Music Learning and Teaching in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence: An Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Volume 2 9780190674595, 9780190674618, 0190674598

Citation preview

MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING I N   I N FA N C Y, C H I L D H O O D, A N D ADOLESCENCE

MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING I N I N FA N C Y, C H I L D H O O D, A N D ADOLESCENCE AN OXFORD HANDBOOK OF MUSIC EDUCATION VOLUME 2

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. | Welch, Graham (Graham F.) Title: Music learning and teaching in infancy, childhood, and adolescence : an Oxford handbook of music education, Volume 2 / edited by Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018002741 | ISBN 9780190674595 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780190674618 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Music—Instruction and study. Classification: LCC MT1 .O932 2018 | DDC 780.71—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018002741 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada

Contents Contributors  vii Introduction to Volume 2  xix Part 1









Part 2





Music learning and teaching in infancy and early childhood  Part Editor: Margaret S. Barrett 1. Commentary: Music Learning and Teaching in Infancy and Early Childhood  3 Margaret S. Barrett 2. Musical Lives of Infants  5 Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub 3. Musicality and Musical Culture: Sharing Narratives of Sound from Early Childhood  26 Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch 4. Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning  40 Lily Chen-​Hafteck and Esther Mang 5. Musical Participation from Birth to Three: Toward a Global Perspective  58 Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari 6. Creative Meaning-​Making in Infants’ and Young Children’s Musical Cultures  75 Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri Music learning and teaching during childhood: ages 5–​12  Part Editor: Kathryn Marsh 7. Commentary: Music Learning and Teaching During Childhood: Ages 5–​12  97 Kathryn Marsh 8. Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom  102 Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh 9. Creating in Music Learning Contexts  121 Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

viContents



Part 3





10. Meaningful Connections in a Comprehensive Approach to the Music Curriculum  141 Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen 11. Multiple Worlds of Childhood: Culture and the Classroom  160 Chee-​Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh 12. Music Education in the Generalist Classroom  178 Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid 13. Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance in Primary and Elementary Schools  196 Sharon G. Davis Music learning and teaching during adolescence: ages 12–​18  Part Editor: Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce 14. Commentary: Music Learning and Teaching During Adolescence: Ages 12–​18  217 Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce 15. Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content  222 Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright 16. Youth Culture and Secondary Education  241 Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh 17. Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom  257 Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell 18. The Community Music Facilitator and School Music Education  277 Lee Higgins and Brydie-​Leigh Bartleet 19. Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom  295 Oscar Odena 20. Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents  313 S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon Index 333

Contributors Mayumi Adachi is professor of music psychology at Hokkaido University, Japan. Following her career as a piano teacher, she obtained master’s degrees in music education at Teachers College, Columbia University. After completing a doctorate degree in psychomusicology at the University of Washington, she worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the Infant Studies Laboratory, University of Toronto at Mississauga, and took an associate professor position in music education at Yamanashi University, Japan. Her research interests reflect her interdisciplinary background, including musical communication, sight-​reading, singing development, and the role of music in infancy and early childhood development. She currently serves as an associate editor of Frontiers in Psychology: Performance Science, a consulting editor of Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, and an editorial board member of Psychology of Music. Randall Everett Allsup holds degrees in music and music education from Northwestern University and Columbia University. He is associate professor of music and music education at Teachers College Columbia University in New York City. Allsup also has a dual appointment at the Arts College of Xiamen University, Fujian Province, China. His scholarship has been influenced by thinkers such as John Dewey, Paulo Freire, and Maxine Greene. He is the recipient of a Fulbright research award, Outstanding Teacher award at Columbia University, and Outstanding Dissertation for “Crossing Over:  Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Learning.” He is also past chair of the International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education. Janet R. Barrett holds bachelor’s and master’s degree from the University of Iowa and a doctorate of philosophy from the University of Wisconsin-​Madison. She is the Marilyn Pflederer Zimmerman Endowed Scholar in Music Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-​Champaign. Her research interests include the reconceptualization of the music curriculum, secondary general music, interdisciplinary approaches in education involving music, and music teacher education and professional development. Recent publications include Constructing a Personal Orientation to Music Teaching (Routledge, coauthored with Mark Robinn Campbell & Linda Thompson), The Musical Experience: Rethinking Music Teaching and Learning (OUP, with Peter R. Webster), and chapters in the Oxford handbooks for qualitative research and social justice in music education. Dr. Barrett has also served on the faculty of Northwestern University and the University of Wisconsin–​ Whitewater. She is a past chair of the Society for Music Teacher Education, a

viiiContributors coeditor of the Mountain Lake Reader, and editor of the Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education. Margaret S. Barrett is Professor and Head of the School of Music at the University of Queensland. Following under-​graduate and graduate coursework study at the University of Tasmania in Music and Music Education she completed a PhD at Monash University. Her research investigates young children’s musical thought and activity as composers and notators, singers and song-​makers; children’s communities of musical practice; cultural psychological perspectives of musical engagement; the pedagogies of creativity and expertise, and narrative inquiry in music education. Her research has been funded by grants from The Australian Research Council, The Australian Council for the Arts, and the British Academy. She has published in the key journals and major handbooks of the discipline. Recent publications include Collaborative Creative Thought and Practice in Music (2014, Ashgate) and A cultural psychology of music education (2011, OUP). She has served as President of the International Society for Music Education and Chair of the World Alliance for Arts Education. Awards include a Fulbright Senior Research Fellowship (2017–​2018), the University of Queensland Award for Excellence in Research Higher Degree Supervision (2016), and the Fellowship of the Australian Society for Music Education (2011). Associate Professor Brydie-​Leigh Bartleet is Director of the Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre and Deputy Director (Research) at the Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, Australia. She has worked on a range of national and international projects in community music, arts-​based serv­ ice learning with Australian First Peoples, intercultural community arts, and arts programs in prison. Many of these projects have been realized in partnership with a wide range of NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONs, arts and community organizations, and colleagues across Australia and the Asia Pacific. She has worked on four successive ARC Linkage projects, led a major OLT Innovation and Development project, secured over a millions dollars in research funding, and produced well over a 100 research outputs. In 2014 she was awarded the Australian University Teacher of the Year. She was the Co-​Chair of the International Society for Music Education’s Community Music Activities Commission, cofounder of the Asia Pacific Community Music Network, and serves on the Board of Music Australia. She is Associate Editor of the International Journal of Community Music and serves on the editorial board of the International Journal of Music Education–​Practice. Lily Chen-​Hafteck holds a doctorate in music education from the University of Reading, U.K. She is professor of music education at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and has held teaching and research positions at Kean University, United States, University of Pretoria, South Africa, University of Surrey Roehampton, U.K., Hong Kong Baptist University, and University of Hong Kong. As a Fulbright scholar, her research interests include music and language in early childhood, children’s singing, and multicultural music education. She is a

Contributors

ix

coinvestigator/​team-​leader of the Advancing Interdisciplinary Research in Singing (AIRS) project, and the founder/​director of the Educating the Creative Mind proj­ ect that advocates arts-​based education for children. She has held positions of the International Society for Music Education as member of its Board of Directors, chair of its Young Professionals Focus Group and Early Childhood Commission, and serves as World Music Representative of the California Music Educators Association. 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 coeditor, with Carol Richardson, of the New Handbook of Research in Music Education. He edited with Patrick Schmidt a handbook of policy and political life and two handbooks with Peter Wester on music learning. Sharon G. Davis is the Director of Music Education at Lebanon Valley College, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in music education, and is Curriculum Director and advisor for the graduate program. She has had diverse teaching experiences in elementary and secondary general music, choral and instrumental music in the United States, and in international schools in Germany, Switzerland, and Singapore. She has published in the International Journal of Education and the Arts, Research Studies in Music Education, and the International Journal of Music Education. Her contributions to edited books include Learning, Teaching, and Musical Identity: Voices from Across Cultures, Lucy Green (Ed.), The Child as Musician, 2nd edition, Gary McPherson (ed.) and Musicianship: Composing in Band and Orchestra (Clint Randles and David Stringham, eds.). Her research interests include music education in relation to informal learning, popular music, identity, and the aesthetic experiences of children. George M. DeGraffenreid studied music education at the University of Colorado, Boulder, before completing a master’s of music education at California State University, Los Angeles, and a doctorate of philosophy at the University of Washington. He is professor of music education and former Chair of the Department of Music at California State University, Los Angeles. His research interests are in teacher education and music curriculum delivery and development. His most important research examines the acquisition and development of teacher confidence

xContributors to teach music in regular classroom settings, and the development and assessment of cross-​cultural music curricula in secondary music classrooms. His principal publications are in secondary general music, music teacher education, and music education policy. He has served as Western Division President of MENC:  The National Association for Music Education and President of CMEA: The California Association for Music Education. Steven C. Dillon died in April 2012, soon after finishing his original contribution to the OHME. He studied music education at the University of South Australia, before completing a master of music education and a doctorate of philosophy at La Trobe University in Melbourne. He combined a career as a professional singer songwriter with school music teaching. Steve was a senior lecturer in Music and Sound at Queensland University of Technology, director of save to DISC Research Network, and project Leader of the Network Jamming Research Group. He was series editor of the meaningful music making for life book series, reviewer for international journals, president of the Musicological Society of Australia Queensland branch, and an active affiliate of ISME and ASME. His research interests focused on meaningful engagement with music making and designing digital media technologies and relational pedagogies to provide access to cognitive growth, health, and wellbeing through music making. Magne I. Espeland studied music education as a graduate student at Bergen University College before moving on to the University of Trondheim where he completed a master’s in musicology. Later he completed his doctorate of philosophy on compositional processes in the music classroom at the Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus. He is professor of music and education at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences and the present chair of MusicNet West, a music higher education network in Western Norway. His research in music education includes music listening, music composition, and music technology. Currently, he chairs a research program in creativity and culture education, where he also is principal investigator in national projects on improvisation in teacher education and innovation of school concert practices. He is one of the founders of the Grieg Research School in Interdisciplinary Music Studies and has served as a commission chair, main conference organiser, and board member of the International Society of Music Education. Professor Martin Fautley is director of research in the School of Education and Social Work at Birmingham City University in the United Kingdom. After many years as a classroom music teacher, he then undertook full-​time doctoral research in the education and music faculties at Cambridge University, investigating teaching, learning, and assessment of classroom music making. His main area of research is assessment in music education, but he also investigates understandings of musical learning and progression. He is the author of eight books, including Assessment in Music Education, published by Oxford University Press, and has written and published over 50 journal articles, book chapters, and academic research papers. He is coeditor of the British Journal of Music Education.

