educators to consider and a framework for future action within the profession. Although there are many ways that the content of

228

Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch

this part of the volume could be organized, our reading suggests that each chapter relates to how the discipline of music education can achieve even greater political, theoretical, and professional strength. The contributions of Harold F. Abeles (­chapter 13), Paul Woodford (­chapter 37), and Robert A.  Cutietta (­chapter  17) reinforce the imperatives of working toward greater political strength. Learning how to speak to others outside the profession in ways that they will understand is key to elevating the status of music in schools and communities. These three commentaries are each based on a broad acceptance of the importance of music learning in all people’s lives and throughout the life span. But as Abeles suggests, there is an imperative to vote with our feet and exert pressure on policymakers because the greater the number of appropriately knowledgeable music educators there are in schools, the more likely that music education will be able to benefit children. Beyond the rhetoric of the eloquent statements we see in curriculum documents about the importance of music (and the arts) in children’s education is the current reality that much of what is written in policy statements is often not evident in actual practice. In this regard, Woodford reminds us that much philosophy and scholarly work has been shaped by politics and past and current social realities, with the consequence that it may carry meanings that were unintended or under-​appreciated. Turning our attention to the profession and its problems, according to Woodford, will help “shake the still strongly held conviction among some academics and many practicing teachers that music is ‘just music.’ ” Despite the enormous advances and expansion of music in schools over the past 50 or more years, Cutietta reminds us that “we still know little about what learning music does for the individual or society.” He recommends that we step back and examine what music education as a discipline has achieved over the past century so that we can understand more clearly the path ahead and the challenges that have and will continue to be faced by our profession. For Cutietta, understanding what did and did not work, what limitations stifled our work, and what potentials were realized or alternatively missed is an important means for helping understand where we are now, and our attempts to define what we wish to become in the future. Leading on from these discussions is Sarah Hennessy’s commentary (­chapter  20) about the state of music education in the mandated primary/​elementary years of schooling. For Hennessy, too much energy has been devoted to justifying what we do and wrestling with the issues of who is best placed to teach music in primary schools. According to Hennessy, we need to be careful that our advocacy efforts do not deflect our attention from learning even more about what and how children learn, and how those who teach music can develop better practices. One of Hennessy’s key points is that in an environment of economic downturn and serious questioning more generally about the role and purpose of education, there is the need for music educators to find time to focus in more sustained ways on developing understandings of which particular pedagogies are most effective for various aspects of music education, and what exactly we mean by musical development.

Commentary: Critical Reflections and Future Action

229

The key message in the commentaries of Wilfried Gruhn (­ chapter  19), Christopher M.  Johnson (­chapter  22), Clifford K.  Madsen (­chapter  27), Wendy L. Simms (­chapter 33), Peter R. Webster (­chapter 36), and Bengt Olsson (­chapter 31) is the need to achieve even greater theoretical strength through resolution of the parameters on which we base our teaching. For each of these authors, evidence-​ based practice is of fundamental importance, in that music educators at all levels and the profession more generally would benefit from greater attempts to keep up to date with evidence that has emerged and continues to emerge about good teaching practice and the means through which musical ability, development, and identity are shaped as a result of exposure to music in formal and informal settings. A number of key points are articulated by Gruhn, who questions whether around the world, we all use and understand the term music education in the same way, or whether our different cultural and school systems have resulted in multiple understandings at an international level. The natural tendency to work from personal experiences, subjective beliefs, and traditional ideologies has, Gruhn states, resulted in a carnival of entertaining elements that are arranged within a commercialized educational puzzle. The downside is that evidence-​based practice often suffers. According to Gruhn, evidence-​based practice is fundamental if music education is to create new pathways for ensuring improvements in the way music is taught and delivered to learners. Transferring research findings into application is of critical importance at all levels of teacher education and professional practice. This is a theme amplified by Andrew J. Martin (­chapter 28), who shows that there are numerous potential yields and insights that can be drawn from a range of research that is currently being undertaken globally both within and outside music education. Martin’s influential research is creating new understandings more generally in the field of educational psychology that will impact on future evidence-​based approaches in music education and more generally across the arts. Olsson reminds us, however, that the researcher’s focus on well-​defined projects can often seem too limited for the holistic approach of a practitioner. His commentary stresses the need for new research-​based approaches and new teacher-​student roles. Bennett Reimer (­chapter 32) articulates another caveat when he reminds us that the inevitable gap between theory and direct application is still present not only in music education, but in other teaching disciplines as well. Reimer cautions that “reformers often feel that changing the status quo in our field is so unlikely that we simply must disabuse ourselves of that prospect, letting theory go its way, existing practice its way, and settling for the reality that the twain will not meet or will meet only meagerly.” Reimer even goes so far as to predict that “music education as we know it might well become so irrelevant as to lead to its disappearance.” In expressing this view, he quite justly shows that these points are “at the heart of the future of the profession to which we are all devoted.” At another level, David J. Teachout (­chapter 34) discusses the “ecosystem” within music education that defines teacher education and reminds us of our obligation to give music education students the tools needed for them to supersede current

230

Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch

practices. This is important because he argues that music education is encased in a “closed-​loop” system; we tend to teach how we were taught, and opportunities for transformative change occur rarely within teacher education programs. Finding ways of breaking this cycle is a key to developing more effective music educators who will be able to question past practices and be in tune with current and future realities. Rena B. Upitis (­chapter 35) reminds us also that we are surrounded by change and that our planet is undergoing human-​induced changes at an unprecedented rate. In such an environment the learning that can occur through music and more generally through the arts “can help us find new ways of being, and new levels of mindfulness,” for when we “give students time to play and learn from one another, in both formal and informal ways, and time to create, to perform, to argue, to wonder, to appreciate—​then we also given them ways to question the ubiquitous and to become aware of the impact of their daily choices.” Based on all of the above, there is a need to develop a mindset “that attends to and promotes our commitments” to what Liora Bresler (­chapter 15) refers to as the entrepreneurial characteristics of university faculty and musicians that can help us advance our mission of research, teaching and service. In a commentary based on a similar perspective, Richard Colwell (­chapter 16) stresses the significance of pride, which he believes will be achieved professionally when we become “involved independently and with others in challenging and scholarly work that enhances teaching and learning of quality music.” For Colwell, the notion of music education as a specialized craft rather than a profession is a means of focusing our thinking on the ‘big picture,” and the need for more self-​criticism and professional augmentation. Based on Sternberg’s definition of “wisdom,” Colwell proposes that augmentation of this type is based on thinking reflectively, thinking dialogically, and thinking dialectically. “Reflective thinking is thinking limited to awareness of one’s own thoughts and beliefs, an opportunity to establish one’s own values. To take into account different frames of reference, various perspectives, multiple points of view, one needs dialogical thinking. The ability to integrate different points of view is dialectical thinking. Elevating the conversation between colleagues, between teacher and student, and between parent and others who believe music education is valuable, even essential, seems necessary for one to be proud of music education.” Liane Hentschke (­chapter  21) outlines developments over the past decade in the International Society for Music Education that have defined the need for a more systematic understanding of what is happening in music education globally. She stresses that establishing a system for collecting and collating information globally would help provide theoretical strength for the profession by enabling us to understand more precisely which organizations serve music education practice and research in each region and how they can be connected (or at least made aware of each other’s work), plus how these connections can be formalized in ways that would allow for more concerted efforts to influence policy-​makers in terms of advocacy, music education practice, policies for music education, and sources of funding (both private and governmental). This view runs parallel to the commentary by Estelle

Commentary: Critical Reflections and Future Action

231

R. Jorgensen (­chapter 23), who outlines the benefits from establishing a global community of scholarship and practice for such communities that could “provide the public spaces in which collective and individual thought and action” might “transpire and where ideas and practices forwarded by members are discussed, criticized, debated, evaluated, and contested.” Such dialogues, according to Jorgensen, would foster imaginative thinking, shared beliefs, and values in ways that would otherwise be impossible, so that commitments, and collective action, could be more successfully achieved. Adding to these thoughts and ideas, Andreas C. Lehmann (­chapter 24) provides some caveats about the difficulties for colleagues from non-​English-​speaking countries, who often feel marginalized within our music education communities. His call to action, however, encourages practitioners to take advantage of the increasing number of international conferences that are available in music education, and especially those in the various countries that are often poorly attended by music educators within the home country. For Lehmann, the key ingredients of effective music education are curiosity, determination, good examples, and lots of practice; aspects that can all be tapped into and enhanced by attending national and international meetings of music educators. Finally, the achievement of professional strength depends on greater acceptance of the impact of informal learning processes and acknowledging and celebrating the accomplishments of students whose music learning is far greater than what they learn in formal classrooms. Nick Beach (­chapter  14) and Bradley Merrick (­chapter 30) show how the world is changing due to new emerging technologies, through the use of web-​based links, videos, and interactive learning devices. Beach suggests that instrumental teaching might look very different if the dynamics of instrumental and vocal teaching were changed so that teachers worked as resources who facilitated self-​directed learners. To achieve this implies questioning the traditional weekly instrumental lesson, allowing students opportunities to follow their own aspirations and interests rather than following traditional linear and sequential curricula, recognizing that teachers are only one source of guidance, advice, and information, and embracing opportunities that are now available via the web to rethink and update students with a broader array of challenges that can feed their learning. Richard Letts (­chapter 25) questions whether music education, in its attempts to focus on sequential, continuous development, has neglected the very essence of why humans enjoy music and the very basis for musical experience—​that is, the emotional aspects of music. The same themes are detailed by Lucy Green (­chapter 18), who distinguishes between an education-​in-​music (transmission of musical skills, understandings, and competencies in a variety of formal and informal contexts) and music-​education-​ research (involving not only transmission but also the production of knowledge and skills, but with an emphasis on the practice of music education rather than music). According to Green, somewhere in the middle is music-​teacher-​education, which she defines as the “the practice of educating a person in a way designed to help them become an increasingly skilled and knowledgeable teacher or lecturer in

232

Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch

music, including the continuing education of teachers or lecturers while they are in service.” This is a theme that is taken up from an ethnomusicological perspective by Håkan Lundström (­chapter 26), whose commentary recognizes how much music learning takes place outside normal school classrooms and especially in informal contexts. Key challenges for music education, according to Lundström, include the need to understand the position of music education within the whole spectrum of music learning, the need for music education to regard itself as complementary to other ways of learning rather than as a different species, and the need for music educators to develop methodologies that tie different ways of learning together on a meta level, rather than connecting them to specific musical genres. Green and Katrina McFerran (­chapter 29) both encourage us to expand on the importance of moving away from conceptions of music education that include the so-​called mandated years, when all children are exposed to a general music education, followed by the elective years, involving the more specialized transmission of knowledge and skills through access to instruments, bands, orchestras, choirs, and programs in composition, improvisation, and specialist musicianship. Current systems of music education tend to restrict access for many potential learners, and so it is important to work toward a more inclusive view of music education that “opens up” opportunities for learners. Suggested ways of expanding current conceptions include embracing broader musical styles, working collaboratively with community music programs, and utilizing online sites and other virtual or grounded networks that can attract larger numbers of young learners—​including those with special needs—​who could take advantage of these opportunities as part of their education. With her eye on future practice, McFerran looks forward to even greater collaborative approaches where music therapists, music educators, and other professionals will share their knowledge through various consultative processes. It is self-​evident that a commentary such as this one can only skim the surface of the 25 reflective insights on aspects or issues of critical importance to the profession that comprise this final part of the first volume. We therefore encourage music educators to read each commentary individually, and we hope that the overall framework we have provided here to explain how each relates to the wider issue of achieving political, theoretical, and professional strength for the profession will help them frame and then apply the concepts and ideas contained in each of these important contributions.

Chapter 13

POLITICS, POLICY, AND MUSIC EDUCATION Harold F. Abeles

In general educational contexts, democracy is often used to describe students’ role in shaping curriculum. In music education this role is likely to extend to students’ influence in the selection of repertory as well as shaping curriculum (DeLorenzo, 2003; Dewey, 1938). In a broader sense, however—​through the act of voting—​ individuals in a democracy have the opportunity to help shape society. In this chapter, I suggest that for music educators, a fundamental way to engage democracy is by voting in elections. I conclude that music educators should vote for our own professional interest at the local and/​or national level—​for candidates who support music and music education. Because teaching music is such a demanding profession, many music educators feel that they must spend a majority of their professional time focusing on the immediate context of the classroom or rehearsal hall in which they work five-​plus days a week. They might reasonably argue that is where the action is. The classroom or rehearsal room is where music takes place, where children broaden their understandings of music, and where the joy of making music is evident. But our ability to undertake the essential music teaching and learning that takes place in our schools depends on the value that our fellow citizens hold for what we do. In the United States, citizens’ values in education may be realized when they vote on local taxes to support local schools. In some countries, the educational values of citizens may be evident in the curriculum documents produced by the central government. These documents describe what disciplines—​including music—​future generations of Nigerians, Taiwanese, Germans, or Americans should know, understand, or have competencies in. And although the United States does not at this moment have a national curriculum, there has been increasing momentum toward

234

Harold F. Abeles

this end, as evidenced by the national standards movement and federal policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act. These federal initiatives are leading schools in the United States toward common educational experiences that seemingly reflect the “country’s values” rather than local community values. In culturally heterogeneous democracies, like the United States, a consensus on what future generations should know and be able to do as a result of schooling is likely to be difficult to reach. In totalitarian regimes, such as the Soviet Union in the early twentieth century, a monistic educational policy existed. In such totalitarian regimes there is a close relationship between the goals of the state and the purposes of education. During the initial period of communism in the Soviet Union, the state had three goals for education: developing literacy, developing an allegiance to socially productive labor, and undermining the values, traditions, and way of life of czarist Russia. In such regimes there is one school curriculum designed to ensure that education serves the state. Schwadron (1967) reported that during this period, Soviet music teachers were expected to exclude Russian music from certain periods that were viewed as politically unacceptable. While in the early twentieth century the government of the Soviet Union wielded almost total control of the curriculum for political purposes, the relationship between politics, policy, and education is also evident in democracies, particularly when a society’s values are challenged. Economic challenges frequently prompt discussions about education. When there are imbalances between imports and exports, high unemployment, and declining industrial productivity, discussions often follow about the preparation of a country’s workforce. In the early 1980s the federal government perceived that the United States’ educational system was failing to meet the national need for a competitive workforce. As a consequence, President Ronald Reagan appointed the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which in April 1983 produced the report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The report linked aspects of the U.S. educational system, such as an increase in the number of electives (e.g. culinary and driver’s education) at the secondary level to poor performances by U.S. students. The report also identified the subjects that the report’s writers considered most important to the proper development of students—​English, mathematics, science, social studies, and computer science—​and titled them the “five new basics.” The report paid little attention to the arts, as the commission did not see the arts as part of the solution to the primarily economic challenges identified (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). As a consequence of A Nation at Risk, there was increased focus in the United States on developing measurable standards and on standardized testing, particularly in the subject areas that were emphasized by the report. The Music Educators National Conference urged school districts to develop comprehensive school music programs and emphasized the guidelines developed by the College Board (1983), which included the arts as part of the expectations for prospective college students. With a perceived close link between education and countries’ economies, politics affect educational policies in many democracies. In England, from the late 1990s

Politics, Policy, and Music Education

235

and into the twenty-​first century, the Conservative and the Labour Parties have held different perspectives on several educational issues, including the role of mastery testing, the definition of quality teachers, the best ways to develop strong schools in underresourced urban areas, and even arts education. For example, in 2010 the Labour Party policy on culture, media and sports specifically addresses arts education: “Labour is committed to ensuring that every child has access to five hours of arts, music and culture every week” (Labour Party, 2010, para. 2). The Conservative Party’s culture, media, and sports policy statement, on the other hand, does not address education in the arts at all (Conservative Party, 2010). These illustrations show that events, often not controlled by governments, can serve as catalysts for changes in government policies on education and music education. Therefore, when music educators have the opportunity to vote for either local or national politicians who may be in a position to make policy decisions that affect music education, music educators should make informed choices. In democracies, it is common during elections for politicians to make statements or issue policy statements on various issues they view as important to the electorate. There are many elections when the arts or arts education receive little attention or political commentary. In the United States in 2008, presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign did not issue any position statement on arts education, while candidate Barack Obama’s campaign did. Obama’s arts platform included the following statements: In addition to giving our children the science and math skills they need to compete in the new global context, we should also encourage the ability to think creatively that comes from a meaningful arts education. Barack Obama believes that the arts should be a central part of effective teaching and learning. Barack Obama will increase resources for the U.S. Department of Education’s Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination Grants, which develop public/​private partnerships between schools and arts organizations. As president, Barack Obama will use the bully pulpit and the example he will set in the White House to promote the importance of arts and arts education in America. (Obama/​Biden Campaign, 2008)

While music educators should not necessarily be one-​dimensional in their decisions about voting, for many reasons, including Barack Obama’s position statement on the arts and arts education, I voted for him and urged others to vote for him. Of course, statements made during political campaigns cannot always be realized. Regardless of Mr. Obama’s expressed value for music education, music education is less secure in U.S. schools than it was before the 2008 U.S. election, because of the economic challenges that confronted many countries soon after that election. Yet some actions taken by the Obama administration have had a positive effect on keeping music in schools. Apuzzo (2009) reports that public school teachers seem to have benefited most from the economic recovery package put forth by the administration. Specifically, in the state of California, the stimulus is reported to have

236

Harold F. Abeles

saved or created 62,000 jobs in public schools or state universities. I suspect that many of those saved jobs were arts teacher positions. It seems logical that the more music educators there are in public schools, the more music education is likely to benefit children attending them. It is also likely that students who participate in significant music education experiences will likely come to hold music in higher value, as will their parents. Would a President McCain have taken the same action with regard to the economic recovery package? Would he have appointed a secretary of education who would have consistently voiced support for the arts in schools? I continue to feel that I made the right professional decision in November 2008 when I voted for Mr. Obama. In future elections music educators should consider their professional interests and the potential future state of music education before casting their ballots.

REFERENCES Apuzzo, M. (2009). Teachers benefit from job saving stimulus spending. http://​www.boston. com/​news/​education/​k_​12/​articles/​2009/​10/​13/​teachers_​benefit_​from_​job_​saving_​stimulus_​spending/​ [accessed April 10, 2010]. College Board. (1983). Academic preparation for college: What students need to know and be able to do. New York: College Board. Conservative Party. (2010). Culture, media and sport. http://​www.conservatives.com/​Policy/​ Where_​we_​stand/​Culture_​Media_​and_​Sport.aspx [accessed April 20, 2010]. DeLorenzo, L. (2003). Teaching music as democratic practice. Music Educators Journal, 90(2), 35–​40. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone. Labour Party. (2010). Culture, heritage and the arts. http://​www.labour.org.uk/​policies/​ culture-​and-​arts [accessed April 20, 2010]. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. http://​www2.ed.gov/​pubs/​NatAtRisk/​index.html [accessed April 4, 2010]. Obama/​Biden Campaign (2008). Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Champions for arts and culture. http://​www.barackobama.com/​pdf/​issues/​additional/​Obama_​FactSheet_​Arts.pdf [accessed August 15, 2008]. Schwadron, A. A. (1967). Music in Soviet education. Music Educators Journal, 53(8), 86–​93.

Chapter 14

INSTRUMENTAL TEACHERS AND THEIR STUDENTS: WHO’S IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT? Nick Beach

Recently I had a rather agitated phone call from the teenage daughter of a friend. “Help!” she said. “My friend and I  are doing a number from ‘Camp Rock’ in a concert next week and I’m struggling with the piano part. I’ve started to learn it from a tutorial on YouTube but the tutorial runs out in the middle and some of the music is missing. I’ve worked out the verse and chorus but there is another bit I really can’t get.” It turned out that Sarah doesn’t have piano lessons but had been making music with her friend in the evenings, working out how to play a few songs they liked. I asked her to send me the web link and said I would get back to her. The tutorial, recorded by another teenager, consisted of an aerial view of the keyboard with detailed step-​by-​step advice and a demonstration of how to play each chord. Unfortunately the clip stopped before the chords for the middle eight were demonstrated, which left her high and dry. She was also using a karaoke clip of the same song that was complete, but didn’t fully match the tutorial. Naturally, I helped her sort out the missing music, and they went on to give their performance the following week. Sarah’s learning experience is not the image that often comes to mind when we think of learning an instrument. When we use the terms “instrumental music teaching” or “learning an instrument,” it still creates, for many, a picture of an individual pupil, or a small group of pupils, learning in an environment that is

238Nick Beach controlled and directed by someone we call a “teacher.” There is a huge variety of practice in this area, of course: from those who teach individuals through to those working with larger groups and from teachers who have a primary focus on technical development to those who encourage a broader understanding of what it is to be musical. All of these have their place and are responsible for enriching the lives of countless children and enhancing musical culture through the development of countless gifted performers. Sarah’s instrumental learning experience, and that of increasing numbers of young people like her, doesn’t fit these models. She is clearly learning an instrument, but her learning is not directed by a teacher (if by teacher we mean an adult in charge). This might lead us to place her music-​making in a different box and give it a different label, suggesting that it is somehow separate from the sort of instrumental learning we support as instrumental teachers. We might consider the gaps in her learning and how we might be able to fill these: if she had a better understanding of form she would know that the missing section was a middle eight, and if she had better aural skills she would be able to transcribe the missing chords for herself. We might even say that learning in these areas is essential to support her development as an independent musician. But actually Sarah is in charge of this learning process, not us, so perhaps we need to find ways of respecting and supporting that ownership rather than imposing our own. Teachers of musical instruments have historically taken a “jam tomorrow” approach to learning an instrument. We talk of “developing a secure technical foundation” and “not getting into bad habits”; we worry about not playing particular pieces until children are “ready” and take a linear approach where each stage of technical development must be perfected before the next can be tackled. Thus children are taken on a journey of development on the basis that one day this will all prove to be worthwhile and the world of music-​making will be opened up to them. But children live in the present and want those musical rewards now. Getting all that technique drilled in is a tough slog, and many don’t stay the course. As a school principal summarized his experience of instrumental teaching to me: “Ten pupils learning instruments at the start of the year, two by the end—​what’s the point of that?” This is an extreme case, but overall dropout rates for instrumental lessons are extremely high, especially when we consider how keen children and young people are to make music. According to a Youth Music survey in the United Kingdom, 91% of children and young people aged 7–​19 like listening to music, 48% of children and young people aged 7–​19 believe they are musical, and 39% of the 7–​19 age group engage in musical activity.1 There is no shortage of enthusiasm among children and young people for getting involved with music. A feature of Sarah’s learning is that she doesn’t have long-​term goals in mind—​ she is only focused on the forthcoming concert and is intent on gathering around her the resources she needs to succeed in that context. Many of those resources are available to her on the internet, and when she can’t find what she needs there she considers the skills of the people she knows and decides who would be the

Instrumental Teachers and Their Students

239

most appropriate to ask. My role in this was to transcribe the chords from the middle eight of the song and to pass these to her in a way that made sense. She is learning how song structures and forms work and how this relates to harmony. The key difference in her learning, however, is that it is not planned in a teacher’s mind, but rather it grows according to her needs and aspirations. This is “just in time” learning and in many ways is diametrically opposed to traditional views of development on a musical instrument. Sarah has not seen the need for scales and exercises, notation and sight-​reading, or the other things that traditionally go along with learning an instrument—​she has merely pulled together enough skills to achieve her musical goals, and achieve them well. But in spite of her success do we, as instrumental teachers, still struggle to suppress something of a Peter and the Wolf Grandfather comment which wants to say “Aha, but what if she wants to go on to learn more difficult things, what if she wants to ‘take it more seriously’—​ what then?” The answer is simple of course: she will set off on another learning journey and draw together a new set of resources to help herself overcome the obstacles in her path. So what are the implications here for us as music teachers? Sarah’s example is not an isolated case—​it is increasingly the way children and young people engage with music-​making, but such learners may find that traditional approaches to instrumental teaching do not meet their needs. At the same time if we merely respond to requests for help and take no responsibility for wider musical learning there is a danger that young people won’t discover the world of experiences open to them through music. They can only request help for the things that they have an awareness of—​we need to find ways to introduce them to new genres, styles, concepts, and ideas that they are not yet aware of so that the requests they make become broader, drawing on these new experiences and understandings. Perhaps the image of a map might be useful here: our responsibility as teachers is to help Sarah build her knowledge of what is on the map, while the route she chooses remains her own. Instrumental learning might look very different if instrumental teachers were to regard themselves as resource for self-​directed learners of instruments. Such a model might suggest:

• Considering how we might provide more “on demand” services for learners of instruments—​this might include revisiting the idea that the traditional weekly lesson is the only model of instrumental learning • Moving away from a linear and sequential understanding of learning on a musical instrument toward one that permits students to follow their current aspirations and enthusiasms and to develop new ones • Recognizing that, as instrumental teachers, we are only one of a range of sources of guidance, advice, information, and inspiration for aspiring musicians. • Embracing the opportunity presented by web-​based learning and provide better means of children supporting their learning in this way

240Nick Beach But paramount is a the need to put the child or young person’s views, opinions, and preferences at the heart of what we do, harnessing the enthusiasm that almost all children have for their music and supporting them on their own musical journeys, rather than the one we set out for them.

NOTE 1. Youth Music Research: http://​www.youthmusic.org.uk/​news/​youth_​music_​announces_​ 2006_​omnibus_​survey_​findings.html

Chapter 15

UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT Liora Bresler

The concept of entrepreneurship has long been associated with business and finance (e.g., Schumpeter, 1911/​1936; Drucker, 1985). In the past few years, that concept has been broadened to the social (Bornstein, 2004); the intellectual (Cherwitz, 2000); and the educational (Hess, 2006). The boundaries between the social, academic, educational, and economic are not always tidy. Maria Montessori’s pedagogical system, while grounded in education, developed into marketable schools. Muhammad Yunus’s microfinancing project, Grameen Bank, revolves around the economic, but is clearly social, and deeply educational in its mission and scope. What are some of the characteristics that are common to entrepreneurial projects across domains? Can they apply to academic life?

Academic Context: Realities, Pressures, and Possibilities The university as we know it is changing. With shrinking state budgets and uncertain returns on endowments, the ever-​present expectations of faculty to contribute

242

Liora Bresler

to the economics of the university is intensified. In addition to increasing research funding, the university is looking for revenue-​producing course offerings and degree programs. In fact, the term “entrepreneurial university” is often used for institutions of higher education that create lucrative programs (e.g., Clark, 1998; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). The processes of commercializing the university and the related expectations of faculty are perceived by academics with apprehension. Mary Burgan (2006), former general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, regards the steady acceptance of the market model of competition applied to American education as a “colossal blunder that threatens its very identity” (p. xxi). Education, she writes, is one of our most precious services to one another. “Under market pressures, colleges and universities are in danger of losing their ability to provide human answers to the very human problems that are evolving in this 21st century.” Burgan’s concerns are shared by many, myself included. Given these economic contexts of academic life, it is important that we, academics, reconsider our roles to respond to those pressures with agendas that reflect our personal commitments and raison d’être, broader and deeper than the financial, more meaningful than sheer numbers. In this commentary, I  discuss academic entrepreneurship as a mindset that attends to and promotes our commitments. I identify entrepreneurial characteristics that are related to habits of mind and enculturation of university faculty, as well as to those of musicians. Other characteristics, while not part of the academic traditions, can contribute powerfully to the academic mission of research, teaching, and service. The context of academia offers a unique environment for entrepreneurship, where the university’s ethos of success (like business) is juxtaposed with the institution of tenure (unlike business). In an “all or nothing” system, failing tenure means the loss of job. Consequently, job security looms centrally for junior faculty in their formative stage. Concerns with job security can lead to a risk-​averse culture that deters from creativity and innovation. Once tenure is achieved, there is tremendous space for exploration, and experimentation, through the institutional structures of sabbaticals, and by allowing changes in research direction. It can also be the end of the self-​development cycle. In a culture that works on extrinsic motivation for education (e.g., Pink, 2009), when the carrot (i.e., job security) is no longer relevant, there is no incentive for continuing development (perceived as “work”).

Entrepreneurship Across Domains: Animation, Experiential Learning, and Border Crossing A core aspect of all areas of entrepreneurship, including academic entrepreneurship (AE) involves a vision that goes beyond conventional knowledge and practices. To

University Professors and the Entrepreneurial Spirit

243

carry that vision to fruition requires an ability to animate a project (Bresler, 2009). Animation (Miller & Boud, 1996, p. 7), draws on such connotations as “to give life to,” “to activate,” and “to inspire.” Miller and Boud regard the function of animators to be that of acting with others in situations where learning is an aspect of what is occurring. Animation, I believe, is crucial to our practice as performing musicians. It is also key to researchers sharing our ideas and findings, and for editors of seminal handbooks, from Colwell’s pioneering Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (1992) to the present volume, involving the creative act of identifying issues central to the field, and engaging a group of animated scholars to address these issues. Animators recruit others to collaborate on a project that is bigger than what one person can achieve alone. In my own study of academic entrepreneurs (Bresler, 2009) I found that animators cultivate their collaborators’ ownership of the project. They typically acknowledge others generously, maintaining a sense of humility regarding their own role in the project. Animation also involves the creation of persuasive conditions that help members of a field accept this work. Animation is essential for entrepreneurs. Behind any endeavor, but particularly one that is innovative and cutting edge, there exists the need to work with others to inspire, negotiate, and lead in making things happen. One of the things that entrepreneurs in economic, social, and intellectual domains must do is to develop the projects, to make sure that the “product” interacts with others’ experiences to bring about change. This is different from the traditional roles of university faculty. University professors are expected to publish papers but are not responsible for their impact. They are expected to teach, but the onus of learning is on students. AEs in my research (Bresler, 2009)  embody the commitment to usefulness and impact in their scholarship, teaching, and service, often juxtaposed as part of the same endeavor. Entrepreneurial processes require ongoing learning, as long as the project is in process. It is never on “automatic pilot.” Much of this learning is experiential, part of the activity. In contrast to academic learning, which is often presented as utterly theoretical, entrepreneurs learn experientially and through their work with others. While animation and working with others are crucial to entrepreneurs, academics exclusively focusing on text-​based materials are loners. These two modes of interaction correspond to the distinction between a two-​pronged (I-​Thou) interaction with the material academic mode versus a three-​pronged (I-​Thou-​Audience, including others in the dialogue) entrepreneurial mode, a distinction on which I elaborate elsewhere (Bresler, 2005). Initially highlighted by Dewey (1938), experiential learning theory is based on active, personal, and direct experiences, in contrast to reading about things (Kolb, 1984). The literature on experiential learning has focused on articulating the process of moving dialectically between the modes of action and reflection (Schon, 1983). This interplay of doing and thinking allows educators, business people, scientists, and artists, among others, to interpret the outcomes of their decisions and actions and to make changes.