Contributors

xi

Eve Harwood received a bachelor’s degree in English at McMaster University and associate diplomas in piano performance and voice pedagogy from the Royal Conservatory of Toronto. After teaching music in Ontario classrooms for several years she completed a master’s of music education at the University of Western Ontario and a doctorate in music education at the University of Illinois. She currently holds emerita status with the School of Music at Illinois where she served as associate professor and associate dean of the College of Fine and Applied Arts. Her research interests stem from questions that arose in her teaching career, namely how children learn to become music makers and how young adults learn to become music teachers. Her published research includes studies of informal music learning, teacher education, arts curricula in higher education and children’s playground music. Professor Lee Higgins is the Director of the International Centre of Community Music based at York St John University, United Kingdom. He has held previously positions at Boston University, United States, Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, United Kingdom, and the University of Limerick, Ireland. Lee has been a visiting professor at Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany, and Westminster Choir College, Princeton, United States. He received his PhD from the Irish Academy of Music and Dance, Ireland, and is the President of International Society of Music Education (2016–​2018). As a community musician he has worked across the education sector, as well as within health settings, prison and probation service, youth and community, adult education, and arts organizations such as orchestras and dance. As a presenter and guest speaker, Lee has worked on four continents in university, school, and nongovernmental organization settings. He is the senior editor for the International Journal of Community Music and was author of Community Music: In Theory and in Practice (2012, Oxford University Press), coauthor of Engagement in Community Music (2017, Routledge), and coeditor of The Oxford Handbook of Community Music (2017). Beatriz Ilari earned a bachelor’s degree in music education from the University of São Paulo, a master’s degree in violin from Montclair State University, and a PhD in music education from McGill University. Following appointments at the Federal University of Paraná and the University of Texas in Austin (Lozano Long visiting professor of Latin American Studies), since 2011, she is an assistant professor of music education at the University of Southern California. She also supervises graduate student work at the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in Brazil. Her research is interdisciplinary in nature and includes projects on music perception and cognition across the lifespan; musical development, learning and enculturation; music in everyday life of children and adults, and alternative models of music teaching and learning. At present, she is coeditor of the International Journal of Music Education of the International Society for Music Education (ISME). Neryl Jeanneret studied undergraduate music at the University of Sydney, followed by a diploma of education, a master of education, and a doctor of philosophy. She is

xiiContributors the Head of Music Education in Arts Education in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Neryl has served as national president of the Australian Society of Music Education, the chair of the International Society for Music Education’s policy commission, and chief examiner of music for the Board of Studies, NSW. Her current research focuses on engagement, the impact of arts partnerships in schools and other settings, effective teaching models for the preparation of preservice primary generalists, and pedagogy in the music clasroom. She has been involved in curriculum writing and assessment K–​12, as well as development of teacher support materials for organizations such as the Department of Education and Training (Victoria), Opera Australia, the Department of Education (NSW), Musica Viva, and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. Chee-​Hoo Lum is Associate Professor in music education with the Visual & Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also the Head of UNESCO-​ NIE Centre for Arts Research in Education (CARE), part of a regionwide network of observatories stemming from the UNESCO Asia-​Pacific Action Plan. Chee-​Hoo’s research interests include children’s musical cultures and their shifting musical identities; the use of media and technology by children, in families, and in pedagogy; creativity and improvisation in children’s music; elementary music methods; and world musics in education. Stephen Malloch studied musicology at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, going on to gain a masters in music theory & analysis from Kings College London and a doctorate in music and psychoacoustics from the University of Edinburgh. This was followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in the department of psychology at the University of Edinburgh and then a research fellowship at the University of Western Sydney (UWS) investigating the nonverbal communication between infants and their parents. He holds a position of Adjunct Fellow at MARCS Auditory Laboratories at UWS. His research interests have focused primarily on the ‘communicative musicality’ of human interaction -​the study of how we shape time expressively and communicatively using gestures of voice and body. He now works privately as a counselor, career coach, and executive coach, facilitating workshops in communication, leadership development, and how to navigate uncertainty. Esther Mang received her doctorate at the University of British Columbia, Canada, where she also taught music education courses and offered early childhood music programs. She is Associate Professor of the Department of Music, Hong Kong Baptist University, and lectures in Music Education and Neuroscience in Music. Her research interests are inter-​ disciplinary, encompassing child psychology, speech science and vocal development. She examines the longitudinal interactions between music, language, and cognitive development in early childhood. She is particularly interested in language-​specific music behaviours in Chinese children and how neuroscientific findings inform research on early childhood music teaching and learning. She is a member of the Society for Neuroscience

Contributors

xiii

(SfN), the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO), and the American Psychological Association (APA). Kathryn Marsh holds an honors degree in music, diploma of education, and doctorate of philosophy in ethnomusicology from the University of Sydney. She is professor of music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney, where she lectures in research methods, primary music education, and cultural diversity in music education. She has conducted cross-​cultural research into children’s musical play and creativity in Australia, Europe, the United Kingdom, United States, and Korea, most recently exploring the role of music in the lives of refugee children. She is editor of Research Studies in Music Education and has written numerous scholarly publications, including The Musical Playground: Global Tradition and Change in Children’s Songs and Games, published by Oxford University Press, and winner of the Folklore Society’s Katherine Briggs Award and American Folklore Society’s Opie Award. 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 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, as well as the 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. Oscar Odena studied music education and psychopedagogy in Lleida, Spain, before completing a master’s in Glasgow and a doctorate at the University College London Institute of Education. He is Reader in Education at the schools of Education and Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom, and served as Co-​ Chair of the Research Commission of the International Society for Music Education (2012–​2014). He has published in four languages and worked in teacher education institutions in England, Spain, and Northern Ireland, where he investigated the potential of music education as a tool for inclusion. His interests are broad, comprising creativity, social inclusion, and research methods, and his latest work is a book entitled Musical Creativity:  Insights from Music Education Research, published by Routledge. He also serves on the editorial boards of a number of journals and in the Review Colleges of the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Irish Research Council. Chris Philpott studied for a master’s degree in music education at the Institute of Education, London, and after 16 years as a secondary music teacher became a

xivContributors teacher educator at Canterbury Christ Church University. He is currently Deputy Pro Vice-​ Chancellor and a Reader in music education at the University of Greenwich, London. He has research interests in the pedagogy of teacher education in music, the body and musical learning, and music as language. He has written and edited books, online texts and resources which are used in initial teacher education (ITE) programs throughout the United Kingdom. He has previously led government funded projects in relation to ITE in music. S. Alex Ruthmann studied music and technology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, before completing M.M.  and Ph.D.  degrees at Oakland University in music education. He is Associate Professor of Music Education and Music Technology, and Director of the Music Experience Design Lab (MusEDLab) at NYU Steinhardt in New York City, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate courses at the intersection of music education, technology, design, and entrepreneurship. He is a Past President of the Association for Technology in Music Instruction and Past Chair of the Creativity special research interest group of the Society for Research in Music Education. He currently serves as Associate Editor of the Journal of Music, Technology, and Education, and on the editorial/​advisory boards of the British Journal of Music Education and the Journal of Popular Music Education. He is coeditor of the Oxford Handbook of Technology and Music Education, and coeditor of the Routledge Companion to Music, Technology, and Education. His current research explores the collaborative design of new technologies and experiences for music making, learning, and engagement. Eric Shieh is a founding teacher and community coordinator at the Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School in New York City. His research interests center on radical pedagogies and curricular change, with recent publications addressing social justice and music education, race and aesthetics, and independent musicianship. He is a former policy strategist for the New York City Department of Education and has founded music programs in prisons across the United States. Eric holds degrees in music education, multicultural theory, and curriculum policy from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Teachers College, Columbia University. He is a national associate of the Prison Creative Arts Project. Gary Spruce Until recently Gary Spruce was Senior Lecturer in Education at the Open University and director of the university’s PGCE course, with primary responsibility as subject leader for the university’s flexible, secondary PGCE music course. He is now a visiting lecturer in music education at Birmingham City University and a consultant to Trinity College, London. From 2007–​2012, he was coeditor of the British Journal of Music Education. He has written widely on music education, particularly around the areas of teacher education and music education and social justice, and has presented papers at national and international conferences. He is a practicing musician with a particular interest in music for the theatre. Johannella Tafuri, violinist, has been Professor of Methodology of Music Education at the Conservatoire of Bologna (Italy), Temporary Professor at the University of the