244

Liora Bresler

A key part of experiential learning is learning from failure. The understanding of failure as contributing to learning is increasingly recognized in the scholarly literature in various intellectual disciplines, from engineering and sciences to design (e.g., Petroski, 1992; Politis & Gabrielsson, 2007; Thornhill & Amit, 2003). As part of experiential learning, the act of failing can be confronted, studied, and dealt with in a systematic and productive way (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005). Indeed, mistakes and failures are an ongoing part of academia, for example in grant proposals, and in submitting works for publications. While scientists acknowledge that failure is an integral part of experiments and learning, key to the process of conjectures and refutations (e.g., Popper, 1963/​2004), this productive understanding of failure is typically not acknowledged in education. The ability to sustain failure is generated and fueled by passion for something bigger than oneself. The passion that characterizes entrepreneurs (e.g., Bornstein, 2004)  also drives many academics (Neumann, 2009). Contributing to academic passion is a sense of ownership, a major part of academia, where we typically construct our programs and identify with them. The quest for a real impact can shape the types and diversity of communities in which entrepreneurs work. Academics often stay within their own narrow boundaries of like-​minded experts. In contrast, entrepreneurs’ development of their projects to impact others’ experience typically involves the crossing of disciplinary and organizational boundaries. An example of AE in arts education is Elliot Eisner, whose scholarship has reconceptualized research beyond numbers and words to include the visual, the “enlightened eye” (1991). Once this vision was articulated in scholarly works, it took Eisner’s organizational leadership and political role as president of the American Educational Research Association, his abilities to team-​lead and animate, to transform others’ notions of the contents and formats of educational research. In the field of music education, we note the range of entrepreneurs who created new methods and pedagogies, expanding the notion of what music education can be—​such people as Emile Jaques-​Dalcroze, Ed Gordon, Zoltan Kodaly, Carl Orff, and Shinichi Suzuki. Each of these innovators had a unique educational vision, and creatively explored and created opportunities to build a product or program that interacted with others’ experiences.

Coda Entrepreneurs identify a need, conceive of a solution, and carry a project to fruition. So can we. Our arena is the university, but it could well expand beyond. Our tools are research, teaching, and service. Our success will be measured by how we affect others’ growth, intellectually, socially, and educationally. Palmer’s (1998) claim that “we teach who we are” makes a case that teachers’ inner landscapes are central to what they do. While this is often true for musicians

University Professors and the Entrepreneurial Spirit

245

and researchers (Bresler, 2008), I suggest that this relationship between person and vocation is epitomized through academic entrepreneurship, allowing us to manifest who we are. As important, I see these relationships as reciprocal: who we are is shaped by our experiences and visions. Academic entrepreneurship provides a venue for our commitments, allowing us to pattern ourselves after our visions, and in the process give form to our spirit.

Acknowledgments I am indebted to Eve Harwood for her reading this commentary and her insightful suggestions. I am grateful to Tim Cain for his generously sharing with me invaluable readings.

REFERENCES Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. New York: Oxford University Press. Bresler, L. (2005). What musicianship can teach educational research. Music Education Research, 7(2), 169–​183. Bresler, L. (2008). Research as experience and experience as research: Mutual shaping in the arts and in qualitative inquiry. LEARNing Landscapes, 1(3), 123–​132. Bresler, L. (2009). The academic faculty as an entrepreneur: Artistry, craftsmanship and animation. Visual Art Research, 35(1), 12–​24. Burgan, M. (2006). What ever happened to the faculty? Drift and decision in higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently):  How great organizations put failure to work and innovate and improve. Long Range Planning, 38, 299–​319. Cherwitz, R. (2000). Intellectual entrepreneurship: Can intellectuals innovate in ways that produce a better world? Available at http://​whitman.syr.edu/​EEE/​campus/​ie.asp [accessed February 29, 2008]. Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Issues in Higher Education. New York: Elsevier. Colwell, R. (ed.) (1992). The handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan. Hess, F. M. (2006). Educational entrepreneurship:  Realities, challenges, possibilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

246

Liora Bresler

Miller, N., & Boud, D. (1996). Animating learning from experience. In D. Boud & N. Miller (eds.), Working with experience: Animating learning (pp. 3–​13). London: Routledge. Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass Publishers. Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead. Petroski, H. (1992). To engineer is human:  The role of failure in successful design. New York: Vintage Books. Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2007). Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards failures:  An experiential learning approach. Paper presented at Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. http://​ssrn.com/​abstract=1064982 [accessed January 25, 2008]. Popper, K. (1963/​2004). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner:  How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911/​1936). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism:  Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning about failure:  Bankruptcy, firm age and the resource-​based view. Organizational Science, 14(5), 497–​509.

Chapter 16

PRIDE AND PROFESSIONALISM IN MUSIC EDUCATION Richard Colwell

Pride in one’s profession is occasioned by multiple factors. One can be “professionally proud” through affiliation with remarkable individuals, with membership in groups that have high academic standards like Phi Beta Kappa, being a Guggenheim, Spencer, or Fulbright fellow, or election to an organization based on accomplishment such as the national academy of education. One may also take pride in working for a respected firm—​being one of the architects employed by I. M. Pei or a violinist in the Berlin Philharmonic. It is reported that the twelfth-​century bricklayers were proud to lay bricks because they envisioned the cathedrals they were building. One essential factor in professional pride is to be involved independently and with others in challenging and scholarly work that enhances teaching and learning of quality music. Music education does not appear to have the attributes of a scholarly or respected discipline. We have research reports, including some from Canada, that even before entering the profession, the music education student prefers to be identified as a bassoonist or a tenor rather than as a music education major. Although I have had some success in the profession, I  can recall being somewhat uneasy about acknowledging that I’m a music educator. (Perhaps the most common conversation I had with my former colleague Charles Leonhard was, how did we end up in music education when we could have had equal success in other disciplines?) It is not clear that “education” is an academic discipline; it seems to most resemble a craft. Much to my dismay, I find that in a search for respect, many music educators pay more attention to events in education than to events in music. Maybe it is easier

248

Richard Colwell

to compare oneself with a professional educator than to compare one’s self with musician-​scholars such as the musicologist Nicholas Temperly, who is an accomplished keyboardist, conductor, and one of the world’s scholars in the interpretation and performance practices of eighteenth-​century music. The problem begins with colleges and universities, at all levels. In an article in Arts Education Policy Review, Patrick Jones (2009) argued for distinctive doctoral degree programs, suggesting that little difference can be discerned among Ph.D., Ed.D., D.M.E., D.M.A., and D.A. curricula. One of these degrees might focus on scholarship or musicianship, but the response has been to assume that only the Ph.D. degree conveys genuine prestige. Any number of institutions can be identified that have changed the title of their terminal degree from Ed.D. to Ph.D. with no change in their academic programs, believing the title would provide more respect and status for their music education graduates. In reading dissertations, I should be able to discern a student’s academic course as well as research competency. I suspect some papers have little relationship to coursework competency. There is no identifiable substantive content that marks the attainment of a master’s degree in music education. Jose Arostegui (2004), in his book The Social Context of Music Education, found that undergraduates viewed academic subjects, including music history, negatively, valuing only so-​called practical subjects. Music education students gain little or no competence in liberal (general) education, enrolling only in survey courses and often only “surveys” in music. Secretary of education Arne Duncan “gets it” when he tells the Arts Education Partnership that to build a case for a well-​rounded curriculum, one does not argue just for the arts but the humanities writ large. Scholarly rigor in some liberal arts subject area is essential, as it is in the humanities that students encounter the big, tough questions about themselves and their place in the country and in the world. Robust inquiry, critical thinking, and habits of mind are not separate disciplines; competence occurs only through in-​depth study. When traditional teacher certification programs vary from 240 to 1,380 hours and alternative certification from 75 to 795, questions should be raised about any differences—​or who cares? Attracting better individuals to the profession requires a perceptual change emphasizing scholarship and musicianship in music education. I don’t have a solution but do have space for two recommendations. If individuals and organizations representing music education, like MENC and their affiliates, were more self-​ critical and individuals more willing to cooperate in today’s scholarly challenges, we might claim to have identified one potential solution. For example, with respect to individuals, if one reads journals in other fields, one finds references in the bibliography to reports that are still “in print,” or even to those that have only been submitted. There are often names of top-​of-​the-​line scholars who made suggestions on earlier drafts. (I’m a bit embarrassed to use “education” as the area in need of improvement that I’m discussing when I should be using “music,” but readers are, unfortunately, more familiar with practices in education.) The American Educational Research Journal provides the date of receipt of each article and the date the “revision” was received—​often 9–​12 months later, which indicates how much the writer

Pride and Professionalism in Music Education

249

values the ideas that she or he has put forth. The Review of Research in Education has “consulting editors” for each chapter, as well as two editors for the overall volume. Most scholars have critical friends who write constructive critiques with responses from the primary author, which I find positive in establishing a healthy profession. For the most part, such self-​criticism is and has been missing in music education—​ look at book reviews in MENC and similar publications. I asked for “critical friends” in a 2005 article in CRME. The problem is either that we haven’t learned how to use criticism in a positive way or the discipline is so fragile that we are fearful of the results of any criticism when our focus is on “saving music education,” whatever that means. Even the carefully crafted statements by judges at music contests are designed to support a rating no lower than II, and yet these judges complain about the quality of music performed. In addition to lack of self-​criticism, little distinction is made between opinion and argumentation. Most of what we read in our journals, and even in doctoral research, consists of opinions, some thoughtful. What is needed, however, are argumentative essays. Think of when you were on the debate team and constructed your position on a topic by affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, critiques, case arguments, negatives, and much supporting data. Your presentation was judged on credibility and accuracy. You began with a clear, concise statement, proceeded to explain how and why the evidence supported the thesis, discussed the conflicting “opinions,” and summarized your position in light of your own research and your extensive research of previously published material. At present, survey and narrative research in music education often lack interpretation, and the reader is left with an organized collection of opinions. For example, Foster McMurray and Harry Broudy (1958) offered opposing philosophical arguments for music in the schools—​one a pragmatist, the other a classical realist. Despite an emphasis on pragmatism during the following two decades, music educators continued to be more accepting of Broudy’s arguments than McMurray’s. Thus, 25  years later, McMurray (1983) took it upon himself to point out this inconsistency in a brilliant example of argumentation. To read these essays is both enlightening and exciting. Julia Koza has written at least three well-​argued articles (Koza, 2002a, 2002b, 2006), each of which expresses her concern that MENC’s relationship with large corporations shapes school music and explains why the profession ignores sustainable alternatives and has seemingly accepted high-​ stakes standards and accompanying assessments. Estelle Jorgensen (2003) also has advocated the need for a persuasive political philosophy of music education and suggests the importance of values, judgments, imagination, and reality. There has been no serious response or discussion among the membership about the validity of the arguments from Koza and Jorgensen; perhaps it is just too difficult. Woodford (2005) hoped to initiate an inclusive conversation about the public good and how music educators can best serve that end. One of his conclusions was that the discontinuity between political purpose and actual music education practices lies in the fact that the concept of democracy in music education remains little understood (xi–​xii).

250

Richard Colwell

In a follow-​up article (Woodford, 2009), he built on his argument (not opinion) by pointing out the role of the music industry in shaping teaching and learning in Canada, as in the United States. The response came, not from Canadian music educators, but from the executive director of the Coalition of Music Education in Canada, a group similar to NAMM, which is made up of industry and other advocacy groups (51, (3), 2010). Koza and Woodford question the validity of voluntary national standards, another topic where opinion and argumentation vie. The 1994 standards form a political document rather than one identifying power standards that all students must master, and thus, it is understandable that when the same group of writers reassembled a decade or so later, they concurred that, as a political document in the standards war, the 1994 document did not need to change. It would be unfortunate if these standards are seen as relating to any high-​stakes assessment. The original intent of NAEP was to determine what students at four different age levels knew and could do in music in order that “realistic” curricula could be developed—​a need that continues today. Unfortunately, the purpose of the 1997 NAEP changed to one of determining how well students could perform on these standards, with little or no data whether the standards were appropriate for fourth-​, eighth-​, and twelfth-​ grade students given the present instructional resources. The 1971 NAEP provided evidence of our overreach at that time, with a success rate of around 11%. The professional literature on standards and assessment consists primarily of opinions and no argumentation. Along with the standards came evaluation categories of performing, creating, and responding, an unfortunate simplification when philosophers such as Bennett Reimer have suggested that students should perceive, discriminate, feel, and evaluate works of art, to understand them as objects and events with distinctive cognitive characteristics, to be aware of the historical, social, culture, political, and religious contexts, and to know of, how, about, why, and more. Most philosophies stress understanding, along with perceiving, creating, and evaluating, a philosophical stance related to teaching and to scholarship. Integrating music instruction with instruction in any and all other subjects is a current topic that seems to be accepted without question as being “good.” Yet John Goodlad (1992, p. 206), argued that “the arts have been savaged in programs seeking, for example, to integrate them with social studies.” Has the need for integration arisen because colleges of education no longer require their students to take two semesters of visual arts and two semesters of music, with the consequences that those elementary education students are thus not competent to use the arts in making their instruction more authentic? Yes, music education has changed little from its beginning in the twentieth century; it needs self-​criticism and professional argumentation for music educators to take pride in its “big picture.” Argumentation could be based on Sternberg’s definition of wisdom as consisting of thinking reflectively, thinking dialogically, and thinking dialectically. Reflective thinking is thinking limited to awareness of one’s own thoughts and beliefs, an opportunity to establish one’s own values. To take into account different frames of reference, various perspectives, multiple points of view,

Pride and Professionalism in Music Education

251

one needs dialogical thinking. The ability to integrate different points of view is dialectical thinking. Elevating the conversation between colleagues, between teacher and student, and between parents and others who believe music education is valuable, even essential, seems necessary for one to be proud of music education.

REFERENCES Arostegui, J. (2004). The social context of music education. Champaign: University of Illinois. https://​w ww.researchgate.net/​publication/​269991114_​The_​social_​context_​of_​music_​ education. Colwell, R. (2005). “Critical friends” article. Bulletin of the council for research in music education, 166, 75–​91. Duncan, A. (2010). The well-​rounded curriculum, prepared remarks for the arts education partnership national forum, April 9. Goodlad, J. (1992). NSSE arts education and knowing yearbook. In B. Reimer & R. Smith (eds. pp. 192–​212). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, P. (2009). Article in Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 3–​8. Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Koza, J. (2002a). Corporate profit at equity’s expense: Codified standards and high-​stakes assessment in music teacher preparation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 1–​16. Koza, J. (2002b). A realm without angels: MENC’s partnerships with Disney and other major corporations. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 72–​79. Koza, J. (2006). Save the music? Toward culturally relevant, joyful, and sustainable school music. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 14(1), 23–​38. Reimer, B. (1992). What knowledge is of most worth in the arts? In B. Reimer, & R. Smith (eds.), The arts, education, and aesthetic knowing. 91st Yearbook of the National Society for the study of education, Part 11 (pp. 20–​50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sternberg, R., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. Thousand Oaks California: Corwin. Woodford, P. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Woodford, P. (2009). Why Canada does not have national music education standards, or does it? Canadian Music Educator, 51(2). in the 1958 NSSE yearbook, Basic Concepts in Music Education, Foster McMurray and Harry Broudy Thus, 25 years later (in Basic Concepts II), McMurray took it on himself to point out this inconsistency in a brilliant example of argumentation. The response came, not from Canadian music educators, but from the executive director of the Coalition of Music Education in Canada, a group similar to NAMM, made up of industry and other advocacy groups (51, (3), 2010).

Chapter 17

PONDERING THE GRAND EXPERIMENT IN PUBLIC MUSIC EDUCATION Robert A. Cutietta

When the editors of this volume asked me to write a commentary, the only advice they gave was to “pick an issue that would be of interest to an international audience, even though the experience you bring will be from a North American perspective.” One would think that I could easily accommodate such an appropriate and simple piece of advice, yet I can’t. Instead, the topic I really want to contemplate is inherently tied to the United States. I do this not out of disrespect for the rest of the planet, but in hopes that the topic might provide some food for thought for all. During the twentieth century, the United States attempted to provide participatory music education to every young person in the country through its public school system. Thus an extremely large and diverse society attempted to provide an education in music to every young citizen of the country as a basic entitlement. As such, it has to be one of the grandest experiments in music education to ever take place. Shortly after World War I, the movement to provide instruction in music grew steadily. At first it was confined to instruction outside the school day or only at the elementary school level. However, by the 1930s music-​making had become an important part of the school experience at all grade levels and in all corners of the country. It became standard for youngsters in the beginning grades to receive singing and note-​reading instruction. Students in the upper elementary grades

Pondering the Grand Experiment in Public Music Education

253

were offered instruction in strings, winds, and percussion instruments. During the middle grades the same students were combined into wind bands, orchestras, and choruses. These ensembles achieved high levels of musicianship in the high school years. These classes were not extracurricular, but instead existed as demanding music-​making classes incorporated into the school day, were a part of graduation requirements, and counted toward entrance into college. While available and very popular, middle and high school music instruction was still largely offered as an elective subject at the secondary level. By the 1960s the call was to expand this effort to ensure that every child in the public education system received systematic and sequential music education. This seemed to be a very American ideal, fueled by the optimism and energy that characterized the twentieth-​century United States. Simultaneously, the research community in music education came of age and explored many focused topics related to music learning and teaching. Through concerted efforts we explored what worked and what didn’t work. We examined how the brain learned music and the characteristics of successful music teaching and teachers. We developed and tested new methods of teaching at every level. We learned things. However, despite our successes, by the 1980s this grand music education experiment was under attack. The attack took many forms. While there were few, if any, voices against the importance of music instruction for children, there were arguments that centered on the priority, relevance, or even practicality of providing music instruction to everyone through the public education system. While generally supported, music study never gained acceptance as a core subject the way mathematics, language, or science did. From the 1980s through the end of the century, notable decreases in the percentage of students receiving public music education in the United States occurred. Further, the extent of the music education that remained was diminished until it became unlikely that a school would have the same full complement of opportunities as the previous generation experienced in the same school. Reasons that have been offered for this decline are many and complex. The recessions and tax revolts that reduced the available funding for education, the growth of private and “charter” schools that focused on specific aspects of education to the exclusion of others (such as “science” or “college preparatory” charter schools), the necessary addition of subject matter that did not exist earlier (such as technology), changing demographics in the country, philosophical debates about the role of education, and even conflicts and limitations imposed within the music education profession itself all worked to undermine the role of music in the schools. One can argue that, after 100 years, this grand experiment is now reaching its end or at least the end of its first phase. If so, a conclusion that could be reached is that the experiment had the notable success of effectively reaching a great percentage of the current adult population in the United States while failing to be able to create a culture that could maintain it. Examining this period from this larger perspective could benefit the research community in music education. From our past efforts we grew in our understanding

254

Robert A. Cutietta

of how to teach and learn music effectively, but we did little to ensure that a place would exist for these new techniques to be practiced. That is what is perhaps most frustrating about the current situation. While the media and others attack education as being ineffectual, the fact remains that we know how to create highly effective music programs that can efficiently involve millions of students in substantive learning. However, despite this knowledge we have fewer and fewer opportunities to do so. Further, this larger perspective could help us to finally argue for appropriate evaluation of our efforts. If the goal of this movement was to provide music education for every child, the questions explored should have been more along these lines:  How were we doing in reaching every child? What were the results of the Herculean effort of providing music instruction to millions on millions of human beings? Did our efforts change society in some fundamental way? Did music instruction really further the goals of education in a democratic society? What were the arguments that were most persuasive for keeping these programs alive, flourishing, and vibrant? What were the effective arguments against music (or for other subjects) that caused us not to be able to maintain our programs? Was the one-​size-​ fits-​all large ensemble model appropriate for such a large and diverse country? Perhaps the most important and timely question would be why are the very people we educated in music—​the people who today are the parents, grandparents, school board members, and policy makers—​not stepping up to defend and demand the musical education they received? Are we strong enough as a profession to entertain the inherently uncomfortable questions this phenomenon suggests, such as whether or not the musical education we offered held relevance for the children; whether the quality and methods of teaching reached these children in a substantive manner; and whether anyone ever took us seriously as a subject. These, I suspect, are the core questions we need to answer. Unfortunately we (largely unconsciously) made the assumption that the grand experiment was sure to succeed and spent decades answering the rather simplistic question “If we teach a child something, will she or he learn it?” This question, in one form or another, underlies just about every attempt at music assessment and research. After decades of scholarly work we know (arguably) that some ways of teaching music lead to more music learning than given “other ways.” But we still know little of what learning music does for the individual or society. The current era could be a very positive turning point in music education. The research community can set the groundwork for the next phase in the development of music education for all, but we need to step back and examine what we did from this broad perspective, or we will never learn from our successes and our failures. We can explore what seemed to work and what didn’t; what were the limitations; what were the potentials both realized and missed. We need to study where we were, where we are, and where we plan to be in our continuing development as a discipline if we are to create new and better programs for music learning. We need to examine the period we are leaving as the grand experiment it was, or perhaps as the ultimate pilot study of what could be.

Chapter 18

MUSIC EDUCATION AND SOME OF ITS SUBFIELDS: THOUGHTS ABOUT FUTURE PRIORITIES Lucy Green

I am honored to have been invited to write a brief personal view of what I regard as some important matters facing music education at this point in time. It may be helpful to start by considering some of the distinguishing characteristics that mark various subfields within music education, all of which are richly reflected across the various volumes of this handbook. On one hand we can distinguish what I  will call education-​in-​music, which refers to a practice involving the transmission of musical skills and knowledge in a variety of formal or informal contexts. This includes, for example, formally or informally teaching someone to play an instrument, read music, listen to, analyze or evaluate music, compose or improvise, or to gain a range of other musical skills and knowledge. It also therefore includes the practice of learning, or acquiring musical skills and knowledge as a direct or indirect result of being taught, or at least, of coming into contact with a music-​education context of some kind. On the other hand there is music-​education-​research, which is also a practice involving the transmission, as well as the production of knowledge and skills; but in this case, the knowledge and skills concern the practice of music education rather than music. Music-​education-​research also involves research into a plethora of related subjects and further subfields, including the psychology, sociology, philosophy and history of music education, music therapy, multiculturalism, ethnomusicology, and others.

256Lucy Green Somewhere in the middle, between education-​in-​music and music-​education-​ research, there is the practice of educating a person in a way designed to help him become an increasingly skilled and knowledgeable teacher or lecturer in music, including the continuing education of teachers or lecturers while they are in service. This involves music education, not so much as a practice of educating learners in a range of musical skills and knowledge, and not so much as a practice of conducting research in music education, but as a practice of educating educators concerning how and why they might effectively go about educating learners in a range of musical skills and knowledge; that is, educating them in how and why they might carry out an education-​in-​music. I will refer to this area as music-​teacher-​education. Viewed in this way, it is possible to identify three substantial subfields under the umbrella of music education: education-​in-​music, music-​education-​research, and music-​teacher-​education. No doubt there are many other ways of dividing the field, but for now I would like to consider some of the implications of this way, particularly concerning the relationship between theory and practice within each subfield. It can be tempting—​especially for commentators outside the field of music education—​to consider that education-​in-​music is the “real stuff,” in which teachers and learners grapple primarily with the practical skills involved in making music. By contrast, they might suggest, music-​education-​research is a kind of “merely” theoretical parasubject that floats above or round about the “real stuff.” However, it would be mistaken to see education-​in-​music as a primarily practical field and music-​education-​ research as a primarily theoretical field. Both fields involve practice as well as theory. Picking up an instrument and teaching someone to play it requires an amount of theoretical knowledge, even if that knowledge is more implicit than explicit, and even if it is considered by other practitioners and theorists to be contentious or erroneous. For example a teacher may prioritize finger-​exercises and scales over and above pieces of music, based on a conception that although such an approach may challenge the student for the moment, it will produce better results in time. Such a conception is no more or less than a theory, be it an implicit, explicit, good, or bad one. Picking up an instrument and teaching someone to play it is also no more or less a practical activity than, for example, switching on a computer and typing; and clearly, no less so than entering a classroom or other music education context, observing what is happening there, then returning to the computer, transcribing and analyzing data, and developing a theoretical explanation of what was observed. Even reading a book is fundamentally a practical activity. And music-​in-​education of course involves theory, too, in the form of developing conceptual understanding of the history of music, analysis, harmony, counterpoint, notation, and so on. Music-​teacher-​education, lying somewhere between the subfields of education-​ in-​music and music-​education-​research, as suggested here, would seem to be a particularly vexed area in relation to how practice and theory are prioritized, and to give no clear priority to one or the other. Within music-​teacher-​education, practitioners produce, reproduce, give, and receive what I  can only here call an education-​in-​ music-​in-​education. Music-​teacher-​education assumes that the teachers and prospective teachers or lecturers involved have already acquired, and/​or are continuing

Music Education and Some of Its Subfields

257

to acquire, a level of skill and knowledge within education-​in-​music, suitable to the level at which they teach the subject. It is in this way interconnected with education-​ in-​music. The education of music teachers and lecturers also refers extensively to the body of knowledge and the practices that are produced and reproduced by music-​education-​research, and is in this way interconnected with that subfield, too. So education-​in-​music, music-​education-​research, and music-​teacher education are overlapping areas that include a mix of theory and practice. However, while I am suggesting that it can be helpful to bear in mind that music-​ education-​research is a practical, not just a theoretical subfield, this does not automatically mean that it has any necessary practical application to music education. It is tempting to conduct research that remains at the level of the descriptive, and falls short of offering any prescription, suggestion, explanation, theory, or critique of what is described, or of suggesting ways that the music education profession could change practice for the better. I am not restricting this comment to the notion that all research should lead to changes or improvements in teachers’ practices: for the raising of awareness among teachers, even without any suggestions as to what they could do about it, could also count as a change worthy of being brought about. But what I am suggesting is that it is all too easy for research to remain at a level that does little more than describe, and that research can at times fall short of effecting even a change in awareness among those who come into contact with it. I anticipate that all the contributors to this volume, as well as many other musicians and music-​educationalists worldwide, would agree that at the present historical juncture, music-​education-​research needs to keep firmly focused on its links with the practices of both education-​in-​music and music-​teacher-​education. Strengthening those links between theory and practice is of course one of the fundamental aims of this volume series. During and prior to the twentieth century, much music-​education-​research tended to lean toward investigating music teaching rather than music learning. Indeed the very term “education” by default places emphasis on the practice of teaching rather more than on that of learning, coming as it does from the Latin “e-​ ducare,” or “to lead out.” However, while the term “teaching” connotes a relatively focused activity designed to transmit specific knowledge and skills from a teacher to a learner, that of “education” connotes a more general concept involving causing growth in a learner’s overall knowledge and skill. The concept of education tends to include that of teaching, which is in turn aimed at producing, and indeed is likely to produce, learning. When we speak of a person as being highly educated, we usually mean that she has acquired her skills and knowledge within some kind of formal education system (including, of course, not only schools and colleges, but studio-​ based systems, home-​learning systems, and so on). The expression that a person is highly educated also normally carries an implicit assumption that the processes and the content of the education experienced are generally considered worthwhile, as well as ethical. When a person who failed abysmally to gain any satisfaction, personal growth, or qualifications from the institutions of formal education he attended, and nonetheless educates himself in say, literature, history, geography, mathematics, science, fine art, or music, we consider him to be “self-​educated.” This conception

258Lucy Green tallies with the notion that the processes and content of their self-​education are worthwhile and ethical and, indeed, overlap with the content of formal education. However, learning can of course take place without any education in the above senses, and also without any teaching. When we think of a burglar who has learnt how to pick locks, we would not normally include this learning as a part of her education: we do not talk about a highly educated burglar, for example, in relation to her knowledge of lock-​picking, although of course the burglar may be highly educated in other ways. One reason for this is that picking locks is not considered a worthwhile or ethical activity by, or in relation to the benefit of, the majority of members of a society; although from the burglar’s point of view, and the subculture of burglars in general, it may well be such. The concept of education carries with it, as mentioned earlier, the notion that it includes skills and knowledge that are generally considered worthwhile as well as ethical. So not all learning comes under the rubric of education. Similarly, not all teaching would be considered to take place under the umbrella of education. Teaching a young burglar to pick locks is an obvious example. However, there are other aspects of learning and teaching that neither come under the rubric of education, nor are considered to be lacking in worthiness or in ethical content. Of course, learning how to make and appreciate a range of musics outside the bounds of formal education, as has occurred for centuries in the folk and traditional musics of the world, in popular musics and jazz, would fall under this categorization; and so would the kinds of teaching that go on informally within such spheres. One relatively new angle across all the subfields of music education today concerns the broadening out of the concept of education itself. Music educationalists of all kinds now place as much emphasis on understanding and furthering the practice of learning as they do on the practice of teaching. Similarly, what is included in the definition of teaching is opening out to a much richer array of practices than previously. Along with this, there is occurring what can reasonably be described as a sea-​change in what music educators, researchers, and teacher-​educators consider to be worthwhile music-​learning and music-​teaching practices; and by turn, therefore, what they consider to be worthwhile musical styles connected with those practices. In short, the fields of music-​education-​research and music-​teacher-​education today include a greater concern with how music-​learners learn, and what they learn. This is so, whether the learning occurs as a result of being taught within formal or informal contexts, or of activities that are solitary and self-​directed, group and peer-​directed, community-​based, internet-​based, or involve other characteristics; and whether what is learnt concerns virtually any style of music to be found in the world. The opening out of concepts of music learning and with that, music teaching are again reflected in the contents of the current volume. This opening out of interest, practice, and research into a diverse range of music learning and teaching practices and musical styles, combined with the new global communications networks and the ready availability of musics from all over the world, goes hand in hand with current interest among many music educationalists, concerning equality and, social and cultural difference. In all music education’s

Music Education and Some of Its Subfields

259

subfields, practitioners are becoming increasingly aware of distinctions between social groups and how these are played out across a range of musical cultures and educational and teaching-​and-​learning contexts. The subfield known as multiculturalism—​or more recently interculturalism—​ in music education has a long and proud history, reflected in many parts of this volume. More recently, the field of ethnomusicology has been making its mark on music education. Ethnomusicologists address a rich array of concerns that overlap in myriad ways with the concerns of music educators, and the latter are also benefiting more and more from the research methods associated with ethnomusicology. It seems that the time is also ripe for an increase in what has hitherto been a smaller (or even forgotten) but related field, which might be described as comparative music education. Although the field of comparative education (without the word “music” in it) is well established, and although some comparative studies have been carried out in music education, there has been relatively little cross-​fertilization thus far between the two fields. Comparative music education studies would take in comparisons of music education and learning across a range of global contexts in ways designed for us to educate ourselves in raising our awareness of practical possibilities, and increasing our knowledge and understanding of the histories of colonialism and imperialism, and the newer challenges of globalization within music education. Although a body of research exists and is ongoing in relation to gender in music education, there is still relatively little compared to the vast field of gender studies outside music education. Similarly, how other social distinctions, including ethnicity, social class, religion, and age, affect teachers and learners’ relationships to musical opportunities and music education are areas that are only just beginning to attract attention, and remain wide open for continued research. Related to this there are a range of issues about inclusion within music education. Whereas there is a growing body of substantial work in music therapy and music for learners with special needs, as illustrated by this volume, the question how to include the vast majority of children and other learners in worthwhile music education remains vexed. In many countries, a general education-​in-​music is offered to large numbers of children, and in some countries, this includes all children up to a certain age. But the more specialized transmission of particular musical knowledge and skills—​such as, for example, learning to play instruments, sing, take part in bands, orchestras, and choirs, compose and improvise, and gain technical knowledge, including musical literacy—​tend to remain the province of a minority. In some countries currently, a wider range of teaching-​and-​learning practices, musical styles and associated skills within school curricula, community music programs, online sites, and other virtual or grounded networks are attracting larger numbers of young learners, and increasing their enjoyment of music education. However, we still have a long way to go in the endeavor of opening out our subject and increasing inclusion for the majority. New pedagogical methods designed to do just that are, to me, one of the most exciting growth areas in music-​teacher-​education

260Lucy Green and music-​education-​research. It is close to the hearts of most music educators to consider how we can spread engagement and enjoyment in our subject, especially among young people, thus setting them up with opportunities for potential lifelong active involvement in music. Music-​in-​education, music-​education research, and music-​teacher-​education all have different, complementary parts to play in this process.

Chapter 19

MUSIC EDUCATION: AN UNANSWERED QUESTION Wilfried Gruhn

At the end of one of the first meetings of the Research Alliance of Institutes for Music Education in the early 1990s, the discussion came to the point where the participants realized that although all used the same words, “music education,” they nonetheless referred it to a completely different understanding of its meaning because of the cultural and structural differences even within Western traditions. Therefore, the meeting ended up with the mandate to create a “book of questions.” At the very first moment, this idea looks somehow awkward because from an expert meeting, one can expect answers rather than questions. However, while thinking about adequate questions about music education, some focal issues of music education might emerge. Unfortunately, the project of a virtual “book of questions” has never been completed because questions initiate a process toward general goals and functions, contents and contexts of music-​making and music perception. In this process, questions become more valuable than answers, but framing the right questions can be quite a challenge.

A Marketplace of Conceptions In recent times, music in schools and conservatories has focused on practical applications that favor embodied learning. Nevertheless, there is still a broad variety of approaches to music learning. In multiethnic and multicultural societies, education sometimes looks like a marketplace, where scholars and practitioners advocate

262Wilfried Gruhn their favored models and methodically different programs. Therefore, historical conceptions (e.g., Orff, Kodály) and divergent educational philosophies (action-​ based versus information-​based learning, self-​determined learning versus formal instruction, etc.) that focus on different content, such as folk, pop and rock music, the media, world music, classical music, and historical or hermeneutic aspects exist side by side. If—​as in many other areas—​one expects to find objective criteria to establish new paradigms of teaching and learning and evaluate their efficiency, one might become disappointed because music educators often work—​implicitly or explicitly—​from personal experiences, subjective beliefs, or traditional ideologies. This turns music education to a certain extent into a carnival of entertaining elements within a commercialized educational puzzle. What falls by the wayside is an evidence-​based practice of music teaching and learning. Therefore, we primarily need to begin by searching for a local and cultural consensus about the essence of the musics that are being taught, the steps and stages of music learning that are individually performed, but generally operative, and the final goals and functions in a particular social culture.

Evidence-​Based Teaching and Learning What is meant by evidence-​based practice in this context? As in evidence-​based medicine, evidence-​based educational practice seeks to assess the strength of evidence by means of research-​based decisions about the applied methods and the individually launched learning strategies. By this means, individual opinions and resumed methods can be replaced by decisions that are based on more resilient knowledge from research findings. For example, decisions concerning school structure, education programs, or curriculum development are often based on political or ideological conceptions instead of clear evidence derived from research. However, today’s societies call for transparent and objective criteria in education as well as elsewhere. This gives research in education a boost. This has been especially true for the magical appeal of brain research to music educators. The unintended promise from brain research that music might make children smarter (the so-​called Mozart effect) and that music enhances cognitive development was taken as a strong argument in educational policies. However, many attempts to replicate the findings of the original Mozart effect study (Rauscher et al., 1995) and two extended metaanalyses (Pietschnig et al., 2010; Winner & Hetland, 2000)  show the weakness of this argument. Research findings cannot immediately and without constraints be implemented into educational practice. Fundamental research is never prescriptive rather than descriptive and creates new knowledge about omnipresent problems. On the other hand, educators know intuitively and from good practice about appropriate and inappropriate strategies. Animal research, for example, has shown a negative effect of stress and deprivation on brain development. This is not a guideline for a teaching method, but teachers who

Music Education

263

know about these mechanisms will deal more carefully with stress and deprivation of care in the classroom. In a longitudinal study on audioplasticity and neuroplasticity in children (Serrallach et  al., 2016), it was demonstrated that rhythmic and melodic variables account for robust factors in learning disabilities such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. Here, it is easy to imagine how these findings can be turned into a training program for dyslexic children. But to achieve this goal, researchers need to disseminate their information in ways that teachers can access and will understand. Controlled teaching of dyslexic children based on this knowledge, then, could start an assessment procedure that results in evidence-​based teaching.

Arts and Sciences It is self-​evident that music education deals with sound objects and art forms. Sound objects are accessible to empirical experiments, but art forms are not likewise objectively measurable. Aesthetic qualities of a piece of music, as well as the aesthetic evaluation of different perceptive qualities, can hardly be empirically quantified. However, the structure of learning and the procedures of teaching comprise many important aspects that can be measured and need to be tested through research. Therefore, I  do not confine myself to advocating the importance of fundamental and exploratory research and its relevance to music education, although I am fully aware that dealing with the arts must be differentiated from knowledge acquisition in the sciences because there are elements of the arts that are conceptually different from knowledge systems in the sciences. Arts education obviously reflects different aspects of life and human behavior. But nevertheless I would like to stress a more holistic view where arts and sciences provide different, but complementary perspectives. Therefore, I endorse the interdisciplinary dialogue that has become a core issue in modern society. Since all fields of daily life and all subject areas in science have become so extremely specialized, interdisciplinarity builds the future model of our educational and scientific work. For this, we need to establish forums and formats for dialogues between the different domains. In music education, representatives of at least four areas are challenged to open this dialogue: neuroscientists and developmental psychologists, who account for fundamental research regarding issues that might become relevant to teaching and learning, and educational scientists and practitioners (teachers), who contribute the transfer from research to practice, from theoretical and systematic knowledge to applicable visions of practical benefits. Of course, not all problems of music education are accessible to research, but I would still argue for a pragmatic view on future directions in music education and music education research that connects different perspectives and implement various insights that might cross-​fertilize. The pragmatism of this view is grounded in the interaction between different approaches, where the questions of one discipline will be picked up by the other in order to find some answers that must stand the test

264Wilfried Gruhn of time. Up to now, science often focuses on its own interest and presents answers to questions that were never asked, and educators do not see any evidence from research that does not answer their questions, rather they tend to select only those pieces of research that fit their needs. Interdisciplinary communication and the readiness for dialogue between different domains of knowledge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) are, therefore, the key issue in creating new pathways for education sciences as well as an approach toward an evidence-​based music education.

REFERENCES Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity:  Flow and the psychology discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins. Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., & Forman, A. K. (2010). Mozart effect-​Shmozart effect: A meta-​ analysis. Intelligence, 38, 314–​323. Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1995). Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-​ temporal reasoning: Towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters, 185, 44–​47. Serrallach, B., Groß, C., Bernhofs, V., Engelmann, D., Benner, J., Gündert, N, . . ., Seither-​ Preisler, A. (2016). Neural biomarkers for dyslexia, ADHD, and ADD in the auditory cortex of children. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 324. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3–​4).

Chapter 20

IMPROVING PRIMARY TEACHING: MINDING THE GAP Sarah Hennessy

As a teacher educator of both specialist and generalist teachers of music for the primary age range, one faces a seemingly constant need to advocate for and defend music education for all children in school. Through my work as a teacher educator and my participation in the research community, I have found that too much energy is taken up with justifying and campaigning for music in primary education, as well as wrestling with the issue of who teaches (i.e., the generalist/​specialist issue). The advocacy agenda deflects attention from investigating what and how children learn, how we teach in order to develop better practices, and often suppresses a more critical perspective. The lack of effective training for generalists (or the lack of specialists . . . depending how you look at it) masks our understanding of what most children are capable of through learning music in school. Concern with both these issues is perpetuated and exacerbated, of course, by a political context in which, in many countries, the agenda for education is increasingly set by economic demands and constraints and consequent performance targets, rather than by the profession itself. We continue to recalibrate the arguments for music education according to the agenda of economic prosperity, well-​ being, good citizenship, self-​esteem, and global competitiveness. I wrote the original version of this chapter at a time of significant change in England, when a new government set out to revoke many of the education policies and initiatives introduced by the previous one. A newly revised National Curriculum in 2103 further reduced the content and status of music, and a new measure of schools’ success has damaged the status of the arts and music in

266

Sarah Hennessy

secondary education.1 A further damaging step was to encourage or force schools to leave local authority control and become “academies.” This policy brings schools under the direct control of the central government and gives them the opportunity to adopt their own curricula, which may or may not include music, and to employ unqualified teachers.2 This increasingly fragmented situation for schooling means that it is very difficult to get a clear picture of what is really going on in schools when it comes to music. The school inspection system does not require reporting on the teaching of music or the arts. Primary schools can choose whether to employ someone to teach music, require their class teachers to teach it, or do nothing. There is evidence that secondary schools are cutting time, staffing, and resources for music (see https://​drfautley.wordpress.com/​). Of course, the battle to secure music’s place in the curriculum has been fought for many years, but the issues are becoming more entrenched, and there is little challenge other than the energy and commitment of individual teachers—​and some head teachers. I have two conflicting responses to this situation—​and this is where I can move beyond my “local” context and perhaps connect with issues that many of us share. One response is to be profoundly depressed by the retreat from a broad and balanced curriculum. While schools appear to have greater freedom to shape their own curricula, the performativity agenda often cancels out the potential. However, increased autonomy could lead in the other direction: a flourishing arts curriculum and music taking a prominent position in the school curriculum, where head teachers recognize that the arts contribute to, rather than distract from, creating a positive learning environment. A recent project funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation aims to share examples where this is happening (see www.inspire-​music.org). My other response is a feeling that despite having had, since 1992, a centralized curriculum that gives a legal entitlement to music education for all children, we still have very uneven quality of provision. Music blossoms in schools where the principal (head teacher) values and actively supports it—​through employing musically competent and confident teachers, supporting professional development, and understanding the broad range of ways that music can flourish—​and withers where there is little understanding and minimal support. Nationally, music has moved (after almost three decades of focusing on creative music-​making) to a focus on class-​based singing and instrumental tuition. In recent years, learning in both of these activities has been supported by extra government funding,3 and both these initiatives have recognized, quite rightly, the central importance of school-​based teachers’ abilities and willingness to engage and work confidently with music. However, this recognition hasn’t always borne fruit, and an unfortunate side effect of these programs has been that, while visiting experts have been employed to lead the work in schools, many generalist (nonmusic-​specialist) class teachers have taken a step back, considering their involvement to be inadequate or unnecessary. Since the beginning of the new century, there also has been huge growth in funded, short-​term music projects (such as those led by orchestras, community

Improving Primary Teaching

267

music groups, and arts organizations), both in and out of school. However, with the downturn in the economy and cuts to both education and arts budgets in recent years, such projects are significantly less plentiful. Many schools have relied on such projects and externally funded initiatives to plug the gaps in their statutory provision, rather than seeing such work as an enhancement and enrichment (as they are often conceived to be). And here is the real nub of the problem for music in primary schools. How can we ensure, first of all, consistent, “good enough” music education for all children throughout their primary education? How can we develop a good knowledge of what the majority of children are really capable of achieving in their music learning (and not just in performing skills)? The first question obscures, and may even prevent an answer to, the second one, and I  am not advocating specialists over generalists. We need better coherence between curriculum and policy on who teaches and on teacher education. Whatever the policy, it must be worked through to the point where teachers are well prepared and supported to work in the ways that are required or expected. Of course, music education should be and often is more than what the formal curriculum recommends; but we should view what can be provided in schools as a basic or minimum entitlement that reaches every child. My work with colleagues in several other countries in Europe (www.menet. info) and my knowledge of the research literature generated in the English-​speaking world, and published in many academic journals, has led me to the conclusion that there are widespread and shared concerns about the quality and consistency of music teaching in primary school, and about the adequacy of training, especially for generalists. For instance, in the journal that I currently edit (Music Education Research, published by Routledge), out of all the articles concerned with music education in the primary school phase (1999–​2015), 50% are about experienced generalist (nonmusic-​specialist) teachers’ or student teachers’ readiness, confidence, or attitudes toward teaching music. Most authors are working in contexts where either all or the majority of teaching of music in primary schools is done by generalists . . . so it remains a constant concern to (1) uphold or challenge the notion of the generalist as the most appropriate (if not the best) teacher to teach music, and (2) to find ways to deal with the well-​documented fact that many students coming into primary teaching do not feel confident to teach music and, despite our best efforts, a good number continue to feel this throughout their careers. This is a circular problem—​where to break the circle? The aims and practices of music teacher education need to value and take account of the generalist’s perspective, and the curriculum for children must be designed and written in such a way that generalists can work with it successfully. If children (some of whom will become primary teachers themselves) in their own schooling develop the view that some are musical and others are not, this can result in deeply rooted notions of what being musical means—​reinforced by the teachers they meet, and perpetuated by society’s attitudes. For instance, having for years worked to encourage reluctant student teachers to find their voices and sing—​attempting to eradicate years of anxiety—​along come TV programs that set out to publicly ridicule poor singing.

268

Sarah Hennessy

So, recently, and for the first time, I had a student say she couldn’t and wouldn’t sing “because it felt like the X Factor”—​despite my very low-​key, unthreatening, and protected approach (clearly still not low-​key enough!). Research suggests that initial teacher training programs have limited capacity to change the attitudes and values students bring with them. Factors that contribute to changing these involve well-​supported school-​based practice with sustained opportunities to engage practically with and to teach music; observing good examples of practice; and lots of time for reflection. In a generalist program, ensuring time for addressing these, for all students and in all settings, can be challenging, both in the context of the training institution and in placement schools. In England, we are now educating as primary teachers the “products” of the National Curriculum, first introduced in 1990. Happily, I can say that I have noticed, in recent years, some reduction in the numbers who display high levels of anxiety and lack of confidence to do anything in music, which suggests that things are improving (such as that more students remember making their own music in primary classes, playing instruments, and enjoying singing). The majority of students are happy to get involved and try out teaching activities, but too often I meet unconfident teachers in school who are reluctant to include music in their demonstrations of teaching, and may not actually teach music to their classes. In schools where music is taught by a visiting specialist, students may get very little opportunity to be involved at all. Out of 16 European countries surveyed in the meNet project, only six offered initial training for primary specialist music teachers to degree level. The provision for generalist training is very varied, ranging from, for example, a total of 120 hours (on a three-​year degree) for generalists in Poland to as little as 4 hours (on a one-​ year postgraduate program in England). Every country includes music in their curriculum guidelines or statutory framework; every document espouses the importance of music education for all children . . . and there it seems to end. If one peruses the content of many of these documents, they do not appear to take much account of the fact that the curriculum will be largely taught by generalists, and that the training of generalists is often inadequate, as noted by music teacher educators, researchers, and teachers alike. One can argue that such documents are aspirational rather than designed to reflect current practices; but, if they are policy frameworks for future development, there needs to be more thought about implementation. If the curriculum reflects the view that it is generalists who will teach music, then the initial training of generalists must be adequate, and there must be ongoing professional development. If the curriculum is designed with an expectation of a high degree of specialist musical competence in teachers then the training of good numbers of specialists should be resourced. In England, currently, we have neither. What is needed is both: generalists who can confidently engage in the music learning of their classes, understand how to combine musical experiences and learning with other subjects, lead and facilitate music-​making with imagination and enthusiasm, with the support of specialist colleagues; and enough specialists

Improving Primary Teaching

269

to provide adequate support to generalists and develop high-​quality music learning opportunities for all children. Such specialists might be school-​based or not, qualified teachers, or musicians. Whoever they are, they need good education and training in music education and in the range of different roles they might fill as specialists. If we can begin to achieve this, or at least make some progress in this direction, then we might be able to focus in more sustained ways on developing our understanding of effective pedagogies, and of musical development in children. Projects are valuable, but are only really fully effective when enriching and extending rather than filling the gaps. School is the place where we reach every child, where music should be part of everyday learning offered by the teachers that children work with every day.

NOTES 1. The performance of secondary schools is measured by the grades achieved by pupils at the end of statutory education (age 16) in a range of subjects that entirely exclude the arts: see https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​publications/​english-​baccalaureate-​ebacc/​ english-​baccalaureate-​ebacc. 2. This was particularly encouraged in music and sports, the view being that performance expertise is all that is needed for effective teaching. 3. Funding for whole-​class instrumental teaching continues; the Sing Up Programme was funded from 2007–​2012 and is now funded through subscriptions (www.singup.org).

Chapter 21

INTERNATIONAL MUSIC EDUCATION: SETTING UP A GLOBAL INFORMATION SYSTEM Liane Hentschke

I was invited by the distinguished editors of this volume to write a personal commentary on something that I would consider important to share with the readers. I decided to share with you one of my concerns in relation to our lack of systematized knowledge about international music education, which, in a way, prevents us from thinking prospectively based on where music education is today and where it is heading in terms of a global trend. Thus, the following text presents a step forward contribution in thinking music education globally, and how putting together the jigsaw puzzle of the accumulated knowledge of music in what I call the Global Information System in Music Education (GISME). The central idea was presented for the first time in my keynote address at the Sixth International Research in Music Education Conference (Exeter, UK, 2009), and it has come from my experience as a professor and researcher in music education, and especially from the unique experience and dilemmas faced as president of the largest umbrella for music education internationally—​the International Society of Music Education—​ISME. When developing a Biennium Plan 2006–​2008 for the ISME Presidency, I was confronted with the task of writing a text that would guide the policies and actions for the next two years. The core of the plan was to work on the promotion of social and cultural inclusion of music education practices by means of interconnecting countries and regions, in order to make a difference in the way we share our accumulated

International Music Education

271

knowledge and cultural goods. For that task, it would have been paramount to have a clear picture of the pedagogical trends and music education policies, as well as what really happens in practice in different cultural settings. However, what was available at that time (and still is) was a collection of research, reports on pedagogical practice, some governmental information about music education numbers (in some countries). Notwithstanding their importance, they do not represent a situation mapping of music education worldwide. Together with other initiatives, the ISME Board approved, in 2006, the creation of a Research Development Committee that would be in charge of developing a document outlining ISME´s policy on research and development. The main goal was to make ISME an international research projects supporter, fostering and shaping systematic research, in partnership with international organizations. The end product was a document with important recommendations on the way ISME could generate international research projects together with regions (McPherson, Welch, & Hentschke, 2008). It is important to mention that this volume can be considered the first spin-​off project of that initial document. We all have heard, read, or experienced part of the diversity of music and music education systems, musical richness, pedagogical creativity, and ways of conceiving and valuing music education in different cultures, countries, and regions. Over the last decades, we have seen many changes on pedagogical practices (formal and nonformal music education and informal music learning), as well as on advocacy campaigns and policy development. For many years, research has been one of the key elements in helping music educators understand the multiplicity of issues involved in music teaching and learning. The research literature produced around the world shows how much music education has advanced on findings through various perspectives: the historical, musicological, psychological, sociological, political, philosophical, and pedagogical, to an extent that, nowadays, it is seen as the main tool for the practice in many parts of the world. The research carried out until today has greatly contributed to the way we understand and practice music education in formal and nonformal contexts. There are visible examples of the progress and its importance in the development of new pedagogies, musical practices, and multicultural understanding. Internationally speaking, the research has contributed clarifying the diversity of our ways of conceiving, practicing, and valuing music education. However, we only know a small part of the global wealth of music teaching and learning practices. The accumulated knowledge about global music education is still fragmented and it is still not available to many professionals worldwide, mainly due to language barriers. In our professional lives, we are often too busy with our daily professional practice:  we teach, supervise, manage research, evaluate, and do paperwork, among other activities. We are too involved with our own professional duties to reflect on how teachers and community music leaders around the world might be struggling to advocate music education, seeking funding, dealing with lack of resources, or organizing a music program. We somehow became specialists in some areas of music education, many times losing broader sight of where we are heading. If we step back and look at what we have assembled in terms of global knowledge, we will

272

Liane Hentschke

realize that most of the findings, although important, can hardly be combined into one global picture, which in some ways would hamper our capacity to “jump out of the fish bowl” and anticipate global trends in our profession. Do we know where music education will be in the next 20 years? To risk a prediction, we need to know where we are; we need a global picture on some basic parameters in order to pull together what we have and think prospectively in a global system. If we take the industry or economic systems as examples, we realize that their work is strongly based on prospective thinking, on predictions of where the world is heading to and how it may influence the economy, social development, politics, and environmental issues. There is always a chance of getting it wrong, but they need predictions to survive, to plan, and to move ahead. In music education, it seems that we guide our work according to the policies and opportunities offered by schools and universities in our countries or regions, and we plan our work according to new theories, research opportunities, very much influenced by the research literature from sociology, psychology, computer sciences, and education. The research we conduct is displayed in journals, books, conference and seminar proceedings, and other sorts of publications, but little has been said about how music education is understood, advocated, funded, practiced, about the policies in different parts of the world, and how the knowledge systems are shared among and across cultures. However, in order to work toward political insertion, draw strategies, and make a difference in the world of music education, we need to act more proactively, internationally speaking. We need to be aware of global political agendas nowadays working toward economic sustainability, peace, social responsibility, environmental agendas, education for all, where music education needs to be included. But where is the information we need to allow music to have a political impact, and work toward (why the “D” deleted) social and cultural inclusion across countries, cultures, and regions? If we search on the internet about international network in music education, hundreds of sites come up. Most of these networks are regional or cross-​regional, while others are a compilation of very important links to music education organizations and research work, such as CIIMDA in Africa, Music Ednet, Arts New South Wales, International Music Education Links, MEnet, EAS, Nordic Network for Music Education, among others. UNESCO, through its cultural sector, has been trying to take such a lead for arts education, as it comprises 193 member states, and is the largest educational network available. Music education is part of arts education, which is placed under the cultural sector umbrella. The core of UNESCO’s mission is to help governments think locally through a global frame. It gathers international descriptions by commissioning papers in different regions offering a broad picture on arts education. It produces documents and recommendations that are then delivered to its member states. Preparing the Second World Conference on Arts Education (Seoul, May 2010), UNESCO carried out a survey on the implementation of the Road Map for Arts Education worldwide, whose results can be found on the UNESCO website (UNESCO, 2009). The main goal was to collect information on arts education in the world. The survey obtained was a return of 49%, representing 95 countries from

International Music Education

273

all regions, and served UNESCO’s decision to create a committee—​in which I took part—​to develop the Goals for the Development of Arts Education presented at the Seoul Conference in Korea in May 2010. The document reflects the view that “arts education has an important role to play in the constructive transformation of educational systems that are struggling to meet the needs of learners in a rapidly changing world characterized by remarkable advances in technology on the one hand and intractable social and cultural injustices on the other” (UNESCO, 2010). Despite the importance of the results as a parameter to arts education worldwide, this document does not refer to music education specifically. Throughout the literature and internet search, I could not find a global research network on music education, a data platform through which we can understand music education practices across the world, so that we can have a clear picture/​ data on where we are in terms of international music education. How can a global organization, such as ISME or IMC, work in a macro management system if there is no global picture of where we stand in terms of advocacy, policies, teacher education, funding sources (industry, governments)? Music education needs a specific cross-​country mapping, a set of data, which has not been put together until today in our field, and which could allow us to build an effective international network and actions among nations and cultures, promoting respect and inclusive music education. Having struggled with the lack of international data, I would say that unless we assume a more ambitious project of a global mapping, our management will be erratic, and it will privilege certain regions in detriment of others. With the advance of, new ICTs there is no limitation in terms of connecting people and assembling data. However, in order to build a global information platform and make it sustainable, it is necessary to involve various stakeholders (universities, regional organizations, government agencies, and industry). It is also necessary to have antenna offices or research observatories (a model used by UNESCO in some regions) around the world that can be constantly fed with information on the development of music education. We need to involve local researchers and music educators who are immersed in the cultural and social specificities and politically engaged in order to raise funds to maintain local observatories. Below are three broad questions that could help us set up the Global Information System of Music Education (GISME) with the help of ISME and other international organizations and universities:

1. Which are the national and regional leading organizations around the world? 2. Where are the main research centers in music education with expertise in large-​scale research? 3. Where are the funding possibilities? Some initial guiding questions could compose an international research platform: Music education: How is it understood and practiced according to specific context? Who teaches? Where are music educators formed?

274

Liane Hentschke Advocacy: What are the arguments used? How are the campaigns planned and carried out? To whom are they targeted? Policies for music education: Is music education compulsory at schools? What is the role of social projects and community music, in the music education of citizens? What are the informal learning opportunities? Sources of funding: Government (federal/​central, state or municipalities)? Industry (music and others)? Foundations and NGOs?

In short, the organization that I called GISME is a global sharing platform that would be built collectively and owned by everyone. It is a source of knowledge that everybody could learn from, and thus feel part of the global community of music education. In order to make it effective, we need to have access to what is happening in different parts of the world in terms of advocacy campaigns, policy development, and provision for music education in schools and communities. Finally, sharing knowledge and expertise and empowering local leaders were the prime goals guiding my thoughts to propose the expansion and strengthening of ISME Regional Conferences around the world, an activity that will be improved and expanded by the next generation of ISME leaders. We need solidarity and a global sharing of the accumulated knowledge on music education, and to make this happen the profession needs to have a broad view on international music education, where we are, and where we want to be in the next decades.

REFERENCES McPherson, G., Welch, G., & Hentschke, L. (2008). Proposal of the ISME Research Development Committee—​ISMERDC. Submitted to the ISME Executive Committee. UNESCO. (2009). Analysis of the implementation of the road map. http://​portal.unesco.org/​ culture/​en/​ev.php-​URL_​ID=39998&URL_​DO=DO_​TOPIC&URL_​SECTION=201.html [accessed November 2, 2010]. UNESCO. (2010). Goals for the development of arts education. http://​portal.unesco.org/​culture/​en/​ev.php-​URL_​ID=39949&URL_​D O=DO_​TOPIC&URL_​SECTION=201.html [accessed November 2, 2010].