Contributors

xv

same city, and visiting professor at the University of Pamplona (Spain). At present, she is Professor at the Conservatoire of Lugano (Switzerland) and at the inCanto Center of Bologna (a Teacher Training and Research Center). As a researcher, her main interests are creativity, teaching, and psychology of musical development. Her most important research (published in Italian, Spanish, and English), is the report of her longitudinal research that examines the musical development of children from prenatal life until 6 years of age. Her publications are in Italian, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, and Russian. She has been National President of SIEM (Società Italiana per l’Educazione Musicale), member of the Board of ESCOM (European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music) and of the Board of Directors of ISME (International Society for Music Education), and Chair of the Research Commission of ISME. Sandra E. Trehub studied economics and philosophy before obtaining her doctoral degree in psychology at McGill University in 1973. Since that time, she has been a faculty member in the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto where she is currently Professor Emeritus. Although most of her research is conducted in laboratory contexts, she has travelled extensively to observe cross-​ cultural differences in musical interactions with infants. Among her scholarly honors are the Kurt Koffka Medal from Giessen University (Germany, 2012)  and a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Society for Music Perception and Cognition (2013). Her research focuses on the perception of musical patterns by infants, children, and adults, maternal singing to infants, and the perception of music and speech by deaf children with cochlear implants. Colwyn Trevarthen, a New Zealander, is Professor (Emeritus) of Child Psychology and Psychobiology at the University of Edinburgh. Trained as a biologist, he took a PhD in human brain science at the California Institute of Technology, and began infancy research at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Harvard in 1967. In over 300 publications on brain development, infant communication, and child learning and emotional health, he reports studies on how intrinsic, musical, rhythms and expressions of emotion in movement animate social awareness in children, language learning, and other cultural skills, and on applications in therapy. With musician Stephen Malloch, he edited Communicative Musicality: Exploring the Basis of Human Companionship. He has honorary degrees from the University of Crete, the University of East London, and Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh; is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, a Member of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a Vice-​President of the British Association for Early Childhood Education. Kari K. Veblen holds a bachelor’s degree in music from Knox College with coursework from St. Olaf College; followed by masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Wisconsin-​Madison. Thus far her career spans four decades including stints as elementary music teacher, community musician, curriculum consultant to orchestras and schools, faculty member at UW-​Stevens Point, visiting scholar

xviContributors (Center for Research in Music Education, University of Toronto, Canada), and research associate (Irish World Music Centre, University of Limerick, Ireland). Currently Professor of music education at University of Western Ontario, Canada, she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses such as cultural and Canadian perspectives, music for children, and qualitative research methods. Current work includes 1)  a thirty year fascination with transmission of traditional Irish/​Scots/​ Celtic/​diasporic musics, 2) adult music learning in formal, informal and nonformal contexts, and 3) community music networks and individuals worldwide. The author, coauthor, and coeditor of books, peer-​reviewed chapters, articles, and conference papers, her latest book project is the Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning (with Janice Waldron and Stephanie Horsley). Veblen has served in various professional capacities, including the International Society for Music Education board. 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 cochair of the Research Commission of ISME. Current Visiting Professorships include the Universities of Queensland (Australia), Guildhall School of Music and Drama, and Liverpool (United Kingdom). 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 United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, United States, Ukraine, UAE, South Africa and Argentina. Publications number over 350 and embrace musical development and music education, teacher education, the psychology of music, singing and voice science, and music in special education and disability. Publications are in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Swedish, Greek, Japanese, and Chinese. Heidi Westerlund is professor at the Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki, Finland. She has published widely in international journals and books, and she is the coeditor of Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education (Ashgate), as well as the Editor-​in-​Chief of the Finnish Journal of Music Education. Her research interests include higher arts education, music teacher education, collaborative learning, cultural diversity, and democracy in music education. She is currently leading two research projects funded by the Academy of Finland: The Arts as Public Service: Strategic Steps Towards Equality (2015–​2020) and Global Visions Through Mobilizing Networks: Co-​developing Intercultural Music Teacher Education in Finland, Israel, and Nepal (2015–​2019). Jackie Wiggins holds two degrees in music education from Queens College (CUNY) and a doctorate in music education from the University of Illinois. She is Distinguished Professor of music education at Oakland University where she chairs the Department of Music, Theatre, and Dance, teaches psychology of music learning and qualitative research, and heads the music education doctoral program.

Contributors

xvii

Her research centers around the nature of children’s musical thinking as reflected in their creative processes and decisions when composing and improvising in classroom contexts, and the role of the music teacher and instructional design in these processes. Wiggins advocates a constructivist approach to music learning, and teaching that engages learners with a broad diversity of musics through interactive performance, listening, and creative problem solving experiences with a goal of empowering learners with musical understanding and competence, fostering musical independence and the ability to use music as a means of personal expression. Dr.  Ruth Wright is Professor of Music Education in the Don Wright Faculty of Music at Western University in Canada. She has served as Chair of Music Education and Assistant Dean of Research at this university. Her 2010 book Sociology and Music Education, Ashgate Press, is a frequently used textbook in courses exploring this field. Prior to moving to Canada in 2009, Ruth was engaged in music education in the United Kingdom for 20 years. She has been a secondary school music teacher and a lecturer in music education and graduate education at Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales. She is the Executive Director of the not-​for-​profit organization Musical Futures Canada and brought the program to Canada in 2012. Susan Young recently retired as senior lecturer in early childhood studies and music education at the University of Exeter, United Kingdom, and completed an additional postgraduate degree in anthropology. She continues her academic activity as senior research fellow at the University of Roehampton, London and Associate of the Centre for Research in Early Childhood, Birmingham. Originally trained as a pianist at the Royal College of Music London and wining the outstanding student prize in her final year, she went on to study Dalcroze Eurhythmics in Geneva. She spent her early career teaching music in a range of schools to children of all ages before gaining a PhD in early childhood music from the University of Surrey. She has published widely in professional and academic journals and is frequently invited to present at conferences, both nationally and internationally. She has written several books, including Music with the Under Fours and Music 3–​5 (Routledge, 2003).

Introduction to Volume 2 Music Learning and Teaching in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence: 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), nonformal (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 Learning and Teaching in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence includes the second, third, and fourth parts of Volume 1 from the original OHME. Importantly, all chapters have been updated and refined to fit the context of this new specialist volume title. The first part of this volume (Music Learning, and Teaching in Infancy and Early Childhood) provides an expanded view of infancy and early childhood, embracing a key theme that most young children’s early music-​making is improvised in the moment and used to communicate with others and self. It demonstrates the importance of “motherese” or “parentese” to young children’s overall development, the extraordinary diversity and richness of children’s early musical engagement, and how this can be viewed as a resource for further learning. Part 2 of the volume (Music Learning and Teaching During Childhood: Ages 5–​ 12) is devoted to issues surrounding the learning and teaching of music during the middle years of childhood, when music is often a mandated part of the school curriculum. While recognizing the enormous cultural and national differences internationally, chapters in this section attempt to overview some of the many varied and innovative forms of musical learning and teaching globally. Recognizing the many

xx

Introduction to volume 2

problematic issues that arise when attempting to define a generalized view of music learning and teaching for this age group, the section tackles issues related to the types of teachers who provide music instructions to children internationally, how they were educated and trained, and how various nations organize their curriculum in ways that provide children with access and opportunities to engage with music in the classroom. Part  3 (Music Learning and Teaching During Adolescence:  Ages 12–​18) tackles key issues, concepts, and debates that have an impact on, or are significant for, the musical experiences and development of adolescents aged 12–​18. Among the key themes is the role of music in the lives of young people, including how they use music and relate to it. This opens up questions concerning how music educators can best meet young peoples’ musical and wider needs and the types of musical engagement that can empower or disempower them when involved in school music. As Music Learning and Teaching in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence shows, music is a characteristic of our humanity. Across the world, individuals are enjoying music, with many 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. Very special thanks should be attributed to our three Part Editors, Margaret Barrett (Part 1), Kathryn Marsh (Part 2), and Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce (Part 3), who enthusiastically took responsibility for their specialist area of this volume. We are grateful for their hard work in ensuring that each chapter within their part fits the mission of this volume, which was to help update and redefine music education internationally. 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 LEARNING AND TEACHING I N   I N FA N C Y, C H I L D H O O D, A N D ADOLESCENCE

PART 1

MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD Part Editor Margaret S. Barrett

Chapter 1

COMMENTARY: MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD Margaret S. Barrett

Across the globe, children experience many childhoods (Rogoff, 2003). While childhood is for all a period of growth, development, and change across the many dimensions of being human, the designation of what constitutes childhood, its characteristic features and developmental contours, differs from place to place, from social group to social group, from culture to culture. For a child born into a society in which child labor is a central component of the economic and cultural fabric, childhood will be a period of rapid assimilation into the world of work, its rhythms and routines, and the inherent responsibilities of self to others. In other societies, childhood may be a lengthy period of play and exploration undertaken in the company of siblings and peers and away from the watchful gaze of adults. And for others, childhood is a period of carefully monitored activities through which parents and carers take note of the “developmental markers” that signal readiness for new challenges and experiences, for more “programs” of learning. In the above, I  have sketched three possible childhoods from the actual experience of many. Regardless of the variation of experience and developmental pathways, for children across the globe, music appears to be a universal feature of human experience (Boynton & Kok, 2006; Mithen, 2005). In this volume, the

4

Margaret S. Barrett

authors explore the characteristic features of a range of musical beginnings and the possibilities for learning that are evidenced. A  number also caution against structuring the early learning experience in ways that inhibit children’s agency and their early playful engagement with music and music-​making. Mayumi Adachi and Sandra Trehub trace the early musical lives of infants and draw on the research literature to illustrate the potential with which the newborn commences a musical life. Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch focus on the early experiences of the young child and the ways these lay the foundations for playful and communicative engagement with music throughout life. Focusing more specifically on the links between music and other human capacities, Lily Chen-​Hafteck and Esther Mang provide an overview of the intersections between music and linguistic development and point to ways these capacities might be mutually reinforcing. They commence from the premise that music and language emerged from the same system to evolve into distinctive communicative systems. Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari take up the issue of learning as participation and explore the ways music participation fosters learning in children’s communities of practice. It is evident from the work surveyed in these chapters that much of young children’s early music-​making is improvised in the moment as a means to communicate with others and self. Such communications, from responses and exchanges in “motherese” or “parentese” to young children’s independent invented song-​making, may be regarded as the first “oral tradition” (McLucas, 2010). Oral traditions draw on the power of repetition and the human urge to generate and create. The musical outputs of oral traditions feature elaboration and ideational fluency as well as the acknowledgment (conscious and unconscious) of the musical cultures from which the tradition arises. Barrett and Tafuri take up this practice to explore the ways infants’ and young children’s oral traditions of music-​making provide us with a window into their creative thought and practice. The chapters in this volume demonstrate the diversity and richness of children’s early engagement in music and suggest ways such engagement may be viewed as a rich resource for further learning.