Chapter 22

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESEARCH IN DEFINING THE PROFESSION OF MUSIC EDUCATION Christopher M. Johnson

There is a phrase that has been spoken so many times that it seems to be accepted without further examination. The statement is: Research just does not apply to the real world. This statement has two major flaws. The first flaw rests in the concept of “the real world.” What, indeed, is the real world? What world is less than real? Perhaps this statement is meant to imply that the one wherein the research was completed does not relate to an individual’s specific circumstance. However, it is quite unlikely that researchers are living in some parallel dimension that does not have the same characteristics that others deal with daily: problem students, budgetary shortfalls, lack of equipment and other resources, and so on. The fact is, all of us live within these parameters, and we would simply be better off assuming that everyone’s realities have similar challenges. Starting with this assumption would allow us to examine each study for commonalities instead of the more easily apparent dissimilarities. The second flaw in this statement is the assumption that the knowledge gained from research is esoteric or not readily applicable. It is true that one project cannot serve as a blueprint for any other specific situation without some adaptation. Similarly, others’ lesson plans are rarely useable in their entirety by another; we always would expect to make modifications. I have seen people remark on the fact that they cannot take the information gleaned from a clinician working on a piece

276

Christopher M. Johnson

with their band home and make it work with the same piece with their own group. How will they ever take information from that person working with a different piece and use it to make their students better? What if they are watching a great choral conductor? Can they use that experience in their bandroom? Is there any hope that a complicated piece of new information in another area of experience will enlighten their teaching? As a profession, we must hold out the hope that we can make those higher-​order transfers. The greater the distance from one’s area to new information, the more significant and perhaps difficult the transfer, but therein lies the responsibility of being a professional. Making those new associations is work, but that work is indeed what we should be doing. Though it is much easier to be dismissive, it is the considered contemplation by highly educated people that brings all of us to the level of professionalism to which we should aspire. This unfortunate condition—​the dismissal of potential for research to have any practical use—​has been exacerbated by the credence that it has been given by researchers themselves repeating the aforementioned phrase in an attempt to create a common reality with others. I believe, however, that they are making a critical mistake. Though I  believe establishing a common reality is necessary, this is the wrong way to go about it. Denigrating the value and applicability of research lessens the importance of the research product and also lessens the individuals with whom one is trying to connect. We are all professionals, and we should reinforce and encourage ourselves to continue to live up to that title. Research is crucial to our profession, not only because it gives us verifiable data to continue to support what we do and help us all do it better, but because it is the research of a profession that defines it as a profession. Without the constant and careful creation of new knowledge, any area of pursuit might well be better defined as a craft or a trade; only the process of continuous and growing research defines an area of effort as a profession. From a researcher’s perspective, one must look at the research product in a different way. When contemplating the start of another project, one is struck by how much freedom the researcher is afforded. Everything in the field is up for examination. What should one examine next? However, although anything is available for inquiry, there are restrictions—​boundaries—​placed on that potential examination in the form of process, science, and rigor. The researcher who is driven by curiosity does not mind the toil, but rather enjoys the puzzle that is putting together a viable and worthwhile project. However, one must also recognize that many projects begin with one idea and direction, and then morph into something else that the researcher clearly sees as more appropriate. Surely one can see how many great research possibilities must have died on the design floor. And every now and then, one comes across ideas that should have been abandoned but were not, because the researcher was unwilling to relinquish an idea that should have been left behind. However, the constraints remain—​the research product must stand on its own merit. The questions must be clearly and coherently answered. The data must be presented honestly, with all their enlightening abilities, as well as their flaws. And

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESEARCH IN DEFINING THE PROFESSION

277

in the end, importance matters. Not only must a manuscript be methodologically sound, it also must say something that matters. This fact, then, makes it even more crucial to be discriminating regarding what words are selected in a report. Graham Welch (2006) eloquently discussed what he called the “tyranny of words.” He explained that, once words reach the printed paper, they become truth. This has rung true to me ever since. Even as an author puts pen to paper, there are words that may be casually placed there. Often these words are simply innocent placeholders for ideas that have not been completely refined. However, in spite of their casual and offhand beginning, when the words become print, the words become real, and believable—​even believed by the author, who did not believe them in their entirety when she or he wrote them. This situation exacerbates the necessity for words to be crafted carefully and printed only with meticulous thought after being revisited with an open mind. Thus, we are presented with the double-​edged sword that is the researcher’s power to craft new thoughts, offset by their responsibility to do so only in the most vigilant manner. Researchers must be careful to keep faith with truth and always be mindful of what is important. It is the professional’s responsibility to stay current with the knowledge of the profession, and to transfer that into application. Researchers have the responsibility to be judicious, careful scholars who direct their work in such a way as to lead the profession forward in important ways. When these responsibilities are met, research will fulfill its purpose in defining the profession, facilitating better experiences for all students of music.

REFERENCE Welch, G. (2006, July). Writing for research publications. Paper presented at the 2006 World Conference of the International Society for Music Education, Kuala Lumpur.

Chapter 23

CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITIES OF SCHOLARSHIP IN MUSIC EDUCATION Estelle R. Jorgensen

Music education benefits from a community of scholarship and practice. From antiquity, music teachers, as other musicians, have formed themselves into colleges, guilds, schools, and associations. Whether in the context of individual or group instruction, of whatever tradition or specialty, these teachers have sometimes been music’s principal thought leaders and exponents and the means whereby musical traditions have been forged, sustained, and transformed. Communities provide the public spaces in which collective and individual thought and action transpire and where ideas and practices forwarded by members are discussed, criticized, debated, evaluated, and contested. They foster imaginative thinking of individual exponents who, without being in these communities, may never arrive at particular ideas and practices.1 By developing shared beliefs, values, and norms and limiting deviation from these commitments, communities enable collective action on behalf of certain goals and methods. As ideas and practices are put to the test, subjective understandings become objectified, in the sense that they are shared widely by a community’s members. These norms provide the basis for and means of a conversation within particular communities and sometimes beyond their borders. Still, music educational communities are a mixed blessing. Among their disadvantages, they can ossify musical beliefs and practices. They may be so focused on traditional practices that insularity, closed-​mindedness, and parochialism on

Constructing Communities of Scholarship in Music Education

279

the part of a community’s members may make it difficult to adapt when changing circumstances and contexts require alternative ideas and practices. The social pressures on members to conform to a community’s beliefs, values, and practices may be such that members are fearful of jeopardizing their situation and standing in the community and unwilling to risk thinking or doing things differently. As communities seek to contain, discipline, and domesticate the ideas and practices of individual members, they may inhibit divergent and imaginative ideas and practices. The oppression suffered by dissidents may be such that communities lose their resilience and traditions become isolated and moribund. Viewed in terms of their characteristic social processes, communities are subject to centripetal and centrifugal forces that on the one hand enable them to cohere as unified entities or on the other hand cause them to fracture, fragment, and dissolve. Coordinated goal seeking and socialization processes are among the means whereby organizations cohere and act concertedly.2 Alternatively, specialization and segmentation processes can cause organizations to break up and fly apart. Seeing virtue as a “golden mean” among opposites, paradoxes, tensions, and ironies suggests that social forces are needed to create and maintain a resilient and unified yet dynamic and nimble system that thrives in the midst of changing conditions over time and from place to place.3 While forged around shared purposes and methods, communities also need to foster specialized functions and segmented groups that arise in the midst of specific and differing interests. The interplay of these forces can energize the system and open creative possibilities between sometimes contradictory purposes and approaches. The practical challenge for organizations is to arrive at as optimal a point between these forces as is practically feasible. Today’s particular organizational challenges consist in containing pressures toward specialization and segmentation in a mass-​mediated and technologically driven environment and fostering organizations that are unified in common purposes and can thrive in these new environments. Mass-​mediated and technological advances such as the internet have created dynamic and rapidly shifting realities and facilitated organizational segmentation and differentiation. Present-​day virtual communities or “milieu cultures” comprised of self-​selected groups amplify the resulting disjunctions that make it more difficult to forge unified communities across a broad range of interests.4 In such circumstances, it is natural for an organization’s members to gravitate toward groups of like-​minded others, although such conversations may come at the cost of ignoring or resisting the perspectives of different others. Followed to its logical extreme, ideologically based groups of like-​minded people can contribute to closed-​and narrow-​mindedness and parochialism; without the crossfertilization of different beliefs and practices, communities can be stultified and fossilized. The music education research community faces this problem internationally. Lacking an international society for research in music education that embraces all the foundational disciplines of inquiry represented in the field and speaks on behalf of music education scholarship around the world, various groups, networks, and societies have been cobbled together, often in the midst of professional

280

Estelle R. Jorgensen

organizations originally designed for practical rather than scholarly purposes. In these circumstances, scholars attempt to pour scholarship into wineskins constructed with other political and practical interests in mind. A  plethora of symposia have naturally sprung up to fill the void. These are often informally organized and framed around narrow interests; they attract subsets of scholars from time to time. Various nationally organized, discipline-​based, and topically focused international networks, groups, and societies for research in music education have begun to emerge that are unevenly represented around the world. The result is a cacophony generated by activity that excludes some as it includes others; groups may be at cross purposes, and meetings are sometimes held at conflicting times and places. For example, immediately prior to this writing, I needed to choose among meetings within the course of a few weeks in China, Finland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The costs of attending all of these important meetings were prohibitive, especially given the lack of university support for travel and the straitened financial circumstances in the country in which I  live and work. The burgeoning numbers of interest groups, while indicative of a lively engagement with music education scholarship, also represent a fragmented reality of specialized constituencies and potentially important though differing imperatives. Ironically, notwithstanding the activity, the audiences may be smaller, and researchers, writers, and speakers may have less influence than might be the case were there fewer organizations with wider reach. Understanding organizations is also to grasp that once forged, they tend to have self-​perpetuating tendencies. Those who control the emerging fiefdoms and their respective constituencies may be unwilling to cooperate with other organizations or cede power and control of their respective groups and organizations to others. Music education ultimately exists for the public good. Its practice is an important aspect of cultural transmission and transformation. There is an ethical imperative for scholarship to benefit practice, be it immediately or over the long term. Unlike some academic fields that can be pursued for other than practical purposes, education in and through music occurs in the phenomenal world. Music educational thought and practice entail moving from theoretical assumptions, models, paradigms, and the like to the messy world of practical engagements. Given the public nature of its purposes and methods, music education naturally concerns issues of cultural public policy. Accomplishing this task effectively requires unified scholarly organization(s). Especially at a time when nation-​states are increasingly intertwined, international cooperation by, and crossfertilization among, music education scholars can impact significantly the formation and conduct of international cultural policy. How might such an improved international framework or organizational structure for music education scholarship be created? The field of music education needs an international community of music education scholars that expressly meets the scholarly needs of this community, widens the forum in which all can potentially speak, protects the specific interest groups that have already formed and allows

Constructing Communities of Scholarship in Music Education

281

them to flourish, coordinates the times and places in which meetings are held, and fosters the crossfertilization of ideas throughout the entire community. Meeting these objectives and creating a wider and more unified and integrated community of music education scholarship and practice is a daunting enterprise that may necessitate retooling and restructuring existing organizations and creating new organizational structures or coordinating mechanisms. Toward this end, a first step in determining a practical course of action might be to convene an international summit of leaders of research organizations and symposia in music education to examine various possibilities and determine further steps. Whatever the particular approaches taken, given the gifted leaders in our midst, we are surely able to foster and strengthen a community of music education scholars internationally. Doubtless, accomplishing this challenge will require diplomacy, tact, resolve, and imagination on the part of all those involved. Still, the resulting process would seem to be well worth our collective and individual effort.

NOTES 1. On communities and music education, see Estelle R. Jorgensen, “Music education as community,” Journal of Aesthetic Education 29(3) (autumn 1995), pp. 71–​84, http://​ www.jstor.org/​stable/​3333542; Estelle R. Jorgensen, Pictures of Music Education, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011, chap. 3. Also see Maxine Greene, The dialectic of freedom (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), 17. 2. On social processes, see Henry Zentner, Prelude to administrative theory: Essays in social structure and social process (Calgary: Ontario, Canada: Strayer, 1973), chap. 7. 3. On Aristotle’s concept of virtue, see Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, trans. and ed. Roger Crisp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), sec. 1107a, 31. 4. On milieu cultures, see Peter Webb, Exploring the networked worlds of popular music: Milieu cultures (New York: Routledge, 2007).

Chapter 24

INTERNATIONALIZING MUSIC EDUCATION Andreas C. Lehmann

Music education may be, like most educational policy and advocacy issues, primarily a national concern. But could and should we not also develop a broader, and even international, perspective, especially when it comes to music education research? In this chapter, I will outline a German perspective that may be informative for non-​German colleagues. Colleagues from English-​speaking countries might become aware of a hitherto unknown side of their non-​English native colleagues, while Spanish, Czech, Japanese, and all other non-​English natives might experience some déjà vu. Each country grapples with its didactic traditions, educational folkways, and institutional constraints that require integration into the larger educational and cultural agenda of the country. Thus, each country is unique when it comes to music education in practice. Take, for example, the question of singing in German schools. While the rest of the world was busy singing with children as a means of educating them musically in the last half of the twentieth century, West German children were talking about masterworks and their composers. The historical burden of naive and propagandistic singing routines during Nazi times clamped shut the mouths of the postwar generations. There was nothing to sing about: old songs were inappropriate, and the critical philosopher Theodor W. Adorno furthered this no-​sing attitude in critical statements about music-​making that were well heeded by the generation of postwar music teachers. At the same time, East Germany was continuing the tradition of indoctrination by song under communist-​socialist rule. At the present time, practical music-​making is regaining momentum in (now united) German classrooms, due to reasons beyond the scope of this chapter, resulting in a didactic turn even in teacher education.

Internationalizing Music Education

283

Thus, even in one community of culture and language, a divided Germany experienced two types of music education—​with two corresponding types of music education research. As a result of such unique national perspectives—​that understandably concern primarily those in the respective systems—​music educators and the associated teacher training tend to slow-​cook in their national stew pots. I doubt that Germany is an exception to this rule. For those outside the Anglo-​American language sphere there exists an added problem: their national discourses are mainly carried out in the native local language, hidden from the international public. Conversely, everybody is privy to the Anglo-​American discourse! German music educators read German, and American educators read English; only a few are interested in the international perspective, partly because they do not know what to look for in the publications (research of the last 50 years or so was often concerned with music-​making in schools, which was not the focus in German schools as I mentioned earlier) and because they have not been contributing to it actively (count the few German authors who have published anything in English). Furthermore, the strong hermeneutic tradition prevalent among German music education authors has relied on the proficient mastery of the written and spoken word. German philosophers, such as Adorno, and writers, including musicologists such as Carl Dahlhaus, have fostered an academic style of writing that is difficult to bring together with the jargon of current international research. You can guess the rest: Why sound stupid in a foreign language if you can sound learned in your native one? However, there might be several reasons why further global interaction in music education and research on music learning is timely, despite barriers in language and national traditions.





1. Music is a universal phenomenon and passed on from one generation to the next in all countries using similar means. Therefore, recent research on the evolution of music and musical behavior cuts across language communities. 2. The discussion about positive transfer effects of music since the 1990s, with its infamous “Mozart effect,” along with notable advances in neuropsychology have in many countries fueled public interest in music education in inexplicable ways. The idea that any learning, even in the arts, has its physiological basis that we are starting to better understand has been favorable to music education (at least in Germany). 3. As a consequence music research has become increasingly possible internationally—​and even fashionable, as the databases reveal. 4. Fortunately, increasing numbers of non-​English researchers have acquired a reasonable mastery of English as the lingua franca of science (with the Scandinavian colleagues leading the way). In some countries, young researchers are even required to write their theses in English, especially in the natural sciences. Alas, (music) education is still lagging behind, presumably because of its often regional focus.

284

Andreas C. Lehmann

Through participation in international conferences (e.g., ISME, ICMPC) or the use of handbooks such as this one, researchers from all countries can meet, exchange ideas, and may even develop joint projects. They can partake in a discourse and learn about research that their own countries would not be able to support on their own. If we use the current windfall in public interest to connect across borders, we may benefit from one another’s work. I am convinced that research in music education thrives on personal contacts that center around common interests. I have seen this happen in my own biography and that of other colleagues who have spent some time outside Germany. However, music education everywhere probably ought to maintain a unique national flavor due to the divergent makeup of their respective educational systems. And discourse on these unique aspects should be communicated in the national languages, because it concerns the local community of practitioners who deal with those issues. But as a global community of researchers, we should be able to include all nationalities in a common thread of discussion that transcends local relevance and advances music education at a higher level. If research in other areas, such as medicine or psychology, can join forces internationally, why should the situation in the arts and music be different? Attracting local music educators (more specifically graduate and doctoral students and professors) into the international arena can be a daunting task. The best point of entry for them would be to attend international conferences, especially if they happen in their own countries. For this, first, for quality assurance, research needs to be conducted using international standards and within the peer review framework; and second, funding has to be made available to allow students and professors to attend international conferences. National advocacy and striving for academic excellence is paramount in this process. And in our strive for internationalizing music education as in all (music) learning, the key ingredients are and will be curiosity, determination, good examples, and lots of practice.

Chapter 25

EMOTION IN MUSIC EDUCATION Richard Letts

Music: That one of the fine arts which is concerned with the combination of sounds with a view to beauty of form and the expression of emotion. (Oxford English Dictionary) Music moves as the emotions move. (Susanne K. Langer)1 Music is born of feeling to appeal to feeling. It is created out of emotion to move the emotions. (Julius Portnoy)2 Music, I feel, must be emotional first and intellectual second. (Maurice Ravel) Why do rhythms and melodies, which are mere sounds, resemble dispositions, while tastes do not, nor yet colours or smells? (Aristotle)3 Music is the shorthand of emotion. Emotions which let themselves be described in words with such difficulty, are directly conveyed to man in music, and in that is its power and significance. (Leo Tolstoy) Is it not strange that sheep’s guts should hale souls out of men’s bodies? (Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act 2 scene 3)

This freewheeling collection of quotations is intended to display the agreement of an array of great thinkers over more than two millennia about the centrality of emotion to the purpose and effect of music. I studied music in universities in Australia and the United States for a long time—​some 10 years. During that entire experience, I cannot remember more than a few occasions when my lecturers spontaneously acknowledged that music carries emotions (or even might be beautiful).4 Isn’t that extraordinary?

286Richard Letts As is evident from the quotations above, and many more like them, philosophers, authors, composers, musicians, and even the Oxford English Dictionary have no difficulty in acknowledging the emotional aspect of music. But not my music lecturers. Many of the lecturers must privately have been drawn to music because of its emotional or expressive power, but what they taught were the facts: the theory, the technique, the context. It’s not just that there was no course in the emotions but that they were not even mentioned. Perhaps this is an Anglo thing. “We’re British, you know . . .”5 Perhaps emotions are private matters, not to be discussed in public. Not proper subject matter for a university course unless it is medical and concerns a form of illness. A form of illness that we rather disapprove of and generally prefer not to know about (although that does seem to be changing). Or perhaps it can be attributed to the strength of “formalism” at the time: Formalists would contend that the meaning of music lies in the perception and understanding of the musical relationships set forth in the work of art and that meaning in music is primarily intellectual, while the expressionist would argue that these same relationships are in some sense capable of exciting feelings and emotions in the listener. (Leonard Meyer)6

Clearly, I am taking the expressionist position. But note that according to Meyer this includes and goes beyond the intellectual perceptions of music, which are everything for the formalist. This all comes to mind because of the efforts that are currently being undertaken around the world to revise and update a number of national curricula. Existing models are being scrutinized, and ideas invited. Such curricula seem always to be drawn in cognitive terms. I could take as an example one of the excellent state music curricula in Australia. This seems to have a fine reputation in music education circles, and I believe that it is justified. However, for the purpose of this argument, let us look at some details. The key skills are found in the list below. Several headings suggest the possibility of including the affective domain. “Expressing personal voice,” for instance.

Criterion

• Imagining and creating new works • Using skills, techniques, and processes • Using codes and conventions • Interpreting and appraising the work of others • Making aesthetic choices • Reflecting cultural, social, and historical contexts • Presenting with purpose • Expressing personal voice

Emotion in Music Education

287

If one were to express a personal voice in music, it would appropriately be done by “imagining and creating new works.” What would be brought into play to do that? The table shows the details of that objective (see table 25.1). I appreciate that this is a table of concepts and competencies, and that is the usual form in which curricula are constructed. But there is barely a capillary’s worth of blood in it. There is not even a cognitive, analytical mention of emotion. If a musician performed these various competencies in the spirit of this framework, we would all be desperate to leave the room. Music is indivisible. The dualism of feeling and thinking must be resolved to a state of unity in which one thinks with the heart and feels with the brain. (Conductor George Szell, Time magazine, February 22, 1963).

The state curriculum does not block inclusion of expression and emotion, but neither does it endorse it. Given my experience, should I be confident that teachers will allow for them if they are not specified? That is the crux of the matter. If emotion is not “out,” specifically excluded as curricular content, is it in? No. My fear is that if it is not “in” (i.e., specifically included), it will continue to be out except by the personal inclinations of a random group of teachers. The report of our recent Australian National Review of School Music Education7 includes a section not unlike the state curriculum mentioned above, titled “Guidelines for Student Learning.” It is set out in clusters of grade levels. The first is “Early Childhood K–​3.” The language is again essentially cognitive and conceptual. The first set of “music practices” in the Guidelines: “Developing music ideas. Creating, interpreting, exploring, developing and performing music ideas.” Further to these objectives, column 2 lists “focuses for learning.” These include “developing Table 25.1 Expressing a personal voice in music Criterion

Key Components

Essentially, this means that students are developing the ability to . . .

Imagining and creating new works

Improvising

Explore and experiment with the materials of music, with a growing vocabulary of styles and increasing fluency and confidence in performance

Composing

Make deliberate choices in selection and sequencing of original material, with a growing vocabulary of compositional devices, use of notation and appreciation of intention and purpose

Arranging

Make deliberate choices in selection, manipulation and sequencing of existing material, with a growing understanding of the capabilities of the instruments at their disposal and a developing personal style

Recording

Use conventional and graphic notation in calligraphic and digital form; make audio and video recordings of works at various stages of development

288Richard Letts an understanding . . .,” “identifying ideas and feelings,” and “exploring the emerging musical ideas based on personal experiences, stories, play, feelings, themes, pictures and other stimuli in their immediate world.” A long list of “key questions” includes this one: “Do students listen to a range of repertoire with a variety of music genres and identify ideas and the feelings8 the music generates in them?” Feelings are at least mentioned and are included in an appropriate way (although those are the only instances in two pages of detail). That, however, is the last we hear of them. There is no mention of the emotional realm in the Guidelines for Years 4–​6, 7–​9, or 10–​12, except that in the latter there is a question “Do students express positive values about music?”—​not the same issue. The compilers of these documents might respond that children were put on the right track in the early years and would be aware of emotional content henceforth, but even if that argument were to be taken seriously, the fact is that many students receive no music education until the later primary or elementary years or more often, secondary school (or never—​but that also is another issue). How would the emotional aspects of music be included in a curriculum, given that basic curricular structure is unlikely to change? How can the emotional realm be specified except through another layer of cognitive concepts and language (likely to kill it stone cold dead)? There seems to be very broad agreement that a serious music education will be based on a curriculum that is sequential, continuous, and developmental. So far as the inclusion of emotion is concerned, there is no problem around the concept “continuous.” “Sequential” seems to present difficulty. It is easily possible to put in order of increasing difficulty musical concepts and movement skills. On the other hand, while a skill in naming emotions or differentiating between them could be developed, it is difficult to see the opportunity for sequential instruction. While there are some developmental issues at play in the early years, we know from research that by the age of seven, children are distinguishing emotions in music at more or less adult levels. So perhaps there cannot be a curricular structure built around emotion in music. It is expected of a curriculum, even if it is not sequential, that it gets us from A to Z, and is in some way cumulative. Perhaps this progress is more easily structured around cognitive skills as concepts, and the emotional content is attached, in particular to the music itself, but also to concepts. Perhaps the purpose is to characterize the affective content of music with increasing nuance. The training therefore is in recognizing musical content but also in developing an increasingly fine-​grained perception of “its” emotional content (really the emotions aroused in the listener) and in developing the ability to apply language to name the emotions. It is therefore also a type of training in an aspect of verbal literacy.9 Some analysis of general characteristics of music that affect the perception of emotional content probably is possible and applies across most if not all genres. Here are some examples.

Emotion in Music Education



289

• Proximity to and departures from physiological norms, for example: • The beat’s relationship to the normal walking pace—​normal, slower, or faster than normal and the implication of level of vigor or effort. • Similarly, the perceived level of vigor or effort relating to volume of sound. • Behavior of pitch, rising or falling, shaping; pitch moving to extremes of range, depending on what is normal for the sound producer—​trumpet, cello, tenor, and so on. (Composers achieve intensity by writing the famous high C for tenor voices, making clear the effort to sing it, associating it with other emotional “highs” expressed by the music. The high C for the tenor is middle range for the soprano; no drama inherent there.) • Dissonance versus consonance, as perceived in the musical genre and the work itself. • Harmonic tension and release, as perceived in the musical genre and the work itself. • Rhythmic regularity/​irregularity, as perceived in the musical genre and the work itself. • Rate of change of significant musical events, as perceived in the musical genre and the work itself. • Level of novelty, as perceived within the genre.

Such perceptions as the above depend on the listener’s familiarity with respective genres and the normal expectations within them. “Redundancy” of musical information depends on individual perceptions, which depend largely on familiarity with genre.10 As an example only, a listener from a non-​Western country without any knowledge of Western harmony may hear a sequence of notes making up a Western ninth chord as five novel sound events, whereas the Western listener may hear them as a way of presenting the single event, a ninth chord. The first time a Westerner hears a ninth chord, it is a novel event that may surprise. The hundredth time, it has a “redundancy,” it has passed into the language, the normal expectations, and will not carry the emotional energy of novelty. An expectation will also have built up about the range of normal, expected musical events that follow a ninth chord, and if expectation is realized, there is redundancy, if not, some sort of novelty, tension, feeling. Of course, this is not to say that without novelty, expressiveness is lost. Extracting cognitive and affective meaning from music thus can depend on a deep familiarity with the genre. There is much research, many reports and books that describe the relationships between music and the emotions. It is hardly uncharted territory. While our curricular interests may here focus on perceptions of emotion “in the music” and what it is in the music that causes them, there are other types of developmental benefit possible from the relationships between music and emotion. The opening up of emotional life through the proxy of music might be a nonthreatening way of enlarging and integrating the whole person. Music

290Richard Letts communicates in such a way that the auditor is relieved of the necessity to act on emotion that might ordinarily call for action. It may thus be possible to experience emotions through music that would be suppressed in ordinary life. Music stands quite alone. It is cut off from all the other arts . . .. It does not express a particular and definite joy, sorrow, anguish, horror, delight, or mood of peace, but joy, sorrow, anguish, horror, delight, peace of mind themselves, in the abstract, in their essential nature, without accessories, and therefore without their customary motives. Yet it enables us to grasp and share them fully in this quintessence. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

Bloom’s taxonomy of the affective realm11 has been an important theoretical source in consideration of the role of emotion in education. It looks at the process of forming and internalizing values. To what is the person attracted or from what repulsed? Motivation is related to valuing. The student that attaches value to music or music learning will be more likely to persist. This, however, is relevant to any subject and of itself, does not give insight into music as a carrier of emotional experience. Music can be used to increase skills and satisfaction in socialization. These are skills in the affective domain. Members of Queensland Youth Orchestra share a strong sense of community in spite of relatively little social interaction between them during rehearsals and the fact that they did not know each other before joining the orchestra. There is a very strong bond formed simply by performing a work accurately and with a single heart. The pursuit of musical excellence also engendered a sense of community.12 The desire for the success of small ensembles induces efforts to create workable relationships between members and so builds socialization skills.13 Music can sweep one up and extract a lifetime of commitment to music-​ making. It does bring us together, perhaps sometimes because of shared amazement with its intellectual intricacies but more likely because we feel as one its emotional unfolding. If music “is born of feeling to appeal to feeling . . . is created out of emotion to move the emotions,” (Julius Portnoy) what can we be thinking of in effectively excluding emotion from the formal music curriculum? I do believe that I have composed the work I originally intended; that the structure I came up with in that Rozelle café in 2006 was merely an attempt to draw (literally) an emotion, a questioning of life and existence; that the heart of the matter finally broke through only once the mind, with its diagrams and charts, became weak. Then again it might be that, like a dam, the subconscious needed to be blocked for a period until it overflowed. Of course, this is not a particularly accepted view of how a “serious” composer should go about his/​her work but I have found that forcing myself to compose by the standards of others, such as with formulas, calculus and magic squares, leaves me barren and cold. (Australian composer Christopher Gordon)

Gordon wrote this about the process of composing his horn concerto, Lightfall. Emotion fueled his work; formalist considerations obstructed it. Of course, it must be acknowledged that for some great composers, formal structures are primary.14

Emotion in Music Education

291

NOTES 1. Susanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1942. 2. Julius Portnoy, The philosopher and music. Humanities Press, New York, 1954. 3. Aristotle, Problems, trans. W. Hett, Heinemann, London, 1952, 920a, 3–​7. 4. I also took instrumental lessons privately. There was the teacher, me, and the music—​ and the goal of expressive performance. Naturally, anything could be discussed, including the emotional content of the music or, if you like, the emotions that the music might arouse in the listeners. The teachers were not bound by institutional requirements. Teachers and students of singing cannot escape emotions; they are named in the lyrics. 5.  . . . though there was Hanslick. 6. Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and meaning in music, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956. 7. Robin Pascoe et al., Augmenting the Diminished, Report of the National Review of School Music Education, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, 2005. 8. A distinction has long been made between feelings, emotions, and moods. According to Arnold and Gasson, feelings are “those affective states where the psychological reference is principally to the subject”; they involve a reaction not to an object, but to the sense perceptions connected with it. Emotion is concerned with the effect of such an object on the person and implies a need for possession of the object; it is a motivating force. A mood is a protracted feeling state that is not ascribed to a particular sensation, but that reflects the total inner state, the total functioning of the organism. M. B. Arnold & J. A. Gasson, “Feelings and emotions as dynamic factors in personality integration,” in Arnold, The Nature of Emotion, Penguin, London, 1968). 9. But, writes Langer, music presents directly to our understanding “subtle complexes of feeling that language cannot even name.” See Langer, Philosophy in a New Key, pp.174–​ 208, for a more extended consideration of these issues. 10. Meyer, Emotion and meaning in music. 11. B. S. Bloom, D. R. Krathwohl, & B. B. Masia, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The affective domain, McKay, New York, 1964. 12. B.-​L. Bartleet, P. Dunbar-​Hall, R. Letts, & H. Schippers, Sound links: Community music in Australia, Griffith University Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre, Brisbane, 2009. 13. J. W. Davidson & J. M. M. Good, Social and musical coordination between members of a string quartet: An exploratory study, Psychology of Music (2002), 30, 186–​201. 14. Gordon’s diary can be read at www.hornconcerto.net, installment 19.

Chapter 26

MUSIC EDUCATION FROM A SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE Håkan Lundström

Music education is a large field that embraces a wide variety of practices, depending on the specific aims and whether the purpose of this education is to educate professional musicians, amateurs, listeners, or anything in between. Here, I am concerned with the ways that people get to know enough about music in order for them to be able to learn songs or tunes and to transmit these to others. This interest stems from the position that the oral transmission of music forms the basis for a living music culture and, as a consequence, for the existence of amateur and professional musicians. Children’s traditions are, of course, central to this practice, and their traditions are strong. Some years ago music teachers in Sweden, who took courses in order to obtain formal diplomas, undertook projects in my classes where they asked one child to pick a song and teach it to another child two other children in the class (outside the lessons), and these children taught the song to two others and so forth, so that in the end the song had passed through the whole class, and the results could be compared and discussed. This technique worked because the children, aged around 10–​13, had the capacity to learn, adapt, and pass on a song. When undertaking this activity, one of the trainee teachers stumbled across a new children’s game song that he had never heard before. He tracked it down as it spread all over his schoolyard and then on to other schools in the area, all the time appearing in more or less an altered form. What he witnessed was a spontaneous process of the “song chain” described above, and a sign that this form of children’s culture was alive and

Music Education from a Slightly Outside Perspective

293

flourishing. The game song in question is called “So Macaroni,” and it has spread across many countries throughout the world (see further, Marsh, 2008).