REFERENCES Boynton, S., & Kok, R. (eds.). (2006). Musical childhoods. Middletown, CT:  Wesleyan University Press. McLucas, A. Dhu (2010). The musical ear:  Oral tradition in the USA. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company. Mithen, S. (2005). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind and body. London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 2

MUSICAL LIVES OF INFANTS Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

Infancy is generally considered outside the scope of formal music education. In recent years, however, there has been increasing interest in and speculation about infants’ natural propensity for music, their ease of learning, and their musical environment. This interest has fueled a new frontier of music education or intervention aimed at infants, parents, and, in some cases, expectant parents. In this chapter, we summarize the available information on responsiveness to music and on music learning both before and after birth. We also consider the limited data on emerging music production skills and early musical environments provided by contemporary urban parents. In addition, we provide a glimpse of interventions designed to alter the natural musical landscape. Our approach is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive—​how things are rather than how they ought to be. As will become apparent, current evidence is consistent with the view that infants are naturally receptive to music and they are capable of learning from incidental as well as intentional exposure to music. What remains unresolved is the utility or merit of prenatal and early postnatal musical interventions aimed at enriching the lives of infants and their parents.

6

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

The Fetal Period: Perceptual Perspectives Hearing is functional, although not fully developed, in the third trimester of pregnancy, when movement and heart rate changes have been documented in response to relatively loud external sounds (Busnel, Granier-​Deferre, & Lecanuet, 1992). The tissue and fluids surrounding the fetus interfere with sound transmission for high-​ pitched sounds, such as those much above C5 (the C above middle C, which is approximately 523 Hz). As a result, the pitch and temporal patterning of the music that mothers hear may be audible to the fetus, but the fetus may not experience comparable sound quality or timbre. Nevertheless, ultrasound recordings of late-​ term fetuses (36–​37 weeks gestational age) whose mothers watched a daily television program showed increased movement when the theme song of the program was played normally but not backward (Hepper, 1991). Moreover, newborns with prenatal exposure to the television theme song showed changes in heart rate and movement to its presentation, but newborns without such exposure failed to show such changes. By three weeks of age, however, the effects of prenatal exposure had evaporated, as evidenced by comparable responses to the music regardless of prior exposure. Because the song in question had vocal and instrumental elements, it is difficult to know which acoustic features were responsible for the observed effects. Similar interpretive difficulties arise from claims of newborn recognition of songs heard prenatally.

The Newborn Period Perceptual Perspectives For some years, it has been clear that the auditory system at birth is much more developed than the visual system. Because mothers typically interact with infants face to face, they are unaware that their voice commands as much attention as it does. In fact, the earliest infant smile is to the mother’s voice rather than her face (Wolff, 1963). Many mothers talk incessantly to their noncomprehending infants, producing melodious sound patterns (i.e., motherese, or infant-​directed speech) that maintain infants’ attention or soothe them, as appropriate to the situation at hand (Fernald, 1991). The difficulty of keeping newborns awake, alert, and calm provides little incentive for researchers to monitor their overt responses to music. The persistence of some researchers has revealed, however, that Japanese newborns listen longer to songs sung in the typical maternal style than to songs sung in an informal, nonmaternal style (Masataka, 1999). Because these newborns had deaf parents

Musical Lives of Infants

7

who communicated by means of Japanese Sign Language, their prenatal exposure to music or speech would have been relatively limited. Such newborn infants of deaf parents also listen longer to Mozart minuets than to versions that substitute dissonant intervals for many of the consonant intervals (Masataka, 2006). In fact, the magnitude of infants’ preference was comparable to that of newborn infants whose parents had normal hearing. These findings from the newborn period imply that preferences for certain features of the maternal singing style and for some aspects of consonant music are natural or inborn. Comparable preferences have been observed in older infants from different backgrounds. Nevertheless, culture-​specific exposure influences musical preferences, as is evident in the different preferences and standards of consonance/​dissonance across cultures (McDermott, Schultz, Undurraga, & Godoy, 2016) and historical periods (Tenney, 1988). To circumvent the difficulty of maintaining newborns in an awake, alert state, some investigators use techniques that do not require infants’ cooperation. For example, they measure changes in the brain activity of sleeping newborns in response to changes in various musical features. The use of such techniques has revealed that newborns respond to changes from descending melodic intervals to ascending intervals, and from transpositions of one specific interval to transpositions of another interval (Carral et al., 2005). Newborns also appear to be sensitive to the beat of music, as indicated by distinct neural changes when the beat structure is violated (Winkler, Háden, Ladinig, Sziller, & Honing, 2009).

Beyond the Newborn Period Perceiving Pitch Relations By the time infants are five or six months of age, they exhibit consistent responses to a change in a recently familiarized musical pattern. Such responses include turning toward the sound source (a loudspeaker) and systematic changes in heart rate, both of which indicate detection of the musical change. Measurable responses such as these make it possible to determine which changes are salient to infants and which are not. After infants hear repetitions of a brief melody, they respond reliably to changes that alter the melodic contour (i.e., pattern of directional changes irrespective of the magnitude of change), but they often fail to respond to changes that maintain the original contour (for a review, see Trehub & Hannon, 2006). For example, when the melody is transposed—​absolute pitches changed but relative pitch pattern preserved—​infants seem to regard the transposition as equivalent to the original melody, just as adults do. By contrast, they respond to a single pitch change within a six-​note melody if that change alters the melodic contour (e.g., from an ascending to a descending interval).

8

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

Although melodic contours are relevant to music, they are not exclusive to music. In fact, melodic contours may be the most salient aspects of maternal speech for infant listeners (Fernald, 1991). By contrast, intervals, or the distances between successive pitches, which are largely irrelevant to nontonal languages (e.g., English, French, German), are critical for music. Like adults, infants have more difficulty detecting interval changes than contour changes. On the basis of adults’ long-​term exposure to the music of their culture, it is not surprising that their detection of interval or tuning changes is influenced by melodic structure. What is surprising is that infants’ perception of intervals is also influenced by melodic structure. For example, Western infants detect a one-​semitone change in the context of a typical Western melody, such as one based on the major triad, but they fail to detect comparable changes in patterns with atypical melodic structure (Trehub & Hannon, 2006). The presumption is that infants’ performance in these circumstances may be based on the inherent ease of processing some pitch patterns, such as those whose pitch relations approximate simple integer ratios (e.g., 2:1 ratio of the octave or 3:2 ratio of the perfect fifth in just or equal temperament). The possibility remains, however, that very early exposure could influence some aspects of melodic processing. Intervals such as the perfect fifth (i.e., seven semitones) and fourth (i.e., five semitones) are believed to have special status, as reflected in their cross-​cultural ubiquity and their relative ease of processing by infants and adults (Trehub & Hannon, 2006). Interestingly, infants’ perception and short-​term retention of these five-​and seven-​semitone intervals is more accurate than is their perception and retention of the six-​semitone interval, or tritone. In principle, enhanced processing of the perfect fourth and fifth intervals could arise from musical exposure, but there is no unequivocal evidence of culture-​specific biases for pitch patterning in infancy. In fact, implicit understanding of Western tonality is thought to require several years of culture-​specific exposure (McDermott et al., 2016; Plantinga & Trainor, 2014).

Absolute and Relative Pitch Processing The prevailing belief is that adults perceive and retain relative aspects of pitch patterning at the expense of absolute pitch details (Takeuchi & Hulse, 1993). Essentially, musically untrained adults are expected to remember little more than the gist of music that they hear for the first time, perhaps its contour or patterns of rising and falling pitch. Infants and preschoolers are presumed to do the opposite, with the shift from absolute to relative pitch processing occurring before the school years. It has become increasingly clear, however, that listeners of all ages perceive and retain absolute as well as relative aspects of pitch. In any particular situation, their performance is influenced by the nature of the music and the task demands (Volkova, Trehub, & Schellenberg, 2006). Children’s and adults’ recognition of familiar melodies provides unambiguous evidence of their long-​term memory for relative pitch information. Laboratory studies have also documented infants’ short-​term memory for relative pitch patterns.

Musical Lives of Infants

9

Claims for the priority of absolute over relative pitch processing in infancy have used “unmusical” patterns such as randomly generated sequences of pure tones. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which infants exhibit long-​term memory for absolute as well as relative aspects of pitch. After one week of at-​home exposure to a synthesized instrumental version of a British folk melody, six-​month-​olds recognized the melody at a novel pitch level (i.e., the relative pitch patterns), but they showed no memory for the original pitch level or absolute pitches (Plantinga & Trainor, 2005). When the musical materials were expressively sung lullabies rather than mechanically generated folk melodies, infants remembered the original pitch level of the performances (Volkova et al., 2006). This is yet another example in which the nature of musical material influenced the information retained. The implication is that infants perceive and retain more details from ecologically valid music, such as expressively sung lullabies, than they do from inexpressive (i.e., synthesized) instrumental music. The specific features that infants retain from expressive instrumental performances are as yet unclear. In general, infants are thought to prefer higher-​to lower-​pitched singing, just as they prefer higher-​to lower-​pitched speech (Fernald, 1991). Recent evidence has shown, however, that infants’ pitch preferences are context dependent. Specifically, six-​and seven-​month-​old infants prefer low pitch for expressively sung lullabies and high pitch for expressively sung play songs (Tsang & Conrad, 2010). Presumably, low pitch makes the lullabies sound more soothing, and high pitch makes the play songs sound more playful.