Music Learning in an Oral Culture The following account comes from the Kammu people (or Khmu or other spellings), who are an ethnic minority in Southeast Asia, particularly in northern Laos (Lundström, 2010). In a traditional Kammu village most people would be able to join in the music activities and to play a number of instruments. There are no professional musicians in the strict sense of the word, but there are some within this social setting who are considered particularly talented and who are called on to perform the music on ceremonial occasions. Kam Raw (1938–​2011) grew up in a village in northern Lao and lived in Sweden for many years. From children and adults around him, he learnt children songs and songs for children as he grew up. Certain songs and instruments that belong to various ceremonies or social activities were also learnt by participation. Singing was considered so important in the village where he grew up that someone who did not know how to sing when people come together was regarded as more or less socially disabled. On the other hand most people were able to sing well enough to join in the social singing situations. Parents showed much interest in teaching their children to sing and in encouraging them to sing: Everybody should know the social songs, trnèem—​that is, not nowadays but from my father’s generation and back. If somebody performs a trnèem, then, like a question, you should be able to answer correctly in order not to lose face. At feasts, boys at the age of six or seven could sit on their fathers’ knees. The elders used to say: “You will never get good relations with other people if you don’t téem. You will stay by yourself. You will never get people for parties and you cannot go to another village or play with girls.” So the boys liked to sit on their fathers’ knees and to learn. The following morning my father used to ask: “Did you hear which songs we used? Why do you think we used those?” (Kam Raw’s words retold by author)

Kam learned a large part of his repertoire simply by being part of this oral tradition of musical transmission. Apart from the stimulation in his home and at play with other children he sees certain other situations as particularly important in his learning process, especially the singing that was undertaken in the fields during the months immediately before the harvesting season. At that time of year young boys lived in the fields in order to watch over the growing rice and to guard it from birds and wild animals. The evenings and nights were spent in small field houses. This was a time when the youngest children learned singing and how to play certain musical instruments from their older friends.

294

Håkan Lundström

When Kam first stayed in a field he was about 10  years old. In the evenings the boys of neighboring fields would gather in one of the field houses, where the older boys would teach songs to the younger ones. This seems to have often taken the form of proper lessons, during which two, three, or even more songs were taught. The one who knew a song well would sing it as the others tried to copy him. Mistakes would be corrected by the “teacher,” and during the following days the “pupils” would practice and try to memorize the new songs. When necessary they would correct each other, or the “teacher” would do so if present. There were also ceremonial songs, which were not sung outside the ceremonies, such as songs of the funeral ceremony and songs directed to certain spirits. Kam learned these as a child by overhearing ceremonies during which they were sung and later on through personal participation in the ceremonies. He learnt a repertoire of important shaman songs under the guidance of a master from the neighboring Lamet people.

An Anthropology View on Learning Turning now to learning in the perspective of anthropology and ethnomusicology, Alan P. Merriam’s point of departure was that “culture as a whole is learned behavior, and each culture shapes the learning process to accord with its own ideals and values” (Merriam, 1964, p. 145). Thus one can expect to find great variations in learning processes from one culture to another. Referring to John Gillin, he concludes that:

• Culture provides the conditions for learning • Culture systematically elicits appropriate responses • Culture, through its products or agents, provides reinforcements • The culture of a society therefore has certain self-​perpetuating tendencies, so long as the human population that manifests the culture does not die out (Gillin [1948] quoted in Merriam, 1964, pp. 161–​162)

Enculturation is seen as “the process by which the individual learns his culture” (Merriam, 1964, p. 146) and can be subdivided into • Socialization: the process of social learning as it is carried out in the early years of life • Education: the directed learning process, both formally or informally carried out • Schooling: “those processes of teaching and learning carried on at specific times, in particular places, for definite periods, by persons especially prepared or trained for the task” (Herskovits, 1948, p. 310) Social anthropologist Paul Bohannan refines these ideas by distinguishing between habituation and education: “In habituation, human beings learn those aspects

Music Education from a Slightly Outside Perspective

295

of culture that are not regarded in the culture as specifically learnable techniques. In education they are taught—​specifically taught—​the techniques” (Bohannan, 1963, p.  18). Canadian ethnomusicologist Francis Corpataux makes a further distinction: “imitation is a voluntary act. By impregnation, I am referring to learning that occurs through immersion in the local culture” (quoted in Ilari & Pablo, 2002, p. 11). The agents involved in learning/​teaching processes are, for example, family, established musicians, the ceremonial practitioner, mothers, fathers, other children, and so forth. The techniques of learning and teaching that are mentioned in the literature include motivation, guidance, reward (helping, giving, praising, allowing), demonstration, practicing, directed learning, and imitation. Proper schooling exists in such systemized activities as “the bush school, organized usually in connection with puberty rites and initiation” (Merriam, 1964, p. 155) and in apprenticeship (p. 157). The survey related above of Kam Raw’s learning experience in his home village includes all the types of learning mentioned above. Together they constitute his enculturation with regard to singing and music: • Habituation, impregnation: children’s songs, songs for children, certain social songs, certain ceremonial songs, and certain instruments • Education: shaman songs • Schooling: adult songs learnt in the “field school” These processes fit equally well with my own music education while growing up in Sweden. I ended up as an amateur performing musician while focusing on musicology studies: • Habituation, impregnation: children’s songs, songs for children, music, jazz/​ rock/​pop and folk styles • Education: folk tunes and early popular tunes learnt from my grandfather (who played a small accordion) in sessions during a succession of summer holidays • Schooling: music lessons in school, instrumental lessons in afternoon community music school and by private teachers Still I do not feel that my music learning has been fragmented. In one way or another the different learning situations constitute a whole for me. It is very likely that these categories will fit almost everybody—​though the three categories may be of different proportions—​and probably everybody who cares for music is able to navigate through the different parts and integrate them into a complete learning profile on the personal level.

Some Challenges for Music Education From the perspective of anthropology or ethnomusicology there are thus a number of diverse ways that people learn music. While there is much cultural diversity some

296

Håkan Lundström

major categories can be defined. From this perspective music education in the sense of schooling is one of several learning modes and perhaps not even the central one. From the perspective of music education, music schooling is the central form of learning. Learning that takes place outside the school situation is also acknowledged and often referred to as informal. It is true that research in music education, as well as practice, in recent years has come to embrace much more of the informal learning situations. Still there is a difference between extending a field of practice or research from the inside and applying a totally outside perspective to the whole field. When the perspective with which an object is looked at is changed, the positions and relations between its parts will change—​the way the picture in a kaleidoscope changes when it is turned around, even though the parts that make up the picture are the same. Some parts that seem peripheral in the original perspective may stand out as central in the new perspective, and the other way around. For me, this outside perspective has made two factors stand out as extremely central ones to music learning. Both lie in the sphere that Merriam called socialization that was further specified to embrace learning by habituation or impregnation:

• The ability to relate to music by learning, adapting, transmitting • The capacity for parents to transfer this ability to their children

Even though children’s culture seems to be surviving (Marsh, 2008) it cannot be taken for granted that it will always do so and definitely not that it will survive in every society in the world, for example in places that experience war or similar situations. Likewise there is no guarantee that parents will “automatically” know how to sing or make music with their children. In Beijing, developments in modern times have caused changes in the self-​understanding and identity of mothers, which is now the theme for a research project, called Mommusicing, in which the use of music in mother-​child interaction plays a central role. This is an example of the complementary functions of music education/​research and informal music learning (Xie & Xiaoming, 2009). Some challenges for music education follow from this: • The challenge to understand the position of music education in the whole spectrum of music learning: This kind of worldview would make it natural for music educators and researchers to note changes in the learning contexts outside the school and react to them, for example, in collaboration with ethnomusicologists and music sociologists. • The challenge for music education to regard itself as complementary to other ways of learning music—​rather than as of a different species: Given that the music educator’s aim is to help children or school pupils to develop their personal “learning profile,” this would involve supporting the competences children bring with them to school, particularly those associated with oral learning and transmission; furthermore, to regard methodologies developed within music education as pieces in a puzzle that may be combined with

Music Education from a Slightly Outside Perspective

297

other pieces in the informal learning contexts, and to demonstrate how they can reinforce each other in the individual’s “learning profile.” • The challenge to develop methodologies that tie different ways of learning together on a meta level—​rather than connecting them to specific musical genres. Established methodologies exist for teaching “classical music” in school. If other genres, such as rock music, for example, are “imported” to the school context, their informal learning practices will often be “imported” with them. This challenge would create a need for a reorientation to focus on matters—​practical, theoretical, and historical as well as sociological—​that are relevant to many (or all) music genres, thereby giving the individual the tools to navigate between different music learning contexts in the society.

REFERENCES Bohannan, P. (1963). Social anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gillin, J. (1948). The ways of men. New York: Appleton-​Century-​Crofts. Herskovits, M. J. (1948). Man and his works. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Ilari, B., & Pablo, M. (2002). Children’s songs around the world: An interview with Francis Corpataux. Music Education International, 1, 3–​14. Lundström, H. (2010). I will send my song. Kammu vocal genres in the singing of Kam Raw. Copenhagen: NIAS Press. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground. Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Xie, J., & Xiaoming, K. (2009). Discussions on mom identity consciousness in Mommusicing. In Yu Danhong (ed.), 7th Asia-​Pacific Symposium on Music Education Research (pp. 540–​ 547). ISME Asia-​Pacific Regional Conference, China, June 24–​28, 2009. Shanghai: Baljia Publishing House.

Chapter 27

RESEARCH ISSUES IN PERSONAL MUSIC IDENTIFICATION Clifford K. Madsen

I shall never forget that special day in fourth grade when my mother returned from a long trip and surprised me with a brand new cornet. I remember just looking at the case for a long time, then carefully opening it. It was absolutely magnificent. I can still see it now—​vividly. It was a bright golden instrument lying in a rich red velvet background. If I try hard I can still smell the inside of that new case: A strange mixture of new velvet lining and valve-​oil. Even after six decades it is permanently stored in my memory. Having been initially recruited into the Tonette class, I  had instant success and could play any number of songs quickly and easily—​it was really, really fun. Coming from a very large family of extremely modest means I  knew we could not afford a regular horn and was delighted to be able to play a school instrument for free. It was an E♭ mellophone, an instrument surely created by the Devil, with piston values and difficult to hold. Yet the most awful thing about it was its horrible intonation. Regardless, I thought it was wonderful. It was much better than the plastic Tonette, and I could get half steps and play different tunes, and if I  worked at it I  could make it play almost in tune, except for the 1, 2, and 3 buttons held down together. Evidently my band director noticed my budding precociousness and was very encouraging. I found out later that he had approached my parents and almost insisted that I get a new instrument. Of course that was not possible but as I later discovered my sweet mother began a long project toward saving money for the purchase of that new cornet. Much, much later I truly understood just how difficult that purchase was for my parents. So very quickly

Research Issues in Personal Music Identification

299

after getting that new instrument I became almost permanently attached to it in the strongest manner possible. This preoccupation with performance continued for years but was interrupted in the eleventh grade when my high-​school band director (who had switched me to French horn) asked me to conduct the band at a school assembly. Although I knew next to nothing about conducting, I  was eager to do it. Thus I  entered into another phenomenological experience very much like the early cornet. I still vividly remember that large auditorium filled with my classmates, and I got to conduct a band arrangement of “Deep Purple.” Few sophisticated musicians, including myself, would suggest that this piece represents a selection of great music literature. However, it received a tremendous amount of reinforcement from my peers—​and I can still hear that melody resounding throughout that big auditorium. Indeed, it was very similar to the reinforcement I received when I played my horn. When we combine the external reinforcement a teenaged youngster receives from peers (as well as adults) with the internal fantasies mentally rehearsed across many formative years we have a person who has an extremely strong identification. Conducting, especially in public, was tremendously fun, especially when combined, with regular horn performances across a plethora of venues. And when the tune stops there is always applause—​this positive attention becomes very meaningful and even addictive. I knew right after “Deep Purple” I wanted to become a band director. I have had other instruments and many conducting experiences, but nothing stands out in my memory more than that first new cornet and the eleventh-​grade assembly. Thus began a very long and very personal identity with music, primarily as a performer and conductor. Indeed, most of my thoughts about music during that developmental period concerned making music—​and getting a great deal of positive reinforcement from it across the years. This was true even to the point of not being able to imagine my identity apart from playing my horn and/​or conducting. Across the 50 years I have been teaching psychology of music classes almost every student relates similar experiences to the above. Indeed, there appears to be an extremely strong connection between who one is with what one does as far as self-​identification is concerned in music. One of the most shocking days in my class is that day when I ask students to imagine themselves suddenly without the ability to play their instruments. I recount the story of a trumpet player who accidentally walked into a large plate glass door that quickly and permanently lacerated his lips, keeping him from ever playing again. My question and this horrifying thought represent a tremendous shock to many of them. Most are so preoccupied with performing that it not only occupies a lot of their time but also their thoughts and sense of self as well. In 1988 as part of my acceptance speech for MENC’s Senior Researcher Award, I  suggested that we should investigate attitudes concerning all issues relating to applied music study, especially those issues having to do with personal identification and the “need” to “study with the right teacher.” In that speech I suggested that until we start to unravel the complexities of why people pursue the difficult task of playing a musical instrument, including the sociological issues concerning status

300

Clifford K. Madsen

and the psychological issues relating to self-​concept and personal motivation, we will not change the attitudes surrounding applied music. If an aspiring performer “needs” to study with a distinguished teacher or has the propensity to eulogize his present teacher regardless of competence or reputation, as some of my data indicate, then it seems useless to suggest other avenues for professional development outside the traditional apprenticeship model. This issue has both pedagogical as well as psychological implications. In addition, in the process of developing an evaluation instrument of undergraduate music instructors I inadvertently found that students rated their present applied music teacher a full standard deviation higher than any other classroom music professor. Curiously, if a student became upset with his or her current applied teacher, and changed teachers, the previous teacher was then rated almost two full standard deviations below the “new” teacher. Whereas the new teacher then received the same high evaluation as did the original teacher, but only when the rater was presently studying with that particular teacher. If a person’s self-​concept is as strongly tied to her instrument, as these preliminary data seem to suggest, then all other issues should take this into account. Indeed, the strong personal identification connected to one’s instrument needs a great deal of study. The apparent inability of most adult musicians to deal with self-​ concept if not connected with their musical instruments needs rigorous investigation. Perhaps it is this extremely strong identification that results in the need to study with the “right teacher.” For example, it is not uncommon for applied music students to actually follow a current applied teacher across the nation, and sometimes the world, to maintain the apprentice relationship. Of course it is not necessarily limited to applied music study but definitely needs clarification. I am aware of excellent research investigating aspects of personality and instrument selection, as well as studies that address a person’s proclivity for a certain musical timbre. However, I think other fruitful areas of investigation should address sociological issues, especially regarding status. In the formative years, particularly in adolescence, it seems that social issues are paramount. During these formative years most often peers have a great deal of influence on each other. The desire to not only “fit in” but to be recognized seems very important. If a violinist can play the Vivaldi A Minor with aplomb, as opposed to still squeaking in a public performance, then the youngster is held in high peer esteem. When a trumpet player can triple-​tongue through a Vandercook solo, or if a pianist can quickly negotiate a fast Kobalevsky performance; or if any youngster can get to conduct (any group) or be the leader as with a drum major or student leader, this receives strong positive peer approval. Alternately, if someone is still struggling with his instrument and does not receive positive praise, then he will often quit. Sometimes belonging to a revered group is what maintains the desire to continue. If it is powerful enough this perseverance will probably be strong—​extremely strong—​until the group disbands. If a student does not connect with another similar group with which to identify, the desire to continue working diligently diminishes.

Research Issues in Personal Music Identification

301

If it is determined that achieving some peer status in the developmental years might have a strong impact on identity and subsequent career goals, then music educators should provide these experiences with the aim of providing complete peer performance immersion that has a good chance for a positive outcome. Across the years other identities and activities might override these initial phenomenological experiences, but the career trajectory already will be in place. When we feel both empowered and personally connected, the desire to continue seems especially strong—​my own analysis suggests that every musician still remembers that first instrument.

Chapter 28

PREPARATION, PERSEVERANCE, AND PERFORMANCE IN MUSIC: VIEWS FROM A PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH Andrew J. Martin

On the one hand, diverse performance domains such as music, school, sports, and work are seen to be quite distinct. On the other hand, it is evident that they share a great deal in common. In all these domains, for example, participants are required to apply themselves over a sustained and disciplined period of time, “switch on” in key performance settings, cope with the rigors and challenges of competition, bounce back from inevitable setback, and wrestle with self-​doubt and performance slumps. Indeed, my recent research and that of others has confirmed these hypothesized congruencies across music, school, sport, and work (Martin, 2008a, 2008b). Given this common ground, it is reasonable to suggest that some of the yields and insights derived from diverse performance psychology domains are relevant to individual and group preparation, perseverance, and performance in music. This commentary provides an explanation of five exciting directions that I believe have the potential to contribute to research, education, and practice in music education: (1) integrative and multidimensional motivation, (2) buoyancy and resilience, (3) adaptability, (4) personal bests (PBs), and (5) interpersonal relationships.

Preparation, Perseverance, and Performance in Music

303

Integrative and Multidimensional Motivation Motivation is individuals’ inclination, energy, and drive to engage, learn, work effectively, and achieve to potential. Motivation plays a large part in enjoyment of and interest in one’s life pursuits. Motivation also underpins achievement (Martin, 2007, 2009). Critical reviews of motivation research point to the fact that it is diverse and fragmented (Pintrich, 2003)—​with music motivation research being no exception. Fragmentation has been identified as a threat to motivational science, and there have been calls for more integrative approaches to research and theorizing (Pintrich, 2003). Thus, recent efforts have been directed to developing integrative and multidimensional approaches to motivation. It is in this context that the Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009), for example, was developed in the academic domain, and subsequently extended to the music domain. The Wheel comprises 4 higher order and 11 first order factors, as follows: adaptive cognition (self-​ efficacy, valuing, mastery orientation), adaptive behavior (planning, task management, persistence), impeding cognition (anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control), and maladaptive behavior (self-​handicapping, disengagement). Martin (2008a, 2008b) assessed the application of this integrative and multidimensional model of motivation to the music domain. Participants were young classical musicians. The data confirmed the good fit of the 4 higher order dimensions and their 11 first order dimensions. This approach to music motivation holds a number of implications for researchers and practitioners. Because component constructs have a theoretical basis, researchers and practitioners are able to draw on theory to provide direction for intervention. In addition, a multidimensional approach allows for more differentiated guidance and support, focusing on factors in greater need of attention for different musicians. In sum, recent integrative and multidimensional approaches in educational psychology have proven effective in measurement, research, and practice; such approaches hold similar promise for the music domain.

Buoyancy and Resilience Maintaining motivation through relatively smooth and successful phases of life is not difficult for most people. However, life is not always smooth and successful. The music domain, for example, is one in which challenge, setback, adversity, and pressure are a reality of life at some stage in every musician’s life (Martin, 2008a, 2008b). Thus, there is a need to understand music-​related adversity and how musicians deal with it.

304

Andrew J. Martin

In line with this, alongside motivation, Martin and Marsh (2009) have investigated individuals’ capacity to deal with setback, pressure, and adversity in performance domains. Focusing on the academic domain, they hypothesized academic buoyancy as a form of “everyday” resilience that enables individuals to effectively manage low-​level setback and challenge. They further hypothesized academic resilience as a capacity to effectively deal with chronic and acute adversity that is a threat to the educational process. Thus, music-​related buoyancy might better enable musicians to deal with daily rehearsal regimes, difficult music pieces, some of the more mundane aspects of preparation, and potentially tedious technical development. Music-​related resilience might better assist musicians in dealing with setback in major competitions, extensive (e.g., season-​long) performance programs, and relatively uncertain and nonlinear performance and career pathways. Buoyancy and resilience, then, may be important avenues for future music research, education, and practice.

Adaptability More recent work has suggested that whereas buoyancy and resilience are important in helping individuals through adversity and challenge, an attribute referred to as “adaptability” is important in helping individuals through change, uncertainty, novelty and transition. That is, a distinction has been made between dealing with adversity and dealing with change—​a distinction articulated by the terms buoyancy and adaptability respectively (Martin, 2012; Martin, Nejad, Colmar, & Liem, 2013, 2014). Adaptability has been proposed as individuals’ adaptive self-​regulation in the face of uncertainty, change, transition, or novelty (Martin, 2012; Martin et al., 2013, 2014). It has been suggested that these regulation efforts take place in three core domains of functioning: cognition, affect, and behavior (Martin, 2012; Martin et al., 2013, 2014). Thus, musicians who are adaptable are proposed to be capable of purposefully and effectively adjusting their thought, emotion, and behavior when they are presented with new performance demands, novel music pieces, changes in group members or directors and instructors, and transition from one level of proficiency to another (Martin, 2012). Research into adaptability is now under way (for recent results, see Collie, Holliman, & Martin, 2016; Martin et  al., 2013, 2014), and there are important questions to address as researchers explore the potential of this construct for explaining competence and achievement in various performance domains. The music domain, with the inherent change and novelty that characterize practice and performance regimes, would be an ideal focus for adaptability research. This research might ask: What is the role of adaptability in assisting musicians to succeed through periods of flux, challenge, and change? Do changes in adaptability lead to changes in subsequent learning, perseverance, and achievement outcomes in

Preparation, Perseverance, and Performance in Music

305

music? These and other questions will be vital for progressing research, theory, and practice in the area of adaptability and its interface with music performance and music psychology.

Personal Bests The music domain is also an ideal one in which to scrutinize key concepts and processes in motivation theory. One ongoing debate in educational psychology relates to goals and the optimal balancing of mastery and performance approaches to learning and achievement. In the music domain, performance-​ oriented musicians would tend to be concerned with comparative ability, being the best, and outperforming others. Mastery-​oriented musicians would tend to focus on developing (rather than demonstrating) competence, improving, making progress, and attaining mastery (Dweck, 1986). Although the evidence clearly demonstrates the adaptive properties of mastery goals, there is also some evidence showing that performance goals are not necessarily inimical to successful functioning. Thus, there is debate as to the advantages and drawbacks of performance goals relative to mastery goals. To the extent that this debate is relevant to education, it is also relevant to other performance domains such as music (Martin, 2008a, 2008b), leading to questions about the most adaptive weighting of performance and mastery goals in music. Martin and Liem (2010) have proposed a personal best (PB) approach as one that may bring some resolution to the debate. It has also been proposed as a construct that may assist individuals under performance and competitive conditions—​ including, potentially, performance and competition in music. A PB encompasses mastery orientation because it is self-​improvement based, but it also holds a slice of performance orientation because the individual competes with their own previous performance or attainment. Findings in the academic domain suggest that PBs are predictive of motivation in the short term and causally predictive of motivation and achievement one year later (Martin & Liem, 2010; see also Martin & Elliot, 2016a, 2016b). Given the mastery and performance concerns fundamental to music, there may be merit in exploring the potential of PBs to resolve tensions between these two goals and assist musicians to more optimally balance mastery and performance concerns as they prepare, persevere, and perform.

Interpersonal Relationships Educational psychology researchers have also investigated factors supportive of individuals’ achievement motivation (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Indeed, a pervading

306

Andrew J. Martin

theme in influential motivation theories is the role of significant others in shaping achievement motivation. Thus, there are theoretical grounds for locating interpersonal relationships in achievement motivation. It seems interpersonal relationships yield positive effects in a number of ways: social interactions teach people about themselves and how to function effectively in particular environments; through interpersonal relationships individuals internalize important beliefs and goals valued by significant others; and, interpersonal relationships have an energizing function on the self (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). It is reasonable to also suggest that these processes have the potential to enhance musicians’ development. Akin to the group and interpersonal processes relevant to students’ academic lives are the group and interpersonal processes relevant to participation and performance in the music domain. We might, for example, investigate the learning-​ and performance-​related impact of interpersonal connectedness between music instructors/​ coaches and musicians, between conductors/​ leaders and group members, and among musicians themselves. In the academic domain, Martin and Dowson (2009) identified a significant link between teacher-​student relationships and students’ academic motivation and engagement—​as well as a significant link between students’ peer relationships and their motivation and engagement. Given the extensive interindividual and group processes relevant to music performance, it may be the case that interpersonal connectedness is as influential in musicians’ development as it is in school students’ academic development. Interpersonal relationships, therefore, may be another fruitful avenue for future research, education, and practice in music.

Conclusion There are numerous potential yields and insights derived from diverse performance psychology domains that are relevant to individual and group preparation, perseverance, and performance in music. A challenge for future research and practice will be for educational psychologists and musicians to work cooperatively in order to more fully understand these processes as they apply in various facets of music education. By incorporating into our teaching and research these frameworks, constructs, and processes, music educators will be better positioned to enhance learning, competence, and achievement in music students. Just as education and training in other applied domains such as education, sport, and work orient to promising new psychological constructs and processes to optimally engage, energize, and activate their stakeholders (e.g., teachers, sportspeople, employees), so, too, can music educators benefit from the application of these constructs and processes. Hence, the synergy of cutting edge research and theory in music and psychology offers important opportunities for music educators as they seek to instruct and inspire future generations of musicians.

Preparation, Perseverance, and Performance in Music

307

REFERENCES Collie, R. J., Holliman, A. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability, engagement, and academic achievement at university. Educational Psychology. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​ 01443410.2016.1231296 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–​1048. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–​162. Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413–​440. Martin, A. J. (2008a). How domain specific are motivation and engagement across school, sport, and music? A  substantive-​methodological synergy assessing young sportspeople and musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 785–​813. Martin, A. J. (2008b). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidimensional framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135–​170. Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/​college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794–​824. Martin, A. J. (2012). Adaptability and learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2339–​2342). New York: Springer. Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327–​365. Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2016a). The role of personal best (PB) and dichotomous achievement goals in students’ academic motivation and engagement: A longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology, 36, 1285–​1302. Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2016b). The role of personal best (PB) goal setting in students’ academic achievement gains. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 222–​227. Martin, A. J., & Liem, G.A. (2010). Academic Personal Bests (PBs), engagement, and achievement: A cross-​lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 265–​270. Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:  Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and cognate constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 353–​370. Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2013). Adaptability: How students’ responses to uncertainty and novelty predict their academic and non-​academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 728–​746. Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A.  D. (2014). From measurement to modeling: A case study of the development and implementation of the Adaptability Scale. London: SAGE. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–​686.

Chapter 29

MUSIC THERAPY IN SCHOOLS: AN EXPANSION OF TRADITIONAL PRACTICE Katrina McFerran

Where does music therapy belong in the school team—​allied health, well-​being, expressive arts? The place of music therapy in schools has always involved a negotiation rather than a comfortable assumption about belonging. One important part of the discussion has been the relationship between music teachers and music therapists, and in some schools, the availability of both professionals results in a great deal of overlap (i.e., the intuitive and empathic music teacher and the skills-​oriented music therapist), while in others, the combination results in two distinct possibilities for engaging with music (the curriculum-​focused music teacher and the relationship-​oriented music therapist). Rather than being a professional distinction, in reality, this has often become very personal. Having acknowledged that one part of the relationship between music therapy and music education is actually a relationship between the music therapist and music educator, it then becomes necessary to consider a whole range of ecological influences that influence the practice and perception of music therapy in schools. In this commentary, I will outline a handful of theoretical influences that seem important to the discussion of “where to put music therapy” from my position as an Australian academic located in a music conservatorium, under the leadership of a music educator (who, not by coincidence, is one of the editors of this book). I will use this position as a platform to look out and around, and take the opportunity to comment on how the validity of music therapy in schools is argued internationally, which in reality is mostly based on English-​language literature from England and

Music Therapy in Schools

309

North America. This volume provides an important opportunity for sharing such a perspective, with contributors from around the globe and a potential audience of readers from many countries. The music therapy chapters in this book illustrate my argument for inclusive understandings, although it is worth noting that the kinds of distinctions I suggest are not simple and what might be labeled “English” influences are sometimes found in American writers subscribing to models of English origin, and vice versa. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge some of the theoretical influences on the diverse local practices of music therapy in schools at a time where it seems to be moving out of the suburbs of special education and into the city of mainstream schools. Music therapists have a long tradition of practicing in school settings that began in the post–​World War II period and has been documented in some depth since the 1970s. The pioneers of the profession in Britain developed models of practice grounded in rich case descriptions of their work with young people who had a range of disabilities. Case study narratives continue to be used in this tradition to illustrate how the combination of musical experiences within a therapeutic relationship can highlight potentials in young people that were not readily apparent in other settings. Genuinely interactive musical encounters and the expression of personal history and identity typify the kinds of achievements usually highlighted in this literature. The methods developed and described by members of the “British school” are usually student-​led and interpreted through a psychodynamic lens, with the music therapist responding to the musical offerings made by the young person and providing musical frameworks that motivate ongoing expression and interaction. The simultaneous development of the music therapy discipline in the United States reflects different theoretical influences relevant to the distinct cultural context. The “Individualized Education Plan” (IEP) has long directed programming in the special school context, and the focus of services provided in schools remains strictly educational. Behavioral theory has been an important influence in this context, along with developmental psychology, and has more recently contemporized in cognitive behavioral approaches. The “American school” is identifiable by a focus on skill acquisition that is amenable to popular research approaches such as applied behavioral designs, and it is studies from this school that have allowed the discipline of music therapy to establish itself as effective. Despite these seemingly disparate approaches to music therapy, the influence of humanism has been shared and has tempered the application of the diverse approaches around the globe. Both historically and currently the influence of policy has had a profound impact on the types of music therapy programs provided in schools around the globe. In the United States, the “No Child Left Behind” agenda is congruent with a continuation of music therapy approaches that result in observable benefits in behaviours and skills. In contrast, recent policy development in the United Kingdom under the label “Every Child Matters” has led to an increased emphasis on positive well-​being, emphasizing concepts of health and safety, economic well-​being, and making a positive contribution. Despite the conspicuous differences in focus of these government documents, politicians and practitioners in the United States have not been oblivious to an increased interest in the well-​being of young people, and self-​esteem

310

Katrina McFerran

has become a critical target for many programs in schools. Whether it is framed as well-​being or self-​esteem, the expanded agenda for schools has led to a more overt emphasis on the importance of emotional development within music therapy practice. Perhaps surprisingly, the link between music and emotions is broadly accepted but infrequently addressed in the music therapy research literature. Outcomes are more frequently contextualized within psycho-​dynamic, developmental, or behavioral frameworks that are indirectly related to emotional well-​being. Schools are usually understood as the location for intellectual rather than emotional work; for skills rather than pure expression. It is allowable to address emotions if doing so will lead to greater educational outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness is challenging to accrue since processes are mostly internal and links to other improvements are often difficult to explicate. Music therapy in schools is now changing as the educational context expands to acknowledge the validity of multiple types of intelligence that incorporate, to some degree, emotional intelligence. Although the impact of these changes has not yet reached the music therapy in special education literature, music therapists working in mainstream settings have enthusiastically embraced it. However, the expanded focus on emotional well-​being within school settings demands a reconsideration of appropriate theoretical frameworks for music therapy and the redevelopment of models of practice. The emergence of community music therapy has provided such an opportunity, and examples of collaborative practice in schools are appearing. Participatory theoretical frameworks are used to emphasize understanding the whole of the young person in context, with regard to both the systems that surround them and the cultural and historical contexts that influence their experience of music therapy. Distinguishing different theoretical influences is useful insofar as it explains any confusion that may exist about why music therapists practice in different ways in different school settings, both around the globe and around the corner. Potentially more useful to young people, though, is the adoption of an eclectic approach to practice that places students at the center of the therapeutic encounter. Eclectic (rather than exclusive) approaches to music therapy with adolescents are increasingly documented, although mostly beyond U.S.  and UK borders. An eclectic model allows the music therapist to select the most appropriate approach to address the unique needs of each student, and also for the professional to identify with a theoretical stance that best suits her own abilities and philosophical beliefs at a given moment in time. It acknowledges that “music therapy in schools” is a broad agenda and by logical extension, suggests that it would be a mistake to limit international practice to one approach. An eclectic model supports different students, with different needs, in different places, to experience reflexive and individualized music therapy programs. Whether the combination of music and relationship provides motivation, insight, expression, or simply support for the students is far less important than whether they “feel better” at the end.