Perceiving Temporal Relations Infants are highly responsive to rhythm. They readily detect rhythmic changes; they recognize specific rhythms across changes in tempo or pitch; and they are sensitive to metrical structure (Trehub & Hannon, 2006). For example, they remember more detail from metrically strong sequences than from metrically weak or irregularly timed sequences (Bergeson & Trehub, 2006). Both six-​month-​olds and adults detect subtle timing changes to foreign music that is metrically simple (e.g., 4/​4 time), as Western music is (see Trehub & Hannon, 2006). Remarkably, six-​month-​olds (but not adults) detect subtle timing changes to foreign music that is metrically complex (e.g., 7/​8 time). Presumably, adults’ familiarity with the simple meters of Western music interferes with their processing of metrically complex music. By the time infants are 12  months of age, they show adult-​like processing biases for simple metrical structures. Although two weeks of brief daily exposure to music with complex meters is sufficient to reverse Western 12-​month-​olds’ simple-​meter bias, comparable exposure is inconsequential for Western adults. By four months of age, however, Turkish and American infants have different listening preferences, each favoring culturally typical over atypical metrical patterns (Soley & Hannon, 2010). Unquestionably, the process of musical enculturation begins early, at least with respect to metrical patterns.

10

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

Exposure to Western music does not result in differential detection of timing changes in metrically simple or complex music by six months of age, but it generates differential preferences. For example, American four-​to eight-​month-​olds exhibit listening preferences for metrically simple over metrically complex versions of Balkan melodies, in contrast to same-​age Turkish infants, who show no such preference (Soley & Hannon, 2010). Unlike Western music, which is dominated by simple metrical structures, Turkish music has complex as well as simple meters. The presumption is that American infants prefer a familiar metrical structure (i.e., simple) to an unfamiliar one (i.e., complex), and Turkish infants show no preference because simple and complex metrical structures are both familiar. American and Turkish infants show preferences for metrically regular over irregular patterns (Solely & Hannon, 2010), which is in line with other evidence of enhanced processing of music with regular timing. Surprisingly, infants’ perception or interpretation of music is influenced by the movement that they experience in the course of listening. For example, seven-​ month-​olds who are bounced on every second beat while hearing a metrically ambiguous (unaccented) drumming pattern show subsequent listening preferences for the pattern in duple meter (i.e., accented on every second beat) rather than triple meter (i.e., accented on every third beat). Those bounced on every third beat show the reverse preference (Phillips-​Silver & Trainor, 2005).

Moving to Music Self-​generated movement is also likely to have consequences for infants’ interpretation of music. Before they reach their first birthday, infants typically begin moving or “dancing” to music. Even in impoverished laboratory contexts, infants 6–​18  months of age move rhythmically when they hear instrumental versions of classical music, children’s songs, or simple rhythmic sequences, but not when they hear infant-​or adult-​directed speech (Zentner & Eerola, 2010). Although their movement is not synchronized with the music, as it will be some years later, it varies to some extent with musical tempo (i.e., faster movement to faster tempi). Moreover, infants’ movement coordination is better for music with greater pulse clarity. Not surprisingly, infants exhibit more frequent and more varied movement to music when they are in a familiar environment. Among the behaviors they exhibit in such situations are torso twisting and shaking, arm swinging, and clapping. At times, active caregiver-​infant interactions involving familiar or unfamiliar music result in spontaneous, dance-​like movements from infants. Caregivers often move infants in time to music. Such passive movement can have social as well as perceptual consequences. For example, toddlers are more helpful to an unfamiliar woman who previously bounced in synchrony with them (when bounced by another adult) than to another woman who bounced out of synchrony (Cirelli, Einarson, & Trainor, 2014). Presumably, such synchronous movement functions as an affiliative cue, as it does for adults.

Musical Lives of Infants

11

Singing Although dancing or moving to music offers insight into infants’ responsiveness to music, singing provides the first glimpse into their ability to reproduce the music they hear. Unfortunately, there has been relatively little documentation of singing development for children younger than two years of age. An observational study of three families suggested influences of the home environment on the emergence and accuracy of singing (Kelley & Sutton-​Smith, 1987). Parents in one family were professional musicians, in contrast to parents in the second family, who often sang with piano accompaniment, and those in the third family, who had little involvement with music. According to the authors, “musical babbling” was evident by 9 or 10 months of age for the two infants from musical families, who exhibited reasonably good song reproduction by two years of age. In fact, the infant with musician parents achieved in-​tune and in-​time singing by age two, considerably earlier than the usual occurrence of such milestones. These authors claim that melodic contour and interval reproduction preceded the reproduction of lyrics for the two infants from “musical” families, in contrast to the infant from the less musical household. The latter infant produced spoken lyrics first, followed by song rhythms. In marked contrast to the other two infants, the singing of this infant was monotonal at 2  years of age. It is as yet unknown whether such “lagging” singers catch up with precocious singers within a year or two. Scholars who have observed larger groups of young children have suggested that words typically anchor early songs, with rhythm and pitch components added later (Moog, 1976/​1968). The criteria for good, acceptable, accurate, or in-​tune singing vary widely from one source to another, making it difficult to understand age-​related or experientially based differences in skill. Tafuri (2009), for example, distinguishes among singing approximately in tune, which involves correct reproduction of the contour but not the intervals of the target song, singing almost in tune, which features the reproduction of contour and several intervals, and singing acceptably in tune, which necessitates precise interval reproduction with “small errors or sliding tonality” (p.  65). Even with objective measurements involving pitch contours and range, toddlers’ singing proficiency seems to be influenced by contextual factors, such as the familiarity of the song and recording venue (Trehub & Gudmundsdottir, 2015).

Everyday Musical Environments The three cases described by Kelley and Sutton-​Smith (1987) provide limited insight into the usual musical environments of infants and their consequences for singing development. We know that parents throughout the world sing to infants in the course of caregiving (see also Barrett & Tafuri, ­chapter 6; Chen-​Hafteck & Mang, ­chapter 4; Trehub & Gudmundsdottir, 2015; Trevarthen & Malloch, ­chapter 3; Young

12

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

& Ilari, c­ hapter 5). They sing lullabies, which constitute a universal and universally recognizable musical genre, and they sing play songs of various kinds in many, but not all, cultures (Trehub & Trainor, 1998). Lullabies dominate the early musical landscape in cultures that value calm, contented infants, and play songs dominate in cultures that value infant vitality and expressiveness. Although mothers usually know many children’s songs, they typically use a very small repertoire with their young infants, enlarging it in the child’s second year. In general, fathers have lesser familiarity with the children’s song repertoire, so they often invent songs or generate improvisations of known songs (Trehub et al., 1997). A large survey of American families revealed that higher levels of parental education were associated with greater use of music with infants, and firstborn infants heard more parental singing than did later-​born infants (Custodero, Britto, & Brooks-​Gunn, 2003). Parents’ distinctive song repertoire for infants is complemented by a distinctive singing style, which is recognizable across cultures despite culture-​specific elements (Trehub & Trainor, 1998). Singing directed to infants typically features warm vocal timbre, slower than usual tempo, transparent temporal organization, higher than usual pitch level (in the case of play songs), and the expressive use of dynamics. Descriptions of singing to infants usually focus on acoustic features, even though typical parental performances are multimodal. For example, lullabies are often accompanied by rocking, and play songs commonly feature actions, including nodding in synchrony with the music, physical contact with infants (see also Trevarthen & Malloch, c­ hapter 3), and extensive smiling (Trehub, Plantinga, & Russo, 2016). There is little doubt about the efficacy of parental singing, which may account for its persistence across generations and cultures. Audio-​only versions of infant-​ directed singing are more effective in maintaining infants’ attention and composure than infant-​directed speech (Corbeil, Trehub, & Peretz, 2016). Audio-​visual versions of maternal singing are much more captivating than maternal speech, the former maintaining infants’ attention for longer periods (Nakata & Trehub, 2004). Infants are also more attentive to visual-​only versions of infant-​directed singing than to infant-​directed speech (Trehub, Plantinga, & Russo, 2016), which highlights the impact of visual features that accompany typical maternal performances. Undoubtedly, however, the most engaging sung performances are live and multimodal—​a familiar singer producing interesting sights, sounds, and movements. Infants make important contributions to the expressiveness of parents’ sung performances. For example, mothers sing more expressively when their infant is in view rather than obscured from view (Trehub et al., 2016). By their first birthday, infants are more active participants in their parents’ sung performances. Initially, they mimic parents’ actions, for example, the finger play associated with “Itsy Bitsy Spider” (also known as “Eensy Weensy Spider” and “Incy Wincy Spider”)—​a song of Californian origin—​or the clapping and foot-​stomping associated with “If You’re Happy and You Know It”—​a song of Latvian origin. Some months later, many North American mothers encourage vocal participation by omitting the last word of each line and prompting the infant to provide it. With each passing month, the infant’s

Musical Lives of Infants

13

role gets larger and larger until they produce the songs independently (Trehub & Gudmundsdottir, 2015). Infants’ musical input is not restricted to parental singing (see also Young & Ilari, c­ hapter 5). Parents with instrumental training are more likely to play classical music for their infants than those without such training. Musical toys and electronic media have become ubiquitous in contemporary urban households, including those of modest means. These changes in the cultural landscape have raised concerns that recorded music is replacing live singing for infants, but such concerns are unsupported by empirical evidence. Instead, there are indications that singing remains part of mothers’ everyday interactions with infants. In fact, infants’ engagement with live and recorded music may be increasing rather than decreasing. Exaggerated media accounts of the cognitive benefits of music have increased the use of music with infants and have fueled sales of Baby Mozart and Baby Beethoven DVDs as well as many other CDs and DVDs. Interestingly, the Disney Corporation acknowledged in 2009 that DVDs in its Baby Einstein series did not generate the cognitive gains promised in their promotional materials. In an unusual public relations gesture, the company offered full refunds for Baby Einstein DVDs purchased in the previous five years (Lewin, 2009). Large-​scale surveys seem to indicate that mothers of young infants (4–​6 months of age) use music primarily for social engagement, affect regulation, and the facilitation of care routines, adding didactic goals by the time infants are 10  months or older (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2008). The exposure of older infants to music from audio or audio-​visual media does not mean that these experiences are necessarily passive. On the contrary, there is evidence that infants are actively engaged during such musical episodes, moving, laughing, and singing, much to their parents’ delight.

Interventions: Programs, Courses, and Concerts Prenatal interventions In general, fetal exposure to music occurs incidentally in the daily lives of expectant mothers (Parncutt, 2016), although the musical features that affect the fetus have not been specified fully. In any case, musical exposure, such as it is, could arise from any or all of a number of sound sources including television, radio, live concerts, and parents’ music-​making (see also Trevarthen & Malloch, ­chapter  3; Young & Ilari, ­chapter 5). The input would necessarily compete with sounds emanating from other external sources (i.e., airborne sounds) and from internal sources (i.e., intrauterine sounds, including bone-​conducted sounds from the mother).

14

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

Although aspects of the music heard by mothers may affect some fetal responses, as in the aforementioned soap opera study (Hepper, 1991), there is no basis, at present, for interpreting the meaning or significance of such responses. Many are tempted to interpret these responses as signs of attention, pleasure, or coordinated movement, but the possibility remains that they could reflect negativity or avoidance. Few would recommend adding soap operas to the daily routine of pregnant women, but there are advocates in North America, the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia of equally unproven musical activities and programs. These programs are being marketed to expectant mothers, with proponents providing scientific-​sounding, but as yet unsupported, claims of favorable musical, cognitive, and social-​emotional outcomes. Assorted products are also offered for sale, including special music to enhance prenatal development and a costly abdominal belt for delivering music to the fetus. In Japan, the practice of taikyo (prenatal training), which involves a collection of musical and nonmusical behaviors for expectant mothers, has its origins in Eastern traditions. These informal, self-​initiated behaviors include singing and music listening for the fetus. Popular books are available for sale, as are special CDs and loudspeakers, but the program is sufficiently familiar to permit its implementation without purchase of special materials. Proponents of taikyo claim that it facilitates childbirth and optimizes child development. Survey data indicate that some 70% of expectant mothers consider such musical activities beneficial, but only 30% actually engage in these behaviors, which implies that the majority of expectant mothers are unconvinced about the necessity of taikyo. There is no empirical evidence supporting its purported benefits, but unlike prenatal programs elsewhere, taikyo is rooted in established cultural traditions. This tradition is reflected, in part, in the ideas of Shinichi Suzuki, founder of the notable Suzuki music programs: “Suzuki recognized the importance of prenatal listening and advocated classical music for the fetus. He had observed that children who listen daily to one piece of music before birth recognized it as their own after birth” (www.suzukiece.com). Suzuki music programs for the prenatal period, which are available in some locations, promise stronger bonds between parents and children, as well as a musical head start. The inCanto project in Italy (Tafuri, 2009) provided a weekly program of singing, music listening, dancing, and musical games beginning in the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy and continuing for up to six years. The program, which was provided at no cost to participants, promised appropriate musical activities for developing the musical intelligence and well-​being of children from before birth. Instead of appealing to cultural traditions, as in Japanese taikyo, it appealed to prospective parents on the basis of innovative research and scientific directions. Recruitment materials focused not only on the musical benefits for children but also on parents’ pride in participating in a project of scientific, cultural, and educational significance: If you would like to and are able to participate, one day you will feel proud of having contributed to scientific progress by offering your child this gift. It is a

Musical Lives of Infants

15

story you will tell your child later. The results will help children all over the world because we shall communicate this far and wide. It will be thanks to you who have agreed to take part that music education will improve in Italy and in the rest of the world. (p. 28)

On the basis of her analysis of parental diaries, as well as audio and video recordings, Tafuri (2009) suggested that the program resulted in more musical vocalizations in infancy and earlier in-​tune singing, as compared with the vocalizations and singing of nonparticipating children. Some caution is warranted about these and other similar claims. With respect to the inCanto project, the vocalization and singing samples were not collected from parents who were randomly selected from the local population and then randomly assigned to the program or a control group. Instead, recordings from the treatment group came from committed families in the program, and control recordings came from families in another city who had no access to the program. Ardent parental participants in such programs are likely to differ in various respects from parents who are unable or unwilling to participate. There is ample evidence, for example, that parents whose children take music lessons differ systematically from other parents (Schellenberg, 2011). It is possible, however, that engagement in a sustained and enriching musical program assists parents in nurturing their child’s musical learning and development.

Interventions for Prematurely Born Infants A number of musical intervention programs have been designed for prematurely born infants who spend weeks or months in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). These infants experience various physiological stresses resulting from their early birth, and their uncertain prognosis is highly stressful for parents. In some cases, the interventions featured recorded music. In others, live singing was provided by music therapists or parents, sometimes as part of a comprehensive program of multimodal stimulation and parent training. Various benefits have been reported in some studies (Graven, 2000), but not in others (Cevasco, 2008). Such musical interventions are unlikely to be incorporated into typical NICU environments until their utility can be demonstrated consistently.

Interventions for Healthy Infants and Their Families Musical programs or courses for small groups of parents and infants are becoming increasingly available in urban centers around the world (see also Young & Ilari, ­chapter 5). The typical focus of such programs is on engaging infants and parents in musical activities that are both pleasant and educational. Many of the programs make claims about enhancing infant skills in various domains. Here we describe one program that features skilled musician-​educators and a comprehensive curriculum.

16

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

Motor Control

Rhythm 4

Mus_App

3

Sing

2

Com

Inst_P

1 Song_M

Coop Know-self

Vocab Counting

Spatial_C Reasoning Mothers

Teachers

Figure 2.1  Expectations of mothers and teachers for progress in 14 skills identified in the I-​Love-​Music program: rhythm, music appreciation (Mus_​App), singing (Sing), playing an instrument (Inst_​P), creating songs (Song_​M), learning words (Vocab), counting, reasoning, spatial orientation (Spatial_​C), self-​knowledge (Know-​self), cooperation with peers (Coop), communication (Com), self-​control (Control), and motor development (Motor).

Ongaku Daisuki (I-​Love-​Music:  ILM) is a 12-​month program designed by the ELM Music School in Sapporo, Japan, for one-​year-​olds. Interviews with 15 participating mothers revealed that they expected infants to gain a variety of musical skills (e.g., appreciating music, feeling the beat, singing, instrument-​playing), cognitive skills (e.g., vocabulary, counting, spatial skills, self-​knowledge), social skills (e.g., cooperation, communication, emotional control), and motor skills (e.g., gross and fine motor). Figure 2.1 depicts mothers’ and teachers’ expectations of infants’ progress, rated on a four-​point scale (1 = none, 2 = a little, 3 = more, 4 = considerable), for 14 skills identified in the ILM program. As can be seen in the figure, mothers’ expectations were relatively concordant with those of teachers. For the most part, the program uses Western classical music or music with Western influences, although some songs are based on Japanese scales. Specific components of the program are as follows: • Singing special theme songs: Each lesson begins with a song, “Mugyu Daisuki” (Hug you, love you), during which the mother holds her child while a puppet greets each mother-​child dyad. Another theme song, “Ohenji-​no-​Uta” (Here I am), is used to prompt a vocal response from each child whenever the teacher calls his or her name. • Singing standard child songs: Mothers sing familiar songs, accompanied by the teacher, about the seasons or specific cultural events. Pictures and other props are used to induce imagery related to the songs. Infants experience collaborative mother-​teacher performances of these songs when they are at

Musical Lives of Infants

17

the music school. At home, they experience maternal performances of these songs as well as performances from commercial CDs. In time, toddlers are expected to sing along with their mother or teacher. • Singing action songs: The teacher demonstrates the movements for each song. Mothers and toddlers imitate the teacher’s actions, which involve gross-​motor (head, arm, leg) and fine-​motor (hand, finger) movements. Such activities are designed to promote a sense of the beat and an awareness of body parts, both of which will be important for future instrumental education. • Sensorimotor expression: The teacher draws the attention of mothers and toddlers to contrastive features of music by getting them to walk and stop as the music starts and stops, to walk faster or slower as the tempo changes, to walk with heavy or light steps to loud or soft music, and to adapt their movement to duple or triple meter. • Listening to classical music: Mothers and toddlers are exposed to popular selections from the classical repertoire. The teacher uses pictures and actions to portray structural features of the music and extramusical associations. She also encourages mothers and toddlers to move as she does. At times, toddlers sit on their mothers’ laps and experience her motion. At other times, mothers lift toddlers or tickle them at specific points in the music. Different forms of mother-​infant contact are incorporated into this activity. • Picture-​book reading: The teacher plays original music (her compositions/​ arrangements or those of her colleagues) while showing pictures from children’s books. Mothers and toddlers listen to the stories, watch the pictures, and hear the music that enhances the visual imagery. The aforementioned elements are incorporated into each 40-​ minute lesson. One of the authors (Adachi) explored the use of a feedback system to assist teachers in monitoring toddlers’ progress and guiding future lessons (see fig. 2.2). One lesson each month was videotaped, and the videotapes for each toddler were coded. Records of each toddler’s lesson summarized the execution or attempted execution of 13 behaviors from four broad categories of motor, language, musical, and social skills (see fig. 2.3). The lesson records and video recordings were provided to two teachers. Although the teachers were aware that the group as a whole was making steady progress, the lesson records and videos drew their attention to the irregular progress of individual children. Toddlers showed spurts of growth and regression that sometimes coincided with events in their mothers’ lives. The Ongaku Daisuki program is unique in some respects, but some of its elements are present in the postnatal phase of the inCanto program (Tafuri, 2009) and in many other parent-​infant programs. For example, introductory songs with individualized greetings are common, often in call-​and-​response format (as in “Hello X” [call], “I am here” [response]). Mothers initially provide the response,