Music Therapy in Schools

311

An inclusive and expansive approach to music therapy in schools is necessary for the future growth of the discipline. This includes not only traditional (to music therapy) theoretical influences from behavioral, humanistic, and psycho-​ dynamic psychological theory but also the incorporation of participatory influences grounded in ecological perspectives. This is in keeping with trends within the music therapy discipline, and in the not-​so-​distant future, I  anticipate an even greater trend toward collaborative approaches, where music therapists, music educators, and other professionals share their knowledge in consultative, or at least transdisciplinary, approaches that work toward the well-​being of students in schools. An eclectic approach provides a platform for the unique needs of each student to be met through music and places the student in the center surrounded by music, relationships, and care.

Chapter 30

EMBRACING NEW DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES: NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE Bradley Merrick

Recently, I was in a computer shop with my 10-​year-​old son buying a new computer. The assistant processed the purchase via a mobile, handheld device and began to look for an application to show me, touching the screen several times without success. In the background my son said “use the search function” and slid his finger onto the screen, guiding the slightly bemused assistant to the application in a matter of seconds. In a slide of the finger, the digital literacy of this Gen Z native was operating totally differently to his Gen X and Y counterparts, displaying an intuitive understanding about the handheld device that seemed embedded in his psyche through his own unique experience with similar technology. Like this experience, new digital technologies are an integral part of the daily activity that all young students employ in much of their work and play. This type of experience happens daily for most teachers, parents, and communities of learners. It also highlights a basic everyday fact for music teachers, which is that students of today are generally very autonomous individuals, who explore and define their own learning in a very different manner from the way students did when we were at school. New digital technologies and creative approaches to communicating and accessing information are expanding daily at a rate that hardly could be imagined just decades ago. Such technologies cater to divergence in learning styles, combining

Embracing New Digital Technologies

313

a plethora of audio, visual, kinesthetic, and text-​based experiences for learners, regardless of age. Just the other day, I was playing with my iPad, and by tapping the screen I could get a “hands on” understanding of how chord progressions would sound in a piece of music, while also seeing and hearing them in real time. As an advocate of using new digital technologies (be it the latest piece of hardware, a new software application, or an online cloud-​or web-​based learning opportunity), I find it impossible to resist the temptation of immersing myself in technologies that are inherently linked to our day-​to-​day lives. In schools it has become almost impossible to restrict access or limit the learning opportunities that new technologies offer, particularly given the ease with which students are able to use computers, mobile devices, and web-​based resources at home and in nonschool settings. While there are valid arguments to support the ongoing development of traditional instrumental programs and music curriculum in schools, universities, and conservatories, we seem to be entering a new phase of music education in which music learning is becoming increasingly aligned with the processes and new digital technologies that are becoming available in society each day. If connection in the classroom is key to successful learning, and so many musicians and students listen to and create music via mobile technologies and computers, then music teachers have an obligation to understand and integrate the learning currencies that students bring with them as they enter our classrooms. In my teaching, I try to act as a facilitator and collaborator with my students, particularly when they are engaged in creative experiences such as improvising and composing music via technology. By no means am I  suggesting that music teachers should remove traditional instruments that have existed for many years to focus exclusively on digital technology. As new technologies are designed and schools engage in BYOD (bring your own device) programs around the world, I  am suggesting that we might instead view new digital technologies as instruments in their own right, and use them within our classrooms to facilitate the development of knowledge and innovative approaches to exploring and understanding music among these emerging learning communities. The continuous development of new web-​based technologies provides the platform to foster collaborative and creative processes among students, whereby they can engage in a range of music-​making opportunities, whether through a blog, a wiki, or the use of a social networking site to publish and promote their own work. Similarly, these opportunities foster collaborative music ventures where students can perform and compose with others around the world in real time. Through high-​ speed web access, the most remote learner can engage in learning experiences with students from different locations and cultures, whether writing music together, jamming in class, or sharing an artistic venture via the web. All of these emerging digital technologies are being developed, explored, and implemented by pockets of technology-​savvy music educators who have a passion and interest in using current technology. For music educators around the world, these advances are challenging them to reflect on and reinvent their music classrooms and pedagogy, which now have an ever-​present “technology” dimension to them.

314

Bradley Merrick

The use of new digital technologies (i.e., learning how to play an instrument via YouTube, creating an online performance of an ensemble in real time and sharing it with others via video or audio, developing an electronic performance portfolio with reflective audio comments, annotations, and videos of practice sessions) can be closely aligned with the emerging research into informal approaches to learning music. These are in distinct contrast to the more traditional modes of instruction that have been present for hundreds of years. We are at a point where we would do well to consider changing the lens through which we shape our own pedagogy and understanding of musical development to ensure we embrace these emerging technology “natives,” allowing students to bring their innate knowledge and skill into the classroom without them fearing that their digital literacy is not important or valued. For some students, this connection with new technology may provide the doorway through which a future performer, film composer, or sound engineer is able to find their distinctive “digital” voice. Change is something that does not come easily, and technophobia still explains why many music teachers are reluctant to use new technologies. Conversely, students have never been more motivated and engaged to use new digital technologies, learning and embedding a sophisticated level of digital literacy in many of their tasks each day through their use of mobile devices in the playground or on the train if they cannot access it in class. Much of the current discussion internationally seems to focus on the factors that underpin successful teaching, but my suggestion for music teachers is to reflect on how students learn in everyday life and the means by which they can develop their own personal voice in an ever-​changing world. As educators in a digital world, it is essential that we continually remodel our learning intentions and assessment processes to accommodate the creative and collaborative approaches to learning that are emerging almost daily. My thinking is driven by an assumption that successful teaching comes from building meaningful and authentic connections with students in our classrooms. If my 10-​year-​old son is able to teach a computer salesman two and a half times his age plus his father something new in a split second, one wonders how much unharnessed creative potential can be unleashed in our music classrooms. Shifting our roles, listening to the experts (even if they are younger than us!), and considering how our music curriculum can parallel the emergence of new technologies deserves more emphasis as we consider the future direction of music education and music education research.

Chapter 31

CHALLENGES FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICES OF MUSIC EDUCATION Bengt Olsson

The famous Swedish movie director Ingmar Bergman once asked his audience in a radio program “Where does the music come from? What is its origin?” Hundreds of listeners replied with different explanations of how the musical phenomenon originally was created, how it has developed through the centuries, and its meaning for the individual. The most interesting aspect was not the probability of the different explanations, but the deep and serious engagement behind these answers. Music is not only a matter of appreciation and musical experiences, but also a link to metaphysical discussions of the genesis of life. Musical experiences give us an opportunity to come in contact with feelings and emotions deeply embedded in our minds and personalities; feelings and emotions that normally are unattainable in daily life. It is through music that you will be able to reach the deepest layers of your mind. Although the history of philosophical discussions of such experiences is comprehensive, we still lack the ultimate explanations why the influence of music may be so strong. Research on musical actions and experiences have also contributed to a strong body of knowledge but still we struggle with major fields of ignorance. The ambiguity in music seems all the time to escape basic and firm explanations of the influence of people’s lives. A handbook of research on music education has to mirror this complexity of people’s engagement with music in everyday life, including special rituals like

316Bengt Olsson concerts or religious events. An overview of such an approach in this volume involves a span from brain research to different kinds of vocal and instrumental teaching and learning and community music activities. Moreover, issues on special needs and music therapy as well as the life-​span perspective have to be involved. All together these issues form the basis for a researched-​based music education, but what kind of problems does this research explore? And what kinds of problems are not explored? First of all, music education is a matter of learning. The knowledge of learning issues in research of psychology, sociology, and brain research is substantial, but still we do not have full control of the learning process. Why do not all children learn the same thing, in spite of receiving the same kind of teaching? What are the obstacles for such a development? Although the traditional concept of musicality as the main predictor of learning has been abandoned among researchers for ages, it persists among many practitioners. How can research-​based knowledge of learning processes not only be communicated to teachers but also promoted as useful in their daily work? Among parents and school authorities you will find a lot of demands for evidence-​based research and a more efficient education. How can it challenge present activities in schools? The core issue here is the interface between reliable research projects and practitioners’ deep experience of music education. The transformation of new knowledge to practitioners is not easy to achieve since both the researcher and the teacher need to understand each other’s background and knowledge in order to be successful. The researcher’s focus on well-​defined projects may seem too limited for the holistic approach of a practitioner. Themes like “motivation and psychological needs,” “philosophical perspectives of learning,” “music learning and teaching in infancy and early childhood,” and so on in this volume not only are appropriate ways of presenting research to the public but also follow scientific rules of linking the most suitable theories and methods to the research problem. However, from the practitioner’s perspective this is not always the best approach since a starting-​point in practical teaching and learning problems often integrate several of these labels. This contradiction between a narrow research perspective and a broad practitioner approach gives rise to a need for new ways of formulating research problems and, at the same time, new ways of thinking about didactical theories. Thus, the future music teacher must be educated in research, and more research must have a connection to music education in practice. This also stresses the demand for new ways of discussing the quality of research. The traditional academic and disciplinary mode 1 research (Gibbons et al., 1994) has to be supplemented by a transdisciplinary mode 2 context of application. What we need here is some kind of “social epistemology,” in which research theories are not only studied in the narrow sense based on traditional quality criteria, but also discussed in a wider context, including practitioners’ as well as nonpractitioners’ teaching experiences. Moreover, there is a field of tension between two concepts of quality integrated in the two modes: qualities based on criteria of scientific quality and qualities based on criteria of relevance to the praxis field. This social approach, including

Challenges for Research and Practices of Music Education

317

issues of recognition of learning and teaching problems and the latter wider type of quality criteria of relevance is, however, often neglected. Another challenge involves the ethical dimension of music education, an often-​ neglected aspect not only in research but among practitioners as well. Today the role of music education is treated in a life-​span context and the aim for students to develop musically during their whole life. This widening approach of music education for students of different ages, from infants to elderly persons and people with sometimes special needs, has a counterpart in different settings for music education: to integrate formal and informal contexts of learning and teaching. Although this simplified distinction between school and society is more or less abandoned in Scandinavia, it is still recognized in the international research community. Community music and multiculturalism are concepts with roots in the society and musical cultures outside schools and universities. Traditional research often focuses on social and musical contexts that foster musical creativity and engagement within formal settings, but these perspectives have, through discussions of inclusion and exclusion of students, often been challenged. Community musicians as well as other kinds of professional musicians with no formal instrumental education are brought into the classroom or university departments in order to provide informal notions of music education. A narrow perspective also takes its starting-​point as a matter of repertoire based on Western music; a wider perspective brings in music out of discussions of traditions, authenticity, and contexts. Traditional instrumental tuition focuses on the individual learner, while informal forms of music education also bring in scaffolding and peer coaching as a supplement to the teacher’s work to further stress the social dimensions of learning. The latter selection also underlines issues like whose music is in focus and the concept of ownership or control value (Pekrun, 2006). Concepts like self-​efficacy and self-​esteem are strong predictors of motivation for learning. Who owns the composition or improvisation and its performance, is it the teacher or the students? We have to abandon the strong focus on the solitaire musician or composer and not treat his work as the only result of an individual’s learning and development. The great importance of music’s active role in the construction of individuals’ personal and social lives points in new directions. One key issue here is the matter of how music is produced and distributed—​the who, where, when, what, and how of sonic production and reproduction and the consequences for individuals’ social attitudes like equality, openness, awareness, responsibility, and mutual respect through music. How much of music’s power to affect the shape of human agency can be attributed to music alone? And to what extent are these questions affiliated with the social power of artifacts and their ability to interest and transform their users? These aspects of formal-​informal and intercultural music education bring a democratic dimension to the discussion. Traditional discussions about content in music education, as mentioned earlier, are mostly reduced to a question of repertoire. The researcher’s contribution has been discussions of norms and values in teaching and learning but very seldom in terms of an ethical standpoint. The

318Bengt Olsson demarcation line between the teacher’s responsibility and right to choose what to teach and the respect for the student’s integrity concerning musical ownership and subjectivity needs to be taken into consideration. A pluralistic and an intercultural approach to music education also shows how the limitations of teachers’ knowledge about all kinds of music become obvious and change the conditions for music education. The belief in a teacher “who knows everything” and an ignorant student without musical experiences has to be abandoned. Today the students not only know much more about their music but also have different musical behavior and different values of good and bad music from their tutors. If you treat the concept of musical meaning in a piece of music as a question of different layers, you will find that the layer of acoustics or sound is on the top or surface, followed by structure. Moreover, you will find layers like embodied meaning, emotions, and the spiritual or existential layer as the deepest layer in the musical experience. Which layers should, for ethical and democratic reasons, not be influenced or pedagogically manipulated by teachers? The need for new research-​based approaches and the need for new teacher-​ student roles are obvious. This does not necessary mean that all present research or praxis is useless or not valuable, but the great challenge for all actors—​researchers, music teachers, and students of all kinds—​is to discover the new interface between research and teaching and learning practices. A concept of social epistemology and the involvement of ethical dimensions are, thus, two examples of a necessary reformulation of hidden research issues and neglected problems in music education, and here the handbook is an important contribution to a new starting point for discussions between researchers and practitioners.

REFERENCES Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). New production of knowledge—​The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-​ value theory of achievement emotions:  Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–​341.

Chapter 32

ALL THEORIED UP AND NOWHERE TO GO Bennett Reimer

This volume is a magnificent demonstration that a new age of theoretical sophistication has come into being in the profession of music education. Its impressiveness is highlighted by comparison to an important predecessor, the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) Yearbook’s Basic Concepts in Music Education (Henry, 1958), a book that also offered a scholarly overview of the field as it then existed. In both breadth of topics and depth of erudition, there is simply no comparison, in the older book, to what now exists; 10 of that book’s 14 chapters were written by music educators representative of the best scholars at that time, and 4 (2 in philosophy, 1 each in sociology and educational psychology) had to be enlisted from outside, because there were no music educators capable of handling those topics at the level expected in NSSE handbooks. As the essays in this volume demonstrate, along with their references, we have truly witnessed an explosion of theory in recent years, signaling an admirable coming to maturity of our profession, at least in its production of substantive scholarship. What effects did the 1958 book have on the actions of music teachers? I  will limit my remarks to music education in the United States, not presuming to be able to do justice here to world music education. Even in that particular locale, it is impossible to answer that question with precision, given that such books are fated to be drops in an ocean, their influence being diluted in the ongoing affairs of the majority of practicing teachers who are unlikely to have read them or, if they have, not being enabled by them to better conform their instruction to what the scholars are suggesting. In that inevitable gap between theory and direct application music education is no different from other professions, of course.

320Bennett Reimer My impression of the yearbook’s influence is that it was enormously powerful in the thinking of those close to it; that is, emerging scholars such as me, working toward the doctorate in music education and hungering for substantive ideas that would provide a convincing basis for my own contributions to the betterment of my chosen vocation. I devoured it, relished it, and pledged to myself that I would someday offer similarly productive ideas that had the potential to move our field forward. I was not alone in this, with the book nourishing the small but growing number of budding scholars at that time in their quest for enlightenment. Did its influence extend beyond that of further, improved theory production? Did it change the nature of the programs of music instruction available in the schools of the United States and the practices of teachers in those programs? Will this volume, given its clearly superior expertise and stunningly wider content, serve primarily or entirely to generate and illuminate further theory-​making as its major contribution? Or will it, in addition, cause programs in the schools to be improved, even transformed, in their obligation to provide instruction powerfully relevant to the theoretical constructs this volume presents? These questions, I  would argue, can be answered with some reasonable degree of certainty. I  make this claim in light of a central fact:  music programs in U.S. schools have remained remarkably, even confoundingly, stagnant and predictable since the singing schools some 30 years ago in the American colonies, since the first acceptance of music as a curricular subject in the Boston public schools over 170 years ago, and since the founding of the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) over 100 years ago. This despite the continual (although slow) growth of theory throughout all that time and its burgeoning in recent years. Scholarly, research-​based efforts in our profession have clearly fostered impressive growth in further theory, both in breadth and in depth. Their influence on school programs and practices, however, can fairly be regarded as inconsequential. I will mention several conditions in music education that support the separation of theory from practice. First, much theoretical work in music education, as in many if not most other fields in education, is not intended to be relevant to substantive change in the practices of school teachers. Instead, its purpose is to affect other theoretical work. Perhaps, as a by-​product, or down the road, concrete changes in practice might ensue, but for many who do theory that is not the primary or even anticipated goal, and for some it is a goal unrelated to their professional self-​image. Adding to that self-​contained situation, few practitioners outside the theoretical community are prepared to engage, or interested in engaging, in the difficult work of mining the rocky terrain of theory to uncover the jewels for application that might be buried there. So they remain undiscovered. Second, even scholarship and research aimed directly at application is often, even usually, uncertain in its guidance to music teachers. Both in theory and in practice, education is by far the most complex, least predictable endeavor in which humans engage. In education, including music education, for every seemingly clear directive as to what to do and why to do it there are countless exceptions. Every

All Theoried Up and Nowhere to Go

321

seemingly unassailable conclusion encompasses a host of doubts and alternatives. Every generalization excludes pertinent particularities. There is simply no conclusive end, in the field of education, to the quest for certainty, whether in theory or practice. Third, music programs for students in the United States (and, I would argue in this context, elsewhere in the world) are so severely limited in scope, in possibilities for the massive production of theory to be applied at all, let alone as successfully as we would wish, as to make our assumptions that theory should be the foundational basis for practice, even to some degree relevant to practice, seem wildly optimistic. The reality is that our offerings in schools are almost invisibly tiny as compared with the vastness of what our theoretical work leads us to imagine can be and should be accomplished within them. There simply is no place for all that theory to go, no place for its ambitious agenda to be addressed, no opportunity for its impressive abundance to be fulfilled. Why? In the United States our programs consist of two offerings: general music and electives starting in the upper elementary grades. General music suffers from severely limited time for instruction and is available in a dwindling number of grades. It has lacked a well-​grounded and consensual conception of what a general education in music consists of. Instead there are a number of distinctive approaches and sometimes combinations thereof, each embodying its own values and ways of achieving them, those ways requiring adherence to highly structured and stipulated learning tasks. Given the dearth of time for instruction, and the particularity of much of our existing instruction requiring intensive focus on the purposes being pursued, when and where can all the many learnings called for in our theoretical work be pursued in the general education segment of our offerings? In our electives the opportunities are even more limited. The numerous possible involvements in music are limited to performing composed music in large ensembles, with other ways to be engaged in music, such as those that the National Standards for Music Education called to attention (Music Educators National Conference, 1994), being exceedingly rare. Performance ensembles entail a host of readily identifiable learnings if they are to be successful. Admirable attempts have been made by courageous directors to widen the scope of learnings in ensembles, but the daunting demands of performance forbid more than casual, occasional additional learnings. Again, the scope of theoretical erudition in a prodigious variety of musical and music-​related subject matters, despite their compelling values, finds no room here. In addition, there is a nail in the coffin of expanded programs of music instruction capable of encompassing the breadth of recent scholarship and research: the fierce devotion by many to preserving intact and unmodified what has existed for our entire history. Recognizing this, reformers often feel that changing the status quo in our field is so unlikely that we simply must disabuse ourselves of that prospect, letting theory go its way, existing practice its way, and settling for the reality that the

322Bennett Reimer twain will not meet or will meet only meagerly. Which means that music education as we know it might well become so irrelevant as to lead to its own disappearance. Too pessimistic? Leave well enough alone? Keep trying for a larger vision despite all the obstacles, only a sample of which has been addressed here? For theorists such as those impressively represented in this book, and practitioners equally impressive in their success at what they do, questions such as these are at the heart of the future of the profession to which we are all devoted.

REFERENCES Henry, N. B. (ed.) (1958). Basic concepts in music education: The fifty-​seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Music Educators National Conference (MENC). (1994). National standards for arts education. What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: MENC.

Chapter 33

MAKE RESEARCH, NOT WAR: METHODOLOGIES AND MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH Wendy L. Sims

Research in music education as a field of endeavor may be relatively young as compared with educational and psychological research, but it is not by any means “young” as in “immature and naive,” or even “developing and insecure,” as in adolescence. Perhaps “young adult” is a more appropriate metaphor; in many ways in the prime of life—​ fully developed, competent, with emerging sophistication and a healthy curiosity, while continuing to develop and mature, anticipating a good, long life ahead. We should have confidence in the bodies of research that have been developed thus far, with results that can be summarized in a book such as this, from which teachers, researchers, and teachers of future teachers and researchers can learn. We also should realize that there is much more related to music learning and teaching to be explored and examined, many more problems to solve and phenomena to understand. Although the body and quality of our research meets my definition of “young adulthood,” it astonishes me that there continue to be researchers who act more like poorly behaved children or adolescents than thoughtful adults. Whether whining like three-​year-​olds, picking fights like playground bullies, or ganging up to gossip and attack others to hide their own insecurities like cliquish adolescents, those who instigate or perpetuate “methodology wars” are exhibiting behavior that is unbecoming to themselves and unproductive to our profession. As teachers of children we don’t tolerate these kinds of behaviors in our classrooms or playgrounds, and as

324

Wendy L. Sims

researchers and teachers of teachers and researchers we should not tolerate these kinds of behaviors in our classes, seminars, and professional meetings. Quantitative research, qualitative research, mixed methods research, name-​ your-​favorite-​type of research—​all are ways of examining questions that researchers believe are important to ask, not religions or ideologies or political parties. Yes, different methodologies have different underlying assumptions, but they all do have underlying assumptions, as well as established methodologies and accepted ways of documenting the legitimacy/​validity/​trustworthiness of the process and its product. All of these can be taught and learned, and don’t require secret passwords or loyalty oaths for transmission, or passports for crossing boundaries. Music education researchers don’t need to define or divide ourselves by the types of research we choose to do. We should feel the need to defend our choices only with respect to how well they address our research questions, not against some abstract set of presumed “nonbelievers,” as too many authors still seem to feel the need to do. We need not “take sides,” set up “camps,” or hurl salvos at those whose research pursuits are different from our own, but rather should attempt to understand the differences, and respect and value them. The Greek playwright Aeschylus is quoted as stating that “in war, truth is the first casualty.” The Research Methodology Wars are not different—​rumors run rampant, often begun by disgruntled would-​be authors whose submissions are not accepted by prominent research journals. Granted, it is difficult to read comments from reviewers and editors who do not find one’s work to meet their standards, or perhaps who see the value in the work, but do not find the manuscripts to match the mission of their journals. Yet to leap defensively from these typically thoughtful comments and feedback to “they don’t like my kind of research,” and from there to generalize beyond one’s own experience to “they are biased against [my kind of] research” is inappropriate at best, dishonest at worst. Those who aggressively malign journals and their boards and perpetuate untruths about what does and does not get published demonstrate the veracity of Aeschylus’s words. To reiterate, it is the research questions that should drive the methodology. Our time and efforts should be put into deciding what it is we really want or need to know. Debates about what we should be studying, and how best to go about answering our questions, are healthy and stimulating. Honest and open debate about which methodology best suits which research question is also worthwhile, and not what I’ve been decrying here. My concern is with those who start from the methodology rather than the questions, proclaiming their chosen method the only worthy method, unable to find value in the choices other researchers make and thus dismissing them out of hand, unwilling to consider that we can learn a great deal when issues are addressed from multiple research perspectives. As musicians and music teachers, we don’t need to like or perform all styles and genres of music, whether string quartet or opera or hip-​hop, but should be able to understand and value the best each has to offer, and respect those who do enjoy and choose to pursue them. As music education researchers, we don’t need to engage in

Make Research, Not War

325

all types of research ourselves, but should be able to understand and value the various methodologies and identify their strengths and weaknesses, and respect those who pursue any of them if they do so with high standards and rigor. As a researcher, conference attender, editorial committee member, and journal editor, I have encountered enough of the negative attitudes and rumors described here to know that although they should be passé by now, unfortunately, they persist. Recruiting coconspirators, erecting parapets, and battling among ourselves is only destructive, and a waste of energy that should be put into identifying important research questions, undertaking quality research, and nurturing open-​minded young researchers. We are still too small a research community to revert to childish and adolescent behavior when we should instead be moving steadily forward into a stable, productive maturity. It is time to put aside animosity, bury the rumors, and focus our best efforts on making research, not research wars!

Chapter 34

THE PREPARATION OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATORS: A CRITICAL LINK David J. Teachout

The idea that professional practices evolve to meet continually changing needs in society would seem to be axiomatic. One needs only to notice changes in such professional areas such as medicine, technology, and engineering to see grand models of evolved practice, informed particularly by the type of sustained and specialized research that characterizes those fields. In music education, however, teaching practice and learning goals have changed very little over time. For example, think of how understanding in the medical sciences and subsequent protocols for practice have evolved over the past 100 years; then compare those developments to changes in music education over a similar time period. Several authors in these volumes describe a number of forward-​thinking ideas and practices, such as incorporating experiences that engender learner agency (Wiggins & Espeland, ­chapter 9, volume 2); making meaningful connections from the child’s point of view (Barrett & Veblen, c­ hapter 10, volume 2); exploring communal creativity as an expression of the students’ own pedagogical values (Lapidaki, de Groot, & Stagkos, ­chapter  4, volume 5); and framing creativity as a practice (Burnard, ­chapter 1, volume 5). However, Bowman (­chapter 2, volume 1) explores an important question regarding the role and function of music in education and in personal development. It is through that exploration that we are brought to realize that current practice in music education, which is characterized generally by the

The Preparation of Music Teacher Educators

327

teaching and learning of musical elements in the younger grades, and the myopic attention to achieving large ensemble performance excellence in the older grades, is not sufficient to address society’s need to have and “own” experiences of genuine creative expression. So how might an evolution in music education practice be facilitated? First, we must acknowledge that current music education practice is encased in a “closed-​ loop” system. For the most part, today’s teachers were once students learning the same materials in the same ways that they are teaching today. Some might propose that the prime opportunity for change occurs during the preparation of new music teachers, when new ideas can supplant obsolete assumptions. Sometimes such transformations happen. However, the fallacy of relying on this particular entry point to affect wholesale change throughout the profession lies in the reality of one’s experience as one enters the profession as a new teacher. Faced with a pervasive culture that rewards current practice and a relative paucity of alternatives to that culture, the young inexperienced teacher has little incentive and fewer recourses to do anything but continue the practices of the current culture. Indeed, the immutable nature of current music education practice bears witness to this dynamic. I assert that we must look a little further into the music education “ecosystem.” Some music teachers will go on to pursue advanced degrees with the intention of eventually securing positions as music teacher educators. Individuals who become music teacher educators enjoy several distinct advantages that place them in a prime role for affecting change. First, they bring confidence in themselves as professionals, fueled by their years of experience as successful classroom music teachers. Second, they most likely bring an evolved vision for the profession. Third, their position at a postsecondary institution allows them a “bird’s-​eye” perspective informed by the opportunity to visit a variety of school settings. Fourth, music teacher educators influence the training of those preparing to become music teachers and those experienced teachers who return to pursue advanced training in, perhaps, a master’s or doctoral program. Fifth, and resonant with each of the four advantages mentioned above, music teacher educators are in a prime position to systematically research professional practice, changes in practice, and the effects of those changes. If change in music education practice is similar to the adage “All politics is local,” made famous by Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, former U.S. speaker of the House of Representatives, then perhaps change can be approached first as a “local” endeavor. Working within an identifiable geographic parameter near one’s institution, a music teacher educator could begin by first influencing the practice of experienced teachers, particularly those pursuing advanced studies. With a number of influential experienced teachers open to change, an environment hospitable to and supportive of the fragile, yet forward-​thinking ideas of entry-​level teachers could be created. In a culture where new and experienced teachers are open to innovative thinking, music teaching practice that moves beyond the confines of accepted tradition and becomes responsive to and anticipatory of society’s needs may be possible. For the above-​described scenario to occur with any degree of frequency, we must look at how future music teacher educators are being prepared (i.e., those

328

David J. Teachout

students pursuing a doctorate in music education with the goal of becoming music education professors and contributing to music teacher preparation programs). Colleges and universities in different parts of the world implement vastly different and distinctive training programs. For example, it is common in many European and Australian institutions for advanced studies to consist mostly of regular meetings between the student and her major professor for the expressed purpose of preparing and defending a dissertation that uncovers new knowledge in a particular field. If, along the way, the student and professor decide that the student needs to develop expertise in a particular area or research technique, a course or two might be recommended. Such coursework is pursued as needed, when needed. In contrast, institutions in the United States typically offer a sequence of standard courses intended to provide a baseline of expertise in content and research skills. Near the completion of the curriculum, a comprehensive exam is administered to ensure the student is “ready” to pursue work on his dissertation. Common to both models is that the successfully defended dissertation serves as the capstone experience. In addition, common to both models is the assumption that the doctoral candidate will transfer the learning of content delivered throughout a program of study into successful strategies for fulfilling one’s teaching and research responsibilities in ways that will also move the music education profession forward. Such an assumption may be unrealistic. Most individuals who pursue a doctorate in music education have achieved a substantive degree of success as music teachers. Quickly, however, they find that having taught music successfully does not ensure success with teaching others to teach music. Undergraduate students enter more strongly socialized as performers than as educators and bring a great deal of naivete about the music education profession and its purpose for society. Music education professors must recognize the powerful and often covert sociological influences that affect how young teacher candidates think and how they think of themselves as professionals. Further, music education professors must create a genuine “need-​to-​know” mindset in teacher candidates such that these neophytes will begin to look beyond re-​creating how they were taught and develop a degree of comfort with searching for and implementing forward-​thinking practices that are not widespread currently. Unfortunately, the type of pedagogical training that directly acknowledges and addresses the developmental processes of undergraduate music education majors is not commonplace in doctoral preparation. Doctoral students may learn about major sociological tenets though coursework, but rarely are they given the opportunity to apply that knowledge to the training of undergraduates with the regularity needed for such pedagogical applications to become “owned” by those future professors. Training in research seems to suffer from a similar type of gap between “book knowledge” and the thoughtful, effective application of that knowledge. Most individuals entering a doctoral program have had little or no prior experience with research. Consequently, skill as a researcher represents one of the steepest learning curves an individual must negotiate as she progresses through a program.