18

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub Teacher’s own reflection for the next 3 months

Lesson (3 months) Child

Child

Subjective evaluation of each child’s performance

Teacher Child Child Child

Videotaping & Behavioral coding

Objective evaluation of each child’s performance

Feedback support from a collaborating researcher

Figure 2.2  Schematic representation of a feedback system between researcher and teacher.

with their infants eventually taking over. Action songs are also common, as is the use of simple percussion instruments (e.g., shakers, drums, xylophones). Most classes end with quiet singing of lullabies and folk songs. In general, there is relatively little documentation of attrition or dropout rates in these programs, which may be influenced by their duration, cost, and demands on parents. The free inCanto program had a relatively high dropout rate and uneven attendance of participants in the postnatal phase. Undoubtedly, the changing circumstances of families from the prenatal to postnatal period and the long-​term nature of the program were contributing factors. To date, no program for parents and infants has provided unequivocal evidence of long-​term outcomes that differ from those of nonparticipants who are carefully matched on parental background. Nevertheless, promotion of the benefits of such programs continues unabated. For example, Smart Starts, a 14-​session course for infants (0–​24 months) and parents at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto, states the following in its prospectus: Singing and moving with your child plays an important role in cognitive development and has been shown to impact their capacity for language and math skills. Most of all, this class provides an important bonding opportunity and sets the stage to carry on learning at home.

A number of the Suzuki parent-​infant programs promise accelerated vocabulary and numeracy development, enhanced social-​ emotional development, stronger neural connections in the infant brain, and enhanced reasoning later in

Musical Lives of Infants

19

ELM Music School Lesson Record Ai 2008.12.17 2009.1.14

2009.2.18

Motor

walking/running without falling jumping without falling

Language

putting on clothes/shoes alone speaking simple words/sentences naming animals/objects

Musical

singing/song-like vocalization moving body parts with music clapping/tapping/playing an instrument trying to help others

Social

limitating what others do Leading others’ actions greeting (verbally or enactively) paying attention to the teacher

= Executed well by oneself = Attempted/Executed with someone’s help blank = Not observed

Figure 2.3  Sample lesson record for an individual child.

life. Although the long-​term consequences of formal musical interventions in infancy are unclear, short-​term consequences such as changes in musical preferences and music-​making skills are likely to occur. To date, only two programs have included random assignment of parents and infants to treatment and control groups, the latter involving an alternative treatment. In one program, parents and their six-​month-​old infants were assigned to a weekly program of six months’ duration that featured active musical experiences (e.g., movement to music, singing) or to a play program of similar duration that featured passive exposure to background music during toy play (Gerry, Unrau, & Trainor, 2012). Infants who received active musical exposure outperformed those who received passive musical exposure on music perception tasks, gestural communication, and social behavior. In the other program, nine-​month-​old infants participated in a 12-​week program that featured coordinated movement to music or

20

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

play without music (Zhao & Kuhl, 2016). At the conclusion of the program, neural measures revealed enhanced processing of temporal structure in speech and music for infants in the music group. In both studies, the groups receiving active musical interventions exhibited clear gains, but it is unclear whether these gains are transitory or enduring.

Concerts for Caregivers, Expectant Mothers, and Infants Concerts for little ears are available in some countries, but few are quite as engaging or inclusive as those organized by Barbara Kaminska and Adriana Kortas in conjunction with the Symphony Orchestra of the Pomeranian Philharmonic in Bydgoszcz, Poland. Monthly concerts, which were initiated in 2008, are designed to expose fetuses, infants, caregivers, and expectant caregivers to rich and varied musical experiences. These events, which occur in a concert hall celebrated for its fine acoustics, provide opportunities for caregivers to acquire musical knowledge and skills, which can shape the musical nurturing of their children. The performers include several members and associates of the Pomeranian Philharmonic and one or two kindergarten children. The musicians dress formally to add to the festive atmosphere, but the scene is otherwise informal, with infant and adult audience members seated comfortably on floor cushions or chairs encircling the performers. Concerts, which are about 30 minutes long, typically feature 10 selections from a range of musical genres, including baroque pieces, contemporary pieces, and children’s folk songs. Each piece is performed with different instrumentation, and its performance begins with an introduction to the target timbre. The music sometimes emanates from different locations of the concert hall, with performers moving around to provide varied visual and acoustic effects. The concert begins with quiet, calming music, drawing attention to its timbre and mood. After three or four classical pieces, a child performer sings a song, and the melody is played successively on different instruments. Audience participation is invited with pieces that can be accompanied by simple repeated motifs, or ostinato, by means of singing, clapping, or percussive sounds. After the excitement engendered by the participatory phase, which also includes songs and musical games, the concert closes with quiet, soothing music. There is no expectation for infants to respond in particular ways, such as by moving, vocalizing, or clapping. In fact, it is considered acceptable for infants do either any or none of these things. Pregnant women and caregivers, by contrast, are encouraged to learn the songs and musical games and to observe infants’ reactions to the music. Caregivers also provided supplementary information about the songs to enable them to sing the songs at home. Although the goals of the concerts are

Musical Lives of Infants

21

educational, the concerts are executed as entertainment, resulting in considerably less pressure on parents than parent-​infant courses.

To Intervene or Not to Intervene: That Is the Question As noted, some aspects of music are audible to the fetus in the last trimester of pregnancy (Parncutt, 2016), and fetuses recognize some musical pieces heard regularly (Hepper, 1991). In the postnatal period, infants exhibit a wide range of music-​related skills, including sensitivity to culture-​general and culture-​specific patterns of pitch and timing (Trehub & Hannon, 2006). They also exhibit musical preferences, some of which may be independent of exposure, while others clearly arise from exposure (e.g., the songs that their mothers sing). Toward the end of the first year, infants typically engage in vigorous movement to music (Zentner & Eerola, 2010), and some months later, they produce rudimentary songs or song fragments (Trehub & Gudmundsdottir, 2015). What can be gained by attempts to alter or accelerate the usual course of musical development? To date, there is no “definitive” evidence that the musical interventions designed for expectant parents, fetuses, caregivers, or normally developing infants accomplish their stated objectives. Similarly, there is no conclusive evidence that the musical programs confer nonmusical benefits on fetuses, infants, expectant parents, or caregivers. That is not to claim that there are no such benefits, only that the enduring benefits are as yet open to question. Participation in such programs may provide a welcome opportunity to meet like-​minded families, but that is not usually part of the advertised agenda. We are not suggesting that proponents of such programs are engaging in deceptive practices. It is very likely that their own enriching experiences with music have generated the sincere belief that children’s lives—​everyone’s lives, in fact—​can be enhanced by music. With such views in mind, they do their best to develop musical experiences that are suitable for the target audience. Undoubtedly, the creators of these programs and the families who participate in them have been influenced by the so-​called Mozart Effect, which began as a set of modest findings that were transformed by the media into a veritable myth. In the original study with university students, those who listened to a Mozart sonata for about nine minutes performed better on a subsequent spatial reasoning task (from a well-​ known intelligence test) than those who spent comparable time waiting in silence or listening to highly repetitive music (Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky, 1993). The boost in performance lasted for around 10 minutes. Nevertheless, the message disseminated by the media and popular authors (Campbell, 1997) was that listening to music by Mozart makes you smarter. Unfortunately, the tall tale lives on, despite several failures to replicate the findings and evidence of short-​term boosts in performance from a variety of listening experiences. The modest performance benefits may be attributable to the

22

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

elevated mood that results from pleasant activities like listening to music of interest (e.g., Thompson, Schellenberg, & Husain, 2001). Meanwhile, the cottage industry of Mozart CDs, DVDs, books, and other paraphernalia is thriving, extending well beyond its original source of inspiration. Indeed, many “mind-​enhancing” products can be purchased from a Mozart Effect website. Aside from the absence of definitive empirical evidence, there is no logical basis for expecting cognitive gains from very early music programs. Long-​term music lessons have been linked to academic achievement (Schellenberg, 2011), but there is no explicit evidence that the music lessons cause or bring about improved academic performance. One interpretation of the links between formal music education and academic achievement is that these arise primarily from demographic differences in social class and income, as well as differences in conscientiousness (Schellenberg, 2011). To put it simply, affluent, highly educated parents are more likely to provide music lessons for their children than are less educated and less affluent parents. Similarly, parents with advantages in education and income are more likely to participate in early music programs for infants and toddlers than their less advantaged counterparts. In principle, very early musical interventions (i.e., for infants or toddlers) could lead to the acceleration of some musical milestones (e.g., earlier onset of singing), as Tafuri (2009) suggests, but there is no reason to expect higher long-​term achievement than would occur otherwise. Perhaps the most serious concern about such interventions for normally developing infants is that they feed into contemporary middle-​class anxieties about parenting and children’s future achievement. In a highly engaging book, Einstein Never Used Flashcards, Hirsh-​Pasek and Golinkoff (2003) make a persuasive case for ordinary play and against structured learning programs for infants. Are there contributions that music educators can make in the child’s first two years? We believe so. Programs of musical fun and play that exclude promises of musical or nonmusical achievement would be a welcome relief from the pervasive parenting propaganda in the marketplace.

Reflective Questions

1. How do innate and experiential factors influence music perception and production in infancy? 2. Consider the musical interventions that are available in your community. Are they suitable for the target population? 3. What kinds of musical experiences have the potential to enrich the lives of infants and their families? Can music educators play a role in encouraging such experiences? 4. Should music in infancy be approached as a form of play or as a means of learning?

Musical Lives of Infants

23

Acknowledgment Preparation of this chapter was assisted by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank the ELM Music School and teachers of the “I-​Love-​ Music” program for their cooperation and Advancing Interdisciplinary Research in Singing (AIRS) for its inspiration.