The Preparation of Music Teacher Educators

329

A doctoral student may pursue one or more research projects, work that may or may not be associated with courses. These initial projects typically involve simple designs and simple research questions, which are appropriate for individuals learning to develop independent research skills. However, once out in the field and under the pressure to produce a number of publications over a relatively short time, the chances of identifying and pursuing a line of research that will impact the profession consequentially are unlikely. Contrast this outcome with a different one that could result from substantively different training. Imagine a doctoral program in which students “apprentice” within established teams of faculty researchers, perhaps from several different university campuses. Each team would pursue an ongoing set of investigations that explores a critical issue in music education. Students would be assigned ancillary duties initially, but could be given increasingly greater responsibilities over time. All the while, they would be immersed in a rich environment influenced by the seasoned perspective of senior faculty serving as team leaders. Under this scenario, newly minted music education professors would be in a much better position to pursue substantive research issues important to the profession. Unfortunately, such a scenario is not typical. It seems we recruit bright, capable people into the higher education profession, but we are not as effective in giving them the tools to supersede current practices of the profession. This might be good news, however, because it signals an opportunity to substantively and positively impact the profession. A similar opportunity exists in the fact that very little research exists on music education doctoral students, their training, and the effects of that training. The more we can learn about doctoral students and their training, the better tools we will have to utilize this critical link to implement change in music teaching practice.

Chapter 35

MUSIC AND THE ARTS: AS UBIQUITOUS AND FUNDAMENTAL AS THE AIR WE BREATHE Rena B. Upitis

I awoke this morning chilled by the February cold. I  pulled on a fleece over my flannel nightgown and made my way downstairs to light a fire in our cook stove. Within seconds, the dry cedar kindling started to crackle—​winter music of the highest order—​and I felt the tension leave my shoulders. As I boiled water for my morning tea, I lamented the fact that I had an administrative meeting at the university later in the day, and that I would later have to change into something more fitting for an academic gathering. I decided to wear the same thing I had worn the day before and be done with it. As someone who prides myself on not spending a lot of attention on what I wear, it was a relief to slip into the dark brown sweater and olive green jeans I had left by my bedside the night before. I had time to pick just the right necklace to wear around the big cowl neck, with earrings to match, before running to the door. As I was pulling on my boots, I found myself thinking about an article I read a few years ago by Fiona Blaikie (2007), “The Aesthetics of Female Scholarship.” This article has stayed with me, popping up at the least expected moments (as when I am getting dressed on a frosty February morning). It is not only because of the visual images contained therein that the article stays with me. It is because Blaikie has made me profoundly aware that the act of choosing one’s clothing is a ubiquitous, and at the same time, a symbolic act. It is an act that is rarely discussed in academic

Music and the Arts

331

circles, but one that communicates much meaning. Because whether I  like it or not, I admit that I am communicating meaning when I choose to wear the same comfortable clothes three days in succession. Or when I choose to wear an emerald velvet dress to go to the opera. As Blaikie writes: The objects that one chooses to place on or near one’s body have inherent significance. The . . . presentation of one’s body in clothing signifies a sense of ease or dis/​ease, a sense of clothed bodily comfort or not, a sense of or a repression of the aesthetic, a sense of what is correct and appropriate for dress in relation to one’s acceptance by a particular audience, a desire to belong or be accepted by a particular scholarly group, and most of all, a sense of oneself. (p. 2)

Blaikie presents a series of poems and portraits of four women that “serve to examine, interpret and re/​present multiple situated meanings” (2007, p. 24). Citing works of Bourdieu (1984, 1985), Levi-​Strauss (1963), Lurie (1981), and Butler (1993), Blaikie makes the claim that clothing is a form of literacy—​a form of nonverbal communication that, like other forms of communication, can be “constructed, read, mediated, interpreted and subverted.” I agree with Blaikie’s claim. And in the context of music education, I would suggest that our traditional views of music literacy have been largely confined to the genres associated with the Western canon. One of the great contributions of this volume is the number of chapters that explore music literacy in a wider sense, such as those describing pluralism in secondary education (Allsup, Westerlund, & Shieh, ­chapter 16, volume 2) and the chapter that considers how students learn through YouTube and smartphones (Webb & Seddon, ­chapter 13, volume 3). Every day we make choices about clothing and other forms of artistic communication, whether those choices are made haphazardly or deliberately. Because those choices are daily ones, they are ubiquitous and therefore easily unscrutinized or ignored. Yet another ubiquitous art form in most of our lives is music—​not so much the music we make, but the music we choose to listen to, or find ourselves listening to whether we choose it or not. Like pulling on a pair of old jeans without thinking about the broader issues of communication and literacy that such an act entails, the music we listen to can also be unexamined when we listen to music habitually. And when those habitual patterns are not explored on a conscious level, they may not be considered in terms of their intersection with our roles as music educators and scholars. Most of us listen to music every single day. Sometimes we listen to music by choice—​from favorite radio programs to carefully selected playlists for mp3 players, to evening music emanating from a home entertainment system while dinner is being prepared. Sometimes we hear music that is not of our choice—​when coming down hotel elevators or while waiting at intersections in the summertime when car windows are down and radios are blaring. At our university, I  teach the music methods course for pre-​service elementary teachers. I  start the course by asking pre-​service teachers about their music listening habits. Most of my pre-​service teachers prefer listening to light or hard

332

Rena B. Upitis

rock, some have tastes that include funk or country, and a few (very few) listen regularly to classical music or jazz. But every single person listens to music. While we might differ in our tastes and habits, future teachers consider music a fundamental part of their lives, as do I. And at the beginning of each course, very few pre-​service teachers can conceive of ways to connect the music that entices them on a personal level with the music they are expected to teach. As my work with these pre-​service teachers unfolds each term, I  am always newly struck by the ways the school music curriculum seems disconnected with the music that the pre-​service teachers enjoy in their daily lives. This disconnection is common for students as well: what 10-​year-​olds are listening to on the radio or on YouTube is a far cry from the music curriculum that aims to teach them how to hold a recorder or to read music notation on the grand staff. As Lucy Green (2002) observed (and discusses in ­chapter 18, this volume), “music education has had relatively little to do with the development of the majority of those musicians who have produced the vast proportion of the music which the global population listens to, dances to, identifies with, and enjoys” (p. 5). And yet there is ample research—​much of it cited throughout this volume—​that tells us how informal music learning is a powerful and important teacher (e.g., Adachi & Trehub, ­chapter 2, volume 2; Chen-​ Hafteck & Mang, ­chapter 4, volume 2). Young musicians who develop skills outside of formal teaching settings learn from their peers through direct interaction, observation, and apprenticeship, and from listening to performance clips (Green, 2002; Jaffurs, 2004). In my experience, a group of teenagers in rehearsal seems like a fragmented undertaking. There can be several conversations going on at once, even while music is being played; disagreements can sprout up that appear to have no immediate resolution; false starts abound; and all of this activity is punctuated by bursts of laughter and loud exclamations of praise or criticism. The surprise for me is that the outcome is often impressive: garage bands frequently demonstrate strong ensemble and evoke emotional responses from their audiences, and members of the bands display considerable skills as instrumentalists (even if they don’t read music!) This kind of informal music learning has been characterized as “learning-​ in-​the-​making, in which relationships are made between the past and present, the inner and outer, the self and others” (Christou, Davis, DeLuca, Luce-​Kapler, & McEwen, 2007, p.  64). In the arts, this learning-​in-​the-​making almost always involves physical objects—​instruments, paints and brushes, costumes, paper, wax, and metal. Scholars have observed how learning that involves physical objects (which could easily be clothing or music) can alter class discourse in unexpected and welcome ways. One professor, for instance, “noticed that [by making use of ordinary loved objects in the classroom setting] the sense of collaborative meaning making deepened and the connections among respective ideas seemed easier to highlight . . . and that the power of art experienced bound us to each other in a new way” (p. 79). Art experienced is not just music on the concert stage—​it is clothing, it is the frenetic rehearsing of a garage band, it is the role that ordinary loved objects play in our daily lives (Dissanayake, 1995; Noddings, 1992).

Music and the Arts

333

Classic scholars like Grumet (1988), Giroux (1992), Eisner (1998), and Langer (1953) claim that identity formation in teenagers, including their views of their sexuality, class, and other social categorizations, is shaped by their readings of family members, peers, and the images and texts as seen in films, television, and music. Increasingly, these texts are portrayed also in graphic novels and internet images and sounds—​the ubiquitous art forms that are not always present in schools. My plea, here, is not to switch from the Western canon to music as embodied in the popular culture. Rather, it is to suggest that if we ignore the personal connections students have to music (or ignore the messages that they are sending us with the clothes they choose to wear), then we are missing an opportunity to expand their music literacy beyond the music forms that are already ubiquitous in their lives. Such expansion can help ensure that music is experienced deeply. And it is only through deep connections to the disciplines, to one another, and to physical ways of knowing that students will develop the sensibilities and skills they need to thrive in our present world. We would do well to remind ourselves that our planet is undergoing human-​ induced changes at an unprecedented rate. Collectively, we destroy 31.5  million hectares of tropical rainforests each year (Rainforest Foundation, 2016). In so doing, we destroy thousands of species each year, so that 50% of all species are at risk of disappearing completely by 2050 (Rainforest Alliance, 2016). As Rachel Carson (1962) observed more than a half-​century ago, we are the only species that has changed the nature of the earth. The learning that can occur through music and the arts—​in all of their forms—​can help us find new ways of being, and new levels of mindfulness that we need to heal the planet. When we give students time to play and learn from one another, in both formal and informal ways, and time to create, to perform, to argue, to wonder, to appreciate—​then we also give them ways to question the ubiquitous and to become aware of the impact of their daily choices.

REFERENCES Blaikie, F. (2007). The aesthetics of female scholarship. Journal of the Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 5(2), 1–​27. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction:  A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–​744. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London: Routledge. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Christou, T., Davis, J., DeLuca, C., Luce-​Kapler, R., & McEwen, L. (2007). The pedagogy of hinges. Journal of the Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 5(2), 63–​89. Dissanayake, E. (1995). Homo aestheticus. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

334

Rena B. Upitis

Eisner, E. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings:  Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk:  Women and teaching. Amherst:  University of Massachusetts Press. Jaffurs, S. (2004). The impact of informal music learning practices in the classroom, or how I learned to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 189–​200. Langer, S. (1953). Virtual powers. In Feeling and form:  A theory of art. (pp. 169–​187). New York: Charles Scribner and Sons. Levi-​Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Lurie, A. (1981). The language of clothes. New York: Random House. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press. Rainforest Alliance. (2016). See http://​www.rainforest-​alliance.org/​issues/​wildlife [accessed October 21, 2016]. Rainforest Foundation. (2016). See http://​www.rainforestfoundation.org/​commonly-​asked-​ questions-​and-​facts/​ [accessed October 21, 2016].

Chapter 36

THERE IS NOTHING COMPLEX ABOUT A CORRELATION COEFFICIENT Peter R. Webster

The music education profession deeply values research and assessment in the professional development of its members, but it remains a topic largely for graduate education. At the undergraduate level, there are very few teacher preparation programs that contain any substantive experiences devoted to preparing music teachers to understand research and assessment and how each might play vital roles in professional education. For example, beginning teachers are presented with a number of teaching strategies for instrumental instruction. A  typical methods class will stress goals and objectives, curriculum design, lesson planning, ensemble teaching techniques, techniques for teaching rhythm and note reading, and any number of similar skills; yet rarely in this mix is consideration given to how to evaluate the effectiveness of such work (doing systematic study in practice) or how to read about others that study practice (reading results of research). How does a typical undergraduate learn how to design a suitable rating scale or teacher-​made quiz? How does such a pre-​service individual know how to compare mean performances on such quizzes across two or three classes to determine progress? How can measures of sight-​reading be used to track achievement if there is no knowledge of simple statistical procedures for doing so? How does a new professional learn to do a case study of a learner or groups of learners in order to qualitatively understand what is occurring in the education process? We consider these

336

Peter R. Webster

matters to be “advanced” graduate ideas and not anything central to what it means to be a teacher prior to graduate school. This needs to change if we wish to see advances in the integration of research to practice. My first real memory of this problem was at the Ann Arbor symposium on music and psychology in 1978. This was a very heady conference for a “wet-​behind the ears,” newly minted Ph.D.  trying to make a mark. Throughout that meeting, there was a strong sentiment that if real progress was to be made in understanding music teaching and learning, the disconnect between research and practice would need to solved. I was reminded recently of this by my colleague and good friend Bennett Reimer (2008) during his 2008 Senior Researcher Award address. If music education is to meet that challenge, and to be, finally useful to a degree it has never been at the level of practice—​just as educational research as a whole has never been—​we will need to attend seriously to the weakest characteristic of our research: that is, our lack of a viable unifying structure within which to carry out our work. (p. 200)

He goes on to argue that our research literature is: “disunified to the point of chaos. Painfully apparent by the tables of contents of our many research journals, which by the way, seem to proliferate like dandelions.” He argues that many are “random scattering of single studies that are unconnected in substantive ways” (p. 200). I remain unconvinced that it is as bad as Reimer suggests. There are many researchers in our field who have followed a research agenda and have tried to integrate the results of their work into practice. Examples include work on music memory, sight-​reading, aptitude, creative thinking, improvisation, composition in the schools, technology effectiveness, music perception and cognition, music preference, motivation, home practicing, teacher-​ student interaction, self-​ efficacy, and many others. This very handbook and others like it are testimony to this attempt to advance our profession through research and its application to practice. Some of the work has had an impact on our profession, as can be seen in advances in curriculum design and published curricula materials, aptitude and achievement testing, self-​assessment models, portfolio designs, interdisciplinary teaching, reflective practice, teacher questioning, computer-​assisted instruction, multimedia implementation, the National Standards, and other developments that have some, if not a direct, connection to the work of those that do research. Having said this, I realize that the record is not always clear in this regard and we must do better. The fault lies with teacher education in large part. I feel that we have failed our students over the years by not doing more to teach about systematic inquiry from the day that a young 18-​year-​old sits down in front of us in the introduction to music education class. We have not really taught our novice teachers how to be professionally curious—​how to be thoughtful about their practice and give them the tools to do this. Perhaps if we were to weave into our music education instruction the mindset that comes with research and assessment and not treat these

There Is Nothing Complex About a Correlation Coefficient

337

as such lofty ideas, maybe the impact of research on practice would be far different from what it is today. Our undergraduate students are smart and can handle such things. There really is nothing too difficult in understanding correlation, cause and effect, emergent themes, triangulated data, grounded theory, ethnographic study, reliability, trustworthiness, and so many other concepts that appear in the literature while learning about how to conduct, rehearse, and pace instruction in a fifth-​grade band. We can do this by placing the evidence of research and assessment into the context of our classes on a regular basis (Conway, 2000). Our undergraduates can read research journals and become excited about the content if we can present the work in interesting and meaningful ways and work to show the relationship to practical work. The idea is to make research and assessment organic to the content of undergraduate teacher education. Teachout (2005) makes this point. The facilitation of one’s role as “researcher” is not unlike the process that undergraduates experience when moving from seeing themselves as students to seeing themselves as teachers. Undergraduates do not make such a transition simply by sitting in classes and “learning about” teaching. They must have reflective-​practice experiences that (a) place them in the role of the teacher, (b) allow them to practice the gestures and apply the symbols associated with teaching, (c) provide opportunities for their accomplishments to be valued by their peers and mentors, and (d) allow these undergraduates to explore and assimilate images that those outside of the profession have of teachers, as these images will affect decisions about teachers and schools. (p. 5)

There are indications in the literature that this approach may hold great promise for real educational reform. “Action” research is one solution, as Bresler (1995) and Conway and Borst (2001) have suggested. But it is more than advocating for action research that is likely to solve the problem. Hourigan (2006) provides summaries of studies that use case study and reflective thinking in the undergrad methods course. Burton (2004) suggests that we consider some kind of poster research project within music education course, perhaps in a freshman introduction class. Finally, Strand (2006) documents her integration of inquiry-​based work into teacher education in music. Her study is a qualitative one that documents the actual execution of research as part of the student teaching experience. Several issues emerged that were related to a scarcity of instructional time. First, the project introduction took precious time away from other content in the general methods class. The problem was solved by marrying the methods content to information about music education research. However, more instructional time would have been helpful to address research issues such as validity and generalizability. If inquiry is to become part of teacher training, then research methodology and information about how to read research should be introduced in the early years of teacher training. Earlier contact with primary research sources and research methodology would help the students make sense of their learning throughout teacher preparation. (p. 40)

Well said.

338

Peter R. Webster

REFERENCES Bresler, L. (1995). Ethnography, phenomenology and action research in music education. Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 4–​16. Burton, S. (2004). Where do we begin with inquiry-​based degree programs? Journal of Music Teacher Education, 14(1), 27–​33. Conway, C. (2000). The preparation of teacher-​researchers in preservice music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 9(2), 22–​30. Conway, C., & Borst, J. (2001). Action research in music education. Update—​Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(2), 3–​8. Hourigan, R. (2006). The use of the case method to promote reflective thinking in music teacher education. Update—​Applications of Research in Music Education, 24(2), 33–​44. Reimer, B. (2008). Research in music education: Personal and professional reflections in a time of perplexity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(3), 190–​203. Strand, K. (2006). Learning to inquire: Teacher research in undergraduate teacher training. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15(2), 29–​42. Teachout, D. (2005). From the chair: How are we preparing the next generation of music teacher educators? Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15(1), 3–​5.

Chapter 37

DEWEY’S BASTARDS: MUSIC, MEANING, AND POLITICS Paul Woodford

Many music scholars now agree that music’s meaning is not limited to the notes themselves, that music perception and understanding are shaped by social, cultural, and political contexts and meanings (Taruskin, 2004). Yet, and while some music teacher educators and practicing teachers also recognize music’s social contingency and significance, there continues to be a strange reluctance among many in our field to adequately address music’s political meanings. Elliott (1995), for example, defines a praxial approach to music education as involving performing, listening, and other musical activities within specific sociocultural contexts. But while acknowledging music’s potential for social agency, he had relatively little to say about how it relates to the wider world and its problems. One way that teachers can begin to redress this deficit with respect to a more comprehensive and better understanding of music’s meanings is by drawing on the growing literature on the politics of music, which demonstrates how those meanings often change over time and in response to political conditions and agendas. To provide just one example, Aaron Copland’s Fanfare for the Common Man was composed in 1942 to support the war against fascism but was later coopted by those on the right of American politics to mean something quite different from what its composer had originally intended. While now perceived by most Americans as a piece of nostalgic Americana celebrating unreflective patriotism, the composition was originally intended as a call for greater social equality and international cooperation (Crist, 2005; Woodford, 2010). There is burgeoning wealth of similar examples

340

Paul Woodford

in the musicological literature that teachers can now draw on to demonstrate how music is often used to shape the public’s understandings of history and politics (and vice versa). Music teachers, historians, and philosophers also need to seek a better understanding of the political forces and ideologies that have shaped their own perceptions and understandings of the profession and its problems. Some very important work has already been done in this area, but we need more hard-​hitting political histories of music education that seek to expose the perhaps less seemly side of the profession by revealing how it has been manipulated by the powerful and often too quick to jump on educational bandwagons. For example, it would be a revelation to teachers to learn that the aesthetic education movement that arose in America during the late 1940s and 1950s was in certain ways a product of the Cold War. Motivated by anticommunist hysteria, prominent education reformers had been calling for greater emphasis on the development of abstract intellectual abilities over preparation for democratic citizenship so that the country could better compete with the Soviets. Music educators felt compelled to justify their school and university programs by claiming that the study of great music developed the kinds of abstract intellectual abilities and emotional resources that might be perceived by rich capitalists and the military industrial complex as contributing to the country’s military, economic, and cultural superiority. Music in education had to be reconceived as an academic discipline, that is, “as an objective and unbiased producer of knowledge for its own sake,” divorced from the world and its problems (Efland, 1988, p. 263). Music educators quickly jumped on the aesthetic education bandwagon with its slogan “Music for its own sake” and declared that music and music education had nothing to do with politics (Reimer, 1959; McCarthy & Goble, 2002). Few stopped to consider the possible consequences of political avoidance for music teachers and their students or to challenge the assertion made by Leonhard and House (1959) that teaching for democratic citizenship would only result in musical delinquency. The really odd thing about this was not so much that professional leaders denied that music and music education had anything to do with politics, but that they continued to be drawn to John Dewey’s philosophy of art and education. Dewey (1934) blamed capitalism for many of society’s problems, including art’s “segregation from the common life,” and would have objected to the idea of teaching music purely for its own sake (pp. 14–​15). Nor, for obvious reasons, would he have approved of the notion of teaching for connoisseurship that was gaining ground among music educators. He also, incidentally, warned against emphasizing “beyond all reason the merely contemplative character of the esthetic” (p. 10). Given these contradictions and inconsistencies in educational values and political purposes, it seems inexplicable that music educators in the 1950s would continue to be drawn to Dewey’s philosophy, and especially since his socially progressive ideas were anathema to those on the political right. It might well have been professionally risky at the time for music educators to adopt his philosophy wholesale. Their solution to this problem was to bastardize his philosophy by stripping away its political content. Thereafter,

Dewey’s Bastards

341

it was viewed as synonymous with reflective or critical thinking, which was itself redefined as a form of abstract thinking skill and not, as Dewey had intended, as a kind of moral and political thinking rooted in the world. The irony of all this is that while proponents of aesthetic education were denying that music and music education had anything to do with politics, they were actually involved in a larger political struggle about social and educational values and thus also about the meaning of America! They seemed not to realize that by rejecting Dewey’s social democratic politics while enthusiastically endorsing the idea of music for its own sake they were aligning themselves with conservatives and democratic realists on the right of American politics who believed in “government for but not by the people” (Westbrook, 1991, p. xvi). The point of this discussion of the early aesthetic education movement is not to assign blame but to illustrate how philosophy and other scholarly work, like music, is shaped by politics and events and may carry meanings that were unintended or underappreciated. This just underscores the need for philosophers to be more self-​reflective while attempting to locate their work within wider social, historical, and political contexts so that they and future teachers gain a better appreciation of the social, economic, and other forces shaping their own and the profession’s thinking. For example, it would interesting to research and to critically examine the provenance of Elliott’s praxialism and other philosophies and theories so that we can obtain a better understanding of the personal, social, and political forces that have shaped them. Swartz’s (2003) study of the events and political forces that propelled critical sociologist Pierre Bourdieu from relative academic obscurity to celebrity status as France’s leading public intellectual might serve as a useful model in this regard, as might Westbrook’s (1991) John Dewey and American Democracy. Finally, and rather than retreating into abstract theorizing and other politically safe discourses, more scholars and teachers need to turn a critical eye and ear on the profession and its problems so that previously obscure but important developments in the halls of power affecting music education in sometimes profound and dangerous ways are brought to the light of day. Hopefully, more of this kind of research and critical inquiry will help to shake the still strongly held conviction among some academics and many practicing teachers that music is “just music.”

REFERENCES Crist, E. B. (2005). Music for the common man: Aaron Copland during the depression and war. New York: Oxford University Press. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books. Efland, A. D. (1988). How art became a discipline: Looking at our recent history. Studies in Art Education, 29(3), 262–​274.

342

Paul Woodford

Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1959/​1972). Foundations and principles of music Education. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. McCarthy, M., & Goble, J. S. (2002). Music education philosophy: Changing times. Music Educators Journal, 89(1), 19–​26. Reimer, B. (1959). What music cannot do. Music Educators Journal, 46(1), 40–​45. Swartz, D. L. (2003). From critical sociologist to public intellectual: Pierre Bourdieu and politics. Theory and Society, 32(5/​6), 791–​823. Taruskin, R. (2004). The poetic fallacy. Musical Times, 145(1886), 7–​34. Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY:  Cornell University Press. Woodford, P. (2010). Democratic elitism or democratic citizenship? The politics of music, meaning, and education in Cold-​War America. Eufonia: Didactica de la Musica, 50, 23–​33.

Index

A academic buoyancy, 304 academic entrepreneurship (AE), 241–246 acculturation/enculturation oral transmission of music, 294 of sonic experience, 4 in younger children, 136 activation/inspiration, 243 adaptability, 304 adapted classes and equipment. See special abilities and special needs students adolescence disenchantment with formal music learning, 155 personal music identification, 299–301 adults and adult music learning higher education for. See colleges and universities influence of music on people’s lives, 317 music teachers. See teachers parents. See parents teachers. See teachers advanced studies by teachers, 248, 249, 328, 335–338 advocacy for music education, 188–191 for primary music education, 265 AE (academic entrepreneurship), 241–246 aesthetic appreciation in philosophy of music education, 76, 77 affective responses, 134, 290 age 0–5. See infancy and early childhood 5–12. See primary music education 12–18. See adolescence -related changes, 135–137 agency, 8 aging. See elders amotivation, 147 See also motivation amusic brains, 11

analytic philosophy, 72 animation (activation/inspiration), 243 animosity among researchers, 323–325 anthropology ethnomusicology. See ethnomusicology of learning processes, 294–297 See also culture anxiety multidimensional model of motivation, 303 primary music education teachers, 267 “applied music”, 108 argumentation, 249–251 arguments, 70 art, 340 artistic communication, 330–334 “artistic expression” and “arts expression” (terms), 41 arts and sciences, 263 arts education, 41 assessment, 62 attention deficit disorder, 263 auditory cortex, 214 aural. See hearing aural-visual-kinesthetic (multimodal) activities, 173, 215 authenticity of music or performance ethnomusicology, 108–110, 118 philosophy of music education, 77 relativistic value judgments, 109, 110 superiority of certain musics, 108–110 autonomous learners motivation, 145–151, 156–158 See also critical thinking B babies. See infancy and early childhood behavior extrinsically motivated, 146 intrinsically motivated, 145–147 musical, 4

344Index behaviorism, 168 “belongingness” generally, 166, 199 See also transformative musical engagement bimusicality, 116, 117 blogging, 313 body movement brain development and function, 213 multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities, 173, 215 “book of questions”, 261 brain development and function generally, 4, 206–224 auditory cortex, 214 basic information vs. practical application, 208–214 body movement, 213 cerebellum, 215 cognitive neurosciences research, 189 cognitive processing, 213 corpus callosum, 215 developmental psychology and musical development, 134 diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), 208 effects of music learning on brain structure, 214, 215, 216 electroencephalography (EEG), 207 emotion, 214 event-related potentials (ERPs), 207 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 208 gray matter, 215 intelligence, 209, 210 learning process research, 316 magnetoencephalography (MEG), 207 memory. See memory mental speed, 211 metacognitive skills. See critical thinking motivation, 214 multimodal integration areas, 215 musicality localized to specific part of brain, 211 musically intact brains, 11 neural plasticity, 214 neuro-didactics, 212 neuromusical research, 207, 208 neuro-pedagogy, 212 neuropsychology, 189 neuroscientific information explosion, 206 performance, 217, 218 positron emission tomography (PET), 207 processing efficiency, 211

research, 253, 262, 263 in cognitive neurosciences, 189 on learning process, 316 neuromusical, 207, 208 neuroscientific information explosion, 206 sensitive periods in early childhood music learning, 216, 217 sensorimotor cortex, 215 size of brain, 210 underlying architecture, 4 white matter, 215 See also cognitive development business entrepreneurship, 241–246 C capitalism, 340 casual learning. See informal playing and learning cerebellum, 215 ceremonial or ritual music engagement with music in everyday life, 315, 316 oral transmission of, 293–295 childrearing, 31 children ages 0–5. See infancy and early childhood ages 5–12. See primary music education ages 12–18. See adolescence church music. See ceremonial or ritual music citizenship as reason for music education, 265 values of citizens in education, 233–236 class system. See social class cognitive development and music education, 262, 263 See also brain development and function cognitive skills. See critical thinking collaboration, 243 colleges and universities advanced studies by teachers, 248, 249, 328, 335–338 arts as part of expectations for college-bound students, 234 doctoral programs in music education, 248, 249 music education majors, 247–251 revenue-producing university courses and programs, 241–246 undergraduate music education students, 335–338 colonialism, 259 commercialization of music education, 261, 262 of universities, 242

Index communication artistic, 330–334 noncontrolling, informational language, 157 See also definitions communications technology. See technology “communicative-cultural studies” (term), 41 communities of practice (COPs), 278–281 communities of scholarship, 278–281 See also colleges and universities community explanation of, 194 learners’ layered interactions with, 170 comparative music education, 38–40, 107, 259 compulsory instruction in music generally, 20, 21 international contexts, 40, 46 without qualified teacher to deliver curriculum, 46 See also holistic learning computer technology. See technology concerts. See performances congenital amusics, 10 contact zones, 177 contextual learning importance in educational process, 197 international contexts, 40, 41 transformative musical engagement, 169–172 continuing education entrepreneurial processes requiring ongoing learning, 243 music education courses, 232, 256 pluralism in, 195–198 controlling vs. autonomy-supportive teachers, 148–151, 156–158 conventional vs. unconventional musical content, 135, 136 COPs (communities of practice), 278–281 copying. See imitation corpus callosum, 215 creativity individual, 113 in musical development, 129 in music education, 62, 265 in workforce, 265 critical thinking generally, 167–169, 176–179 vs conformity and “fitting in,” 32 developmental psychology and musical development, 129 vs moral/political thinking, 340, 341

345 reflection on future action within profession, 225–342 transformative musical engagement, 167–169, 176–179 cross-cultural music generally, 85–103 cultural diversity in music education, 86–90 ethnomusicology, 116, 117 See also international contexts cross-disciplinary projects, 244 cultural diversity, 86–90 impact on development, 85–103 visionary practices in music education, 96–98 culture generally, 85–103 acculturation. See acculturation/enculturation enculturation. See acculturation/enculturation ethnomusicology. See ethnomusicology internationalizing music education, 283 models of formal and informal learning, 93–95 “open-earedness,” 135 transformative musical engagement, 170 See also cross-cultural music; globalization curriculum democracy in education, 198 development and reform of, 44–49 effect on motivation, 158 emotional aspect of music, 286–290 enjoyed vs. curriculum music, 332 as “essentially contested concept,” 62 flexibility in primary music curriculum, 266 paradigm shift, 163, 167, 168 See also transformative musical engagement cyberspace. See Internet; online and web-based music and learning D D.A. (Doctor of Arts), 248, 249 databases. See global information systems definitions music education, 261 teaching, 258 deliberate practice and deliberate playing, 13 deliberative learning, 67 democracy in education generally, 188–206 cognitive neurosciences research, 189 community, explained, 194 context, importance in educational process, 197 continuing music teacher education, 195–198 curriculum visions, 198

346Index democracy in education (cont.) developmental psychology and neuropsychology, flourishing musical abilities independent of other cognitive and affective systems, 189 education as existential in nature, 193 holistic learning, 189 link with social reform, 188 music education, 250 advocacy for, 188–191 sustainability of programs, 192–194, 200–201 networks of schools, teachers, students, families, and stakeholders, 201 politicized citizenry and, 188 promoting social inclusion through engagement with music, 198 reflexive paradigm, 196 sociopolitical contextualization of music’s values, 190 students as protagonists of learning, 193 systems of domination, 196 in teacher education, 195–198 teachers as philosophers, 197 desire to engage with music, 12–14 development generally. See identity, development, and engagement brain. See brain development and function emotional, 133–137, 214 musical. See developmental psychology and musical development developmental psychologists, 263 developmental psychology and musical development generally, 124–142 affective responses to music, 134 age-related changes, 135–137 cognitive aspects, 128–130 cognitive responses to music, 134 conventional vs. unconventional musical content, 135, 136 critical thinking and creativity, 129 education’s effect on developing sense of musical identity, 132 emotional development, 133–137 and engagement, 124–142 flourishing musical abilities independent of other cognitive and affective systems, 189 genetic influence on development, 129

lifestyle choices, 131 musical competencies, 128–130 musical preferences and tastes, 135, 136 nurturing musical environment, 129 reciprocal feedback model of musical response, 133–135 self-concept, 130 social/personal development, 130–133 sociocultural perspective, 126–128 technical mastery of skills, 129, 130 technology’s effect on listening to music, 136 tone-deafness, 129 universality of music, 128–129 dialogical inquiry, 178 dialogical thinking, 251 diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), 208 digital technology. See technology disability in music, 10–12 disabled students. See special abilities and special needs students discrimination, 259, 260 diversity, cultural, 86–90 impact on development, 85–103 visionary practices in music education, 96–98 doctoral programs in music education, 248, 249 Doctor of Arts (D.A.), 248, 249 DTI (diffusion tensor imaging), 208 dyslexia, 263 E early childhood. See infancy and early childhood ears. See hearing, sense of economic prosperity, 265 Ed.D. and other advanced degrees, 248, 249 educare vs. educere, 22–26, 29 education generally, 8–10 defined, 61 effect on musical identity, 132 as “essentially contested concept,” 62 existential nature of, 193 place of music in, 19–37 schooling as synonymous with, 21 educational networks. See global information systems educational psychology research, 302–307 educational scientists, 263 education-in-music subfield, 255–260 educators’ commentaries, 225–342 EEG (electroencephalography), 207 effective and autonomous learners

Index motivation, 145–151, 156–158 See also critical thinking elders, 317 elections, 233–236 electives, 321 elementary education. See primary music education emotion generally, 285–291 commentaries from scholars and educators, 285–291 emotional aspect of music in curricula, 286–290 guidelines for student learning, 286, 287 music therapy. See music therapy perception of emotional content in music, 289 “redundancy” of musical information, 289 table of student concepts and competencies, 287 taxonomy of affective realm, 290 emotional development generally, 133–137 brain development and function, 214 emotional intelligence, 310 employment university professors, 242 workforce creativity, 265 enculturation oral transmission of music, 294 See also acculturation/enculturation engagement complexity of people’s engagement with music in everyday life, 315–318 See also identity, development, and engagement English language, 283 enjoyment, 13 enthusiasm, student, 239 entitlement to music education, 266 “entrepreneurial university”, 242 entrepreneurship, academic (AE), 241–246 environmental sound experiences, 170 epistemology, 168 equal opportunity. See democracy in education; discrimination ERPs (event-related potentials), 207 ethics influence of music on people’s lives, 317, 318 in music-making, 28 in philosophy of music education, 63 ethnomusicology, 256, 259 generally, 104–123 authenticity, 118 bimusicality, 116, 117

347 “comparative musicology,” 107 defined, 104, 107 egalitarian value judgments, 109, 110 fieldwork, 105, 106 fusion of cultures, 111 identity, development, and engagement, 104–123 improvisation, 117, 118 individual creativity, 113 inside perspective, 106 music as constantly changing, 111 music as unitary phenomenon, 110, 111 “new ethnography,” 116 oral transmission of music, 294–297 preservation of musical traditions, 105 processes of change and of cultural relationships, 106, 107 professional societies and institutions, 120 relationship of ethnomusiculogy with music education, 108, 109 relationship of music to culture, 112 relativistic value judgments, 109, 110 scholars vs practicing artists, 104, 105 superiority of certain musics, 108–110 of talent, 119 transmission of music from generation to generation, 114, 115, 119 event-related potentials (ERPs), 207 evidence-based practice, 262–263 exclusion. See discrimination expectancy-value theory, 153 experiential learning, 243, 244 experts, 156 external regulation, 146 F failure, 244 fascism, 339 feminization. See gender issues fieldwork, 105, 106 flow experience, 155 fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), 208 formal learning complementary to other ways of learning, 296 influence of music on people’s lives, 317 See also school programs fun, 13 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 208 funding, 266 fusion of musical genres, 111

348Index future directions for music education, 53–55 in profession, 225–342 G gender issues, 259 generalist classrooms, 40 generalist teachers, 267, 268–269 general music education, 321 generative learning environments, 166 genetic influences, 129 Gen Z digital literacy, 312–314 global information systems, 270–274 language barriers, 271 predictions, 272 prospective thinking, 272 systematized knowledge about international music education, 270 UNESCO, 272, 273 globalization competitiveness as reason for music education, 265 within music education, 259, 265 transformative musical engagement, communication and participation in globalized world, 176–179 See also international contexts; internationalizing music education goals of education and instruction, 22, 26–33, 33–35 instrumental music goals of students, 237 of musical instruction and curricula, 33–35 transformative musical engagement, 169 goal theory of motivation, 154, 155 good enough music education, 266 “good taste”, 76 gray matter, 215 guidelines for student learning, 286, 287 H habitual action, 27–29 habituation, 294 harmonics, 289 harvest songs, 293 health. See wellness hearing, sense of auditory cortex, 214. See also brain development and function multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities, 173, 215 tone-deafness (TD), 11, 12, 129 higher education. See colleges and universities

high school years. See adolescence historical understanding colonialism and imperialism, 259 music therapy, 309 public music education, 252, 253 technology in music. See technology holistic learning advocacy for music education, 189 “arts education” (term), 41 democracy in education, 189 “music education” (term), 40, 41 primary school. See primary music education I identified regulation, 146 identity, development, and engagement generally, 2–225 adolescent peer status, 299–301 ages 0–5. See infancy and early childhood ages 5–12. See primary music education ages 12–18. See adolescence brain function, 206–224. See also brain development and function choise of instrument, 14 complexity of people’s engagement with music in everyday life, 315–318 compulsory instruction in music, 20, 21 conformity and “fitting in” vs. ethical discernment, independent thought, and creative dispositions, 32 congenital amusics, 10–12 cultural diversity, 85–103 deliberate practice and deliberate play, 13 democratic education, 188–206. See also democracy in education desire to engage with music, 12–14 developmental psychology and musical development, 124–142 disability in music, 10–12 education impact of, 8–10 place of music in, 19–37 enculturated accumulation of sonic experience, 4 enjoyment as predictor of ongoing engagement, 13 ethical sensibilities, 28 ethnomusicology, 104–123. See also ethnomusicology formality of education, 20, 21 fun as predictor of ongoing engagement, 13

Index fundamental right of children to valuable musical experience and instruction, 25 goals of education and instruction, 22, 26–33 habitual action, 27–29 importance of music education for, 29–31 informal learning, 13 “inherent” value of music for, 24 international perspectives, 38–60. See also international contexts intervention to remedy music disability, 11 “intuneness,” 11 loosely structured activities, 13 love of music, 20 motivation, 143–162. See also motivation musical behavior, 4 musicality, 5 “musically intact” brains, 11 “musical”/”not-musical,” 8 music educators expertise of, 25 preparation of, 30 negative musical experiences, 8 neuroplasticity, 4 neurosciences and brain research, 206–224. See also brain development and function new contexts, 188–206 “nonsingers,” 7 nurturing, 4, 9 opportunities for music learning, 5 personal/educational development, 26–29 philosophical inquiry, 23 philosophy of music education, 61–84. See also philosophy of music education pitch (musical memory) development, 11 place of music in education, 19–37 playing for the love of the instrument, 13 practical sensibilities, 28 profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD), 12 schooling as synonymous with education, 21 severe learning difficulties (SLD), 12 social, cultural, and environmental settings, 5 specialists, 25 special status for music in education, 32, 33 teachers, 300 tone-deafness (TD), 11, 12, 129 training vs. education, 22–25, 30, 31, 61 transformative musical engagement, 163–186. See also transformative musical engagement value of musical experience for, 20 visual feedback software, 11 imitation, 295

349 imperialism. See colonialism impregnation, learning by, 295 See also oral transmission of music improvisation, 117, 118 inclusivity. See “belongingness” income stratification. See social class independent learning. See critical thinking indigenous music. See cross-cultural music; ethnomusicology; international contexts infancy and early childhood infant learners, 317 maturation and sensitive periods in early childhood music learning, 216, 217 influence of music on people’s lives generally, 315–318 complexity of people’s engagement with music in everyday life, 315–318 ethics, 317, 318 formal vs. informal learning, 317 infant learners, 317 intercultural music education, 317 metaphysical discussions of genesis of life, 315 motivation for learning, 317 older learners, 317 informal playing and learning generally, 13 choices regarding listening habits, 330–334 identity, development, and engagement, 13 influence of music on people’s lives, 317 new ways of being and new levels of mindfulness, 323 See also oral transmission of music information systems, global, 270–274 inherent value of music, 24 inside perspective, 106 inspiration, 243 instructors. See teachers instrumental music choice of instrument, 14 commentaries from scholars and educators, 237–240 enthusiasm of students, 239 goals of students, 237 “just in time” learning, 239 “music education” (term), 40, 41 playing for the love of the instrument, 13 self-directed learners, 239 students in charge of learning process, 238 teachers, 237–240 web-based learning, 237–240 YouTube as teacher, 237 integrated arts, 40

350Index integrated regulation, 146 intellectual nihilism, 69 intelligence, 209, 210 interculturalism generally, 259, 317 influence of music on people’s lives, 317 See also enculturation; globalization interdisciplinary communication, 263, 264 internal-external motivation continuum, 146 internal vs. external sustainability of music programs, 192–194, 201 international contexts generally, 38–60 advocacy for music education, 42–44 “artistic expression” (term), 41 “arts education” (term), 40, 41 “arts expression” (term), 41 common purpose of educators, 38 “communicative-cultural studies” (term), 41 comparative music education, 38–40 compulsory music education, 40, 46 contexts in which music teaching and learning occurs, 40, 41 curriculum development and reform, 44–49 educational policy concerning music education vs provisions made within schools, 42 future of music education, 53–55 generalist classrooms, 40 historical examination of international teaching and learning, 38–40 identity, development, and engagement, 38–60 “integrated arts” (term), 40 “music education” (term), 40, 41 political, social, cultural and technological changes, 46–49 professional networks and forums, 51–53 status of music in public education, 41, 42 See also globalization internationalizing music education generally, 282–284 barriers in language and traditions, 283 English as lingua franca, 283 music education as national concern, 282, 283 reasons for, 283 international music education, 270 Internet transformative musical engagement resulting from, 169–172 See also online and web-based music and learning; technology interpersonal relationships, 306

interventions, 11 intrinsic motivation, 145 introjection, 146 intuneness, 11 iPods. See technology J job security, 242 just in time learning, 239 K kinesthetic learning, 173, 215 knowledge knowledge sharing. See global information systems research gains, 275–277 systematized, 270 L language noncontrolling, informational, 157 See also definitions language barriers in global information systems, 271 internationalizing music education, 283 learners, 168 agency of. See agency learning, 62 adult. See adults and adult music learning entrepreneurial processes requiring ongoing learning, 243 experiential, 243, 244 formal. See school programs complementary to other ways of learning, 296 influence of music on people’s lives, 317 goals of. See goals guidelines for student learning, 286, 287 informal. See oral transmission of music generally, 13 choices regarding listening habits, 330–334 influence of music on people’s lives, 317 new ways of, 323 opportunities for music learning, 5 self-directed instrumental music, 239 self-education vs. formal education, 258 skills, 156 learning disabilities. See special abilities and special needs students legitimacy of music

Index generally, 62 See also authenticity of music or performance lifelong learning entrepreneurial processes requiring ongoing learning, 243 See also adults and adult music learning lifestyle choices, 131 listening habits, 330–334 literacy. See language lobbying, 189 location, 171 logic, 61, 62, 70, 71, 79 love of music, 20 M magnetoencephalography (MEG), 207 malpractice, 63 marketing and marketability academic entrepreneurship, 241–246 See also commercialization master-apprentice tradition, 156 master’s degree in music education, 248 maturation, 216, 217 media attacks on public music education, 254 See also online and web-based music and learning; technology MEG (magnetoencephalography), 207 membership. See “belongingness” memory “amusic” brains, 11 See also pitch mental illness therapy. See therapy mental speed, 211 mentoring apprentice tradition of music learning, 156 See also experts MEP (music education philosophy). See philosophy of music education metacognitive skills. See critical thinking metaphysics, 315 methodology, research, 323–325 middle school years. See adolescence military industrial complex, 340 mindfulness, 323 mistakes and experiential learning, 244 public music education successes and failures, 254 mobile technologies, 312–314

351 See also online and web-based music and learning; technology moral/political thinking, 340, 341 motivation generally, 143–162 amotivation, 147 autonomous motivation, 145–148 support for, 148–151, 156–158 brain development and function, 214 choosing to discontinue music participation, 151 coaches’ influence, 148 controlling vs. autonomy-supportive teachers, 148–151, 156–158 expectancy-value theory, 153 external regulation, 146 extrinsically motivated behavior, 146 flow, 155 goal theory, 154, 155 identified regulation, 146 for instrumental music. See instrumental music integrated regulation, 146 internal-external motivation continuum, 146 intrinsically motivated behavior, 145–147 introjection, 146 learning goals, 154 master-apprentice tradition of music learning, 156 mismatch of skill and challenge, 156 and noncontrolling, informational language, 157 and nurturing, 156 performance goals, 154 personal interest, 154 self-determination theory (SDT), 144, 145 self-determined, 151, 152 self-efficacy, 152 situational interest, 154 task value, 153 transformative musical engagement, 174–176 motivation research, 303–306, 317 multiculturalism. See interculturalism multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities, 173, 215 multimodal integration areas, 215 musical acculturation. See acculturation/ enculturation musical behavior, 4 musical competencies, 128–130 musical identity. See identity, development, and engagement musical instruments. See instrumental music

352Index musical interventions, 11 musicality defined, 5 localized to specific part of brain, 211 See also identity, development, and engagement musically educated, 4 musical meaning generally, 98–99 See also identity, development, and engagement musical memory. See memory “musical”/”not-musical” identity, 8 music appreciation, 62 music disability, 10–12 music education communities, 278–281 defined, 261 ecosystem, 327 evolution of, 327 internationalizing. See internationalizing music education knowledge sharing. See global information systems music teaching vs. music learning, 257 organizational challenges, 278–281 subfields, 255–260 teachers. See teachers virtual communities, 279 music education philosophy (MEP). See philosophy of music education music-education-research subfield, 255–260 music educators. See teachers music facilitators. See experts musicians, 131, 132 musician-scholars, 247–251 music identification, personal. See identity music literacy, 333 music research. See research music specialists generally, 25 See also experts music teachers. See teachers music therapy generally, 259, 308–311 commentaries from scholars and educators, 308–311 and emotional intelligence, 310 Every Child Matters agenda, 310 history of, 309 No Child Left Behind agenda, 309

special needs students. See special abilities and special needs students N national concerns, 282, 283 national music curriculum, 234 negative musical experiences, 8 negative music education, 8 neural plasticity, 214 neuro-didactics, 212 neuromusical research, 206–224 neuro-pedagogy, 212 neuroplasticity, 4 neuropsychology, 189 neuroscience, 206–224 cognitive neurosciences research, 189 information explosion, 206 interdisciplinary dialogue, 263 See also brain development and function newborns. See infancy and early childhood new contexts, 188–206 See also democracy in education new ethnography, 116 newspapers, 254 non-formal learning. See informal playing and learning; oral transmission of music novice teachers, 335–338 nurturing and supportive environments generally, 4, 9 for developmental psychology and musical development, 129 motivation, 156 for transformative musical engagement, 166, 174 O older people. See elders online and web-based music and learning instrumental music, 237–240 knowledge sharing. See global information systems music educational communities, 279 transformative musical engagement, 169–172 ontology, 77 “open-earedness”, 135 opportunities for music learning, 5 oral transmission of music generally, 292–297 anthropological and ethnomusicological issues, 294–297 as basis for living music culture, 292–297

Index ceremonial music, 293, 294 children’s musical traditions, 292, 295, 296 commentaries from scholars and educators, 294–297 complementary formal learning, 296 enculturation, 294 habituation vs. education, 294 harvest songs, 293 learning by impregnation, 295 parents teaching children, 293 “song chain” process, 292 orature. See oral transmission of music ordinary language philosophy, 72 organizational challenges, 278–281 P parents, 293 pedagogy and pedagogical practices knowledge sharing. See global information systems special abilities and special needs students, 259, 260 peer relationships, 306 performances brain development and function, 217, 218 goals, 154 motivation, 154 personal agency. See agency personal interest, 154 personal music identification. See identity PET (positron emission tomography), 207 Ph.D. programs, 248, 249 philosophy of music education generally, 23, 61–84 “aesthetic appreciation,” 76, 77 analytic philosophy, 72 arguments, 70 authenticity of performances, 77 body of evidence, 63–65 conceptual analysis, 70, 72, 73 creativity, 62 definition of education, 61 definition of philosophy, 65–70 ethics, 63 “good taste,” 76 “intellectual nihilism,” 69 legitimacy of music, 62 logic, 70, 71, 79 logical understanding of music and music education, 61, 62

353 malpractice, 63 music as basic survival need, 61 ontology of musical works, 77 ordinary language philosophy, 72 pedagogical assumptions, beliefs, and concepts, 62 philosophical method, 70–72 philosophical paradigms, 72–75 vs. positivistic research, 64 “postmodern,” 73, 74 quietism, 72 serious vs. popular music, 77 “synergistic,” 79 synoptic approach, 73 understanding musical works, 77 pitch development in “amusic” brains, 11 musical memory development, 11 place of music in education, 19–37 in transformative musical engagement, 171 pluralism. See democracy in education PMLD (profound and multiple learning difficulties), 12 politics effect on music education, 233–236, 265 effect on music in school curriculum, 46–49 lobbying, 189 moral/political vs. reflective/critical thinking, 340, 341 music shaped by, 339–342 politicized citizenry and democracy in education, 188 praxial philosophy of music education, 341 segregation from common life, 340 teachers’ perceptions and understandings of, 340 popular culture, 333 positivism vs. philosophy of music education, 64 positivist epistemology, 168 positron emission tomography (PET), 207 postmodernism, 73, 74 practice vs. theory in school programs generally, 319–322 electives, 321 general music offerings, 321 reformers’ views, 321 stagnation and predictability, 320 status quo, 321 theoretical work in music education, 320

354Index praxial philosophy of music education, 341 preservation of musical traditions, 105 pride in music profession, 247–251 primary music education generally, 265–269 advocacy agenda, 265 basic/minimum entitlement, 266 commentaries from scholars and educators, 265–269 “flexibility” in curriculum, 266 funding of music/arts education, 266 generalist vs. specialist teachers, 267, 268–269 “good enough” music education, 266 high-quality teaching of singing, 11 legal entitlement for all children, 266 teacher anxiety and lack of confidence, 267 problem-solving. See critical thinking professionalism, 247–251 professional networks and forums ethnomusicology, 120 international contexts, 51–53 profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD), 12 psychology and psychologists generally, 302–307 commentaries from scholars and educators, 302–307 developmental psychology. See developmental psychology and musical development educational psychology research, 305 interdisciplinary dialogue, 263 interpersonal relationships in achievement motivation, 306 motivation research, 303–306 music therapy. See music therapy peer relationships, 306 teachers research on preparation, perseverance, and performance in music, 302–307 teacher-student relationships, 306 therapy. See therapy psychotherapy. See therapy public music education generally, 252–254 assumptions concerning, 254 commentaries from scholars and educators, 252–254 history of, 252, 253 media attacks on, 254 successes and failures, 254 See also primary music education; school programs

Q quality of life. See wellness quietism, 72 R radio, 254 “realness” of music or performance ethnomusicology, 118 philosophy of music education, 77 relativistic value judgments, 109, 110 real world vs. research, 275–277 reciprocal feedback model of musical response, 133–135 recitals. See performances redundancy of musical information, 289 reflection on future action within profession, 225–342 reflective/critical thinking, 340, 341 See also critical thinking reflexive paradigm, 196 rehearsal. See practice relativistic value judgments, 109, 110 religious music. See ceremonial or ritual music research critical reflections and future action, 225–342 denigrating value and applicability of, 276 knowledge sharing. See global information systems methodology, 323–325 vs. real world, 275–277 revenue revenue-producing university courses and programs, 241–246 taxes to support local schools, 233 ritual. See ceremonial or ritual music S “saving music education”, 248, 249 scholars commentaries on future action within profession, 225–342 ethnomusicologists as, 104, 105 scholarship and practice communities, 278–281 schooling, 21 See also education school programs electives, 321 general music offerings, 321 media attacks on, 254 practice vs. theory in, 319–322 predictability and stagnation in, 320, 321 primary school. See primary music education

Index reformers’ views, 321 self-education vs. formal education, 258 stagnation and predictability, 320, 321 status quo, 321 successes and failures, 254 theoretical work in music education, 320 See also formal learning; public music education self-concept, 298–301 adolescent peer status, 299–301 development of, 130 effect of teachers on, 300 See also identity self-criticism, 249–251 self-determination theory (SDT), 144, 145, 151, 152 self-directed learning instrumental music, 239 self-education vs. formal education, 258 See also critical thinking self-efficacy, 152 self-esteem generally, 146, 199 reason for music education, 265 self-identity. See identity sensorimotor cortex, 215 serious music, 77 See also authenticity of music or performance severe learning difficulties (SLD), 12 singers and singing, 11 harvest songs, 293 song chain, 292 situational interest in music, 154 skilled music leaders. See experts skills learning instrumental music. See instrumental music metacognitive. See critical thinking mismatch of skill and challenge, 156 technical skills development, 129, 130 SLDs (severe learning difficulties), 12 social class, 5 social development, 130–133 social interactions, 170 social networks, 313 social reform, 188 social responsibility, 200–201 social values. See culture sociocultural perspective, 126–128 sociopolitical contextualization, 190 software. See technology song chain, 292 special abilities and special needs students generally, 263 music education for, 259, 260

355 music therapy for. See music therapy pedagogical methods for inclusion of, 259, 260 specialists generally, 25 master-apprentice tradition, 156 specialist teachers, 267, 268–269 special status for music in education, 3 spiritual music. See ceremonial or ritual music spontaneous chanting, singing, and instrumental play. See informal playing and learning students as protagonists of learning, 193 resiliency of, 174 undergraduate, 335–338 supportive environments. See nurturing and supportive environments sustainability of music programs, 192–194, 200, 201 “synergistic” philosophies, 79 synoptic approach, 73 systematized knowledge, 270 T talent as “essentially contested concept,” 62 ethnomusicology, 119 taxonomy, 290 TD. See tone-deafness (TD) teachers advanced studies, 248, 249, 328, 335–338 anxiety, 267 commentary on future vision, 248, 249, 326–329, 335–338 education of music teachers, 256–260, 326–329, 335–338 educators’ commentaries on future action within profession, 225–342 evolution in music education practice, 327 generalist vs. specialist teachers, 267, 268–269 identity development, 300 instrumental music, 237–240 interdisciplinary dialogue, 263 listening habits, 330–334 novice teachers, 335–338 perceptions and understandings of political meaning of music, 340 personal music identification, 300 as philosophers, 197 pluralism in teacher education, 195–198 preparation of music teachers, 326–329, 335–338

356Index teachers (cont.) primary music education teachers, 267 research on preparation, perseverance, and performance in music, 302–307 responsiveness to and anticipation of society’s needs, 327 and self-concept of students, 300 teacher-student relationships, 306 tech-savvy music educators, 312–314 teaching defined, 258 as “essentially contested concept,” 62 music teaching vs. music learning, 257 of others to teach music, 328 research-based teaching and learning, 262, 263 training in, 328, 329 technical skills development, 129, 130 technology generally, 312–314 effect on listening to music, 136 Gen Z digital literacy, 312–314 learning styles, 312–314 mobile technologies, 312–314 online. See online and web-based music and learning technology-savvy music educators, 312–314 and transformative musical engagement, 169–172, 174 web-based. See online and web-based music and learning teen or teen-age years. See adolescence television, 254 tenure, 242 terminology. See definitions theory vs. practice philosophy of music education, 341 subfields of music education, 256, 257 therapy generally, 259, 308–311 See also music therapy tone-deafness (TD) developmental psychology and musical development, 129 identity, development, and engagement, 11, 12 sense of hearing, 11, 12 total immersion, 155 training vs. education, 22–25, 30, 31, 61 transculturation. See culture transformative musical engagement generally, 163–186

behaviorist, 168 being vs. becoming a music learner, 164, 166 classification of learners, 168 contact zones, 177 critical thinking, 167–169, 176–179 dialogical inquiry, 178 generative learning environments, 166 in globalized world, 176–179 goals, 169 impact of technology on, 169–172, 174 in information era, 169–172 layered interactions, 170 learning contexts, 169–172 motivation, 174–176 nurturing and supportive environments for, 166, 174 paradigm shift in, 163, 167, 168 participatory cultures working toward, 166 place and location of, 171 positivist epistemology, 168 principles of transformative pedagogy, 177, 178 resiliency of students, 174 supportive learning environments for, 166 values associated with, 174–176 zones of complexity, 172 zones of interaction, 177 transformative pedagogy, 177 transmission of music from generation to generation, 114, 115, 119 U undergraduate music education students, 335–338 See also colleges and universities universality of music, 128–129 universities. See colleges and universities V virtual learning environments (VLEs). See Internet; online and web-based music and learning; technology vision multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities, 173, 215 software providing visual feedback, 11 visionary projects, 241–246 visiting artists. See experts vocabulary. See definitions vocal and choral music. See singers and singing voting, 233–236

Index W war, 339 websites. See Internet; online and web-based music and learning wellness, 265 white matter, 215 workforce creativity, 265 world music. See cross-cultural music; ethnomusicology; international contexts

357 Y YouTube, 237, 314 See also online and web-based music and learning Z zones of complexity, 172 zones of interaction, 177