KEY SOURCES Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Hallam, S., Cross, I., & Thaut, M. (Eds.) (2016). Oxford handbook of music psychology, 2d ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES Bergeson, T. R., & Trehub, S. E. (2006). Infants’ perception of rhythmic patterns. Music Perception, 23, 345–​360. Busnel, M. C., Granier-​Deferre, C., & Lecanuet, P. (1992). Fetal audition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 662, 118–​134. Campbell, D. (1997). The Mozart effect: Tapping the power of music to heal the body, strengthen the mind, and unlock the creative spirit. New York: Avon. Carral, V., Houtilainen, M., Ruusuvirta, T., Fellman, V., Näätänen, R., & Escara, C. (2005). A kind of auditory “primitive intelligence” already present at birth. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 3201–​3204. Cevasco, A. M. (2008). The effects of mothers’ singing on full-​term and preterm infants and maternal emotional responses. Journal of Music Therapy, 45, 273–​306. Cirelli, L. K., Einarson, K. M., & Trainor, L. J. (2014). Interpersonal synchrony increases prosocial behavior in infants. Developmental Science, 17, 1003–​1011. Corbeil, M., Trehub, S. E., & Peretz, I. (2016). Singing delays the onset of infant distress. Infancy, 21, 373–​391. Custodero, L. A., Britto, P. R., & Brooks-​Gunn, J. (2003). Musical lives: A collective portrait of American families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 553–​572. Custodero, L. A., & Johnson-​Green, E. A. (2008). Caregiving in counterpoint: Reciprocal influences in the musical parenting of young and older infants. Early Child Development and Care, 178, 15–​39. Fernald, A. (1991). Prosody in speech to children:  Prelinguistic and linguistic functions. Annals of Child Development, 8, 43–​80. Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative, and social development. Developmental Science, 15, 398–​407.

24

Mayumi Adachi and Sandra E. Trehub

Graven, S. N. (2000). Sound and the developing infant in the NICU:  Conclusions and recommendations for care. Journal of Perinatology, 20, S88–​S93. Hepper, P. G. (1991). An examination of fetal learning before and after birth. Irish Journal of Psychology, 12, 95–​107. Hirsh-​Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M., with Eyer, D. (2003). Einstein never used flashcards: How our children really learn and why they need to play more and memorize less. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Kelley, L., & Sutton-​Smith, B. (1987). A study of infant musical productivity. In J. C. Peery, I. W. Peery, & T. W. Draper (eds.), Music and child development (pp. 35–​53). New York: Springer-​Verlag. Lewin, T. (2009, October 23). No Einstein in your crib? Get a refund. The New York Times, http://​www.nytimes.com. Masataka, N. (1999). Preference for infant-​directed singing in 2-​day-​old hearing infants of deaf parents. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1001–​1005. Masataka, N. (2006). Preference for consonance over dissonance by hearing newborns of deaf parents and of hearing parents. Developmental Science, 9, 46–​50. McDermott, J. H., Schultz, A. F., Undurraga, E. A., & Godoy, R. A. (2016). Indifference to consonance in native Amazonians reveals cultural variation in music perception. Nature, 535, 547–​550. Moog, H. (1976). The musical experience of the pre-​school child. London: Schott (Original work published 1968). Nakata, T., & Trehub, S. E. (2004). Infants’ responsiveness to maternal speech and singing. Infant Behavior and Development, 27, 455–​464. Parncutt, R. (2016). Prenatal development and the phylogeny and ontogeny of musical behav­ior. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (2d ed., pp. 371–​386). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Phillips-​Silver, J., & Trainor, L. J. (2005). Feeling the beat:  Movement influences infant rhythm perception. Science, 308, 1430. Plantinga, J., & Trainor, L. J. (2005). Memory for melody: Infants use a relative pitch code. Cognition, 98, 1–​11. Plantinga, J., & Trehub, S. E. (2014). Revisiting the innate preference for consonance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 40–​49. Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611. Schellenberg, E. G. (2011). Examining the association between music lessons and intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 283–​302. Soley, G., & Hannon, E. E. (2010). Infants prefer the musical meter of their own culture: A cross-​cultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 46, 286–​292. Tafuri, J. (2009). Infant musicality:  New research for educators and parents. Farnham, UK: SEMPRE/​Ashgate. Takeuchi, A. H., & Hulse, S. H. (1993). Absolute pitch. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 345–​361. Tenney, J. (1988). A history of consonance and dissonance. New  York:  Excelsior Music Publishing Company. Thompson, W. F., Schellenberg, E. G., & Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science, 12, 248–​251. Trehub, S. E., & Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2015). Mothers as singing mentors for infants. In G. F. Welch, J. Nix, & D. Howard (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199660773.013.25.

Musical Lives of Infants

25

Trehub, S. E., & Hannon, E. E. (2006). Infant music perception: Domain-​general or domain-​ specific mechanisms? Cognition, 100, 73–​99. Trehub, S. E., Plantinga, J., & Russo, F. A. (2016). Maternal vocal interactions with infants: Reciprocal visual influences. Social Development, 25, 665–​683. Trehub, S. E., & Trainor, L. J. (1998). Singing to infants: Lullabies and play songs. Advances in Infancy Research, 12, 43–​77. Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., Kamenetsky, S. B., Hill, D. S., Trainor, L. J., Henderson, J. L., & Saraza, M. (1997). Mothers’ and fathers’ singing to infants. Developmental Psychology, 33, 500–​507. Tsang, C., & Conrad, N. J. (2010). Does the message matter? The effect of song type on infants’ pitch preference for lullabies and playsongs. Infant Behavior and Development, 33, 96–​100. Volkova, A., Trehub, S. E., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2006). Infants’ memory for musical performances. Developmental Science, 9, 584–​590. Winkler, I., Háden, G. P., Ladinig, O., Sziller, I., & Honing, H. (2009). Newborn infants detect the beat in music. Proceedings of the New York Academy of Sciences, 106, 2468–​2471. Wolff, P. (1963). Observations on the early development of smiling. In B. M. Foss (ed.), Determinants of infant behavior II (pp. 113–​167). London: Methuen. Zentner, M., & Eerola, T. (2010). Rhythmic engagement with music in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5768–​5773. Zhao, T. C., & Kuhl, P. K. (2016). Musical intervention enhances infants’ neural processing of temporal structure in music and speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 5212–​5217.

Chapter 3

MUSICALITY AND MUSICAL CULTURE: SHARING NARRATIVES OF SOUND FROM EARLY CHILDHOOD Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch

Communicative Musicality: A Universal Human Need In every human society there are ceremonies of song and dance—​human bodies moving with grace and drama, intending to communicate (Blacking, 1976). Music is clearly not just an object to be acquired or studied, it is something we do to express and share our vitality. It is one of the “temporal arts” by which people celebrate rituals of their community (Dissanayake, 2009). Young children turn instinctively to music, making expressive responses that seek to imitate, enjoying the “companionship” that it offers (Custodero, 2009; Mazokopaki & Kugiumutzakis, 2009). From birth, infants prefer the affectionate tones of their mother’s and father’s voices, and parents are moved to speak in the melodious ways that engage their infant most strongly. “Parentese” or “infant-​directed speech” is musical; it is measured,

Musicality and Musical Culture

27

repetitive, and finely regulated in pitch, timbre, and loudness (Fernald, 1989; Papoušek, 1996). Soon a baby is sharing baby songs, participating with voice and dancing with hands and body, or making sounds with objects, creating patterns of tone and pulse. Babies show a musical awareness of a moving self in sound (Gratier & Trevarthen, 2008). Toddlers, experimenting with the polyrhythms of their agile bodies, have great fun making evocative calls, and they create a community with peers or older companions who are prepared to play. Imitating each other’s vocal inventions, they create together what the Norwegian musicologist Bjørkvold (1992) calls “children’s musical culture.” There is evidently a system for moving, seeing, and hearing in the human being that is adapted for cultivating community with emotive narratives of sounds, for learning new games to play with sound, and for treasuring traditional forms of story and celebration in sound—​for making and keeping musical meaning (Blacking, 1976). For some individuals, engaging in singing or playing a musical instrument, and doing it according to elaborate cultural conventions that heighten the power of sound to communicate, becomes a way of life, demanding dedicated practice with a teacher. Groups of musicians, small or large, learn to play with practiced coordination. In literate cultures, formal scripts or scores aid composition and retention of intricate inventions for orchestras guided by a conductor. Electronic technologies transform the power to create music, and to store and transmit it. Behind all these complex cultural and technological forms is a simple natural pleasure in participating in musical expression, the capacity to listen and move with informal skill and discrimination, without special training, in accompaniment to all sorts of recreational, celebratory, or work occasions. Music is to be done and enjoyed, not only studied or mastered. Indeed, like the little child, the consummate artist is seeking the natural pleasure and companionship of being musical (Custodero, 2009).

A Theory of the Beginnings of Music The Infancy of Music: The First Intimate Performances of Temporal Art In the 1970s, Mary Catherine Bateson, anthropologist and linguist, observed films of a nine-​week-​old baby communicating with her mother. She observed the timing and sequencing of their movements and sound as they attended to one another, and she noted that the engagement was mutually motivated. She described it as conducted with “a sort of delighted, ritualized courtesy and more or less sustained attention and mutual gaze” (Bateson, 1979, p.  65). Both timing and affective expression were shared. She called the interaction a “protoconversation,” and was

28

Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch

convinced that it was the developmental source of language learning, and of “ritual healing practices.” This motivated engagement of human bodies and minds by means of visual contact and small rhythmic vocalizations and gestures is also the foundation for teaching (Erickson, 2009), including teaching music (Frölich, 2009). We studied an ordinary protoconversation recorded in 1979 between a six-​ week-​old girl, Laura, and her mother, Kay, in Edinburgh (Malloch, 1999; Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009). Applying knowledge of the performance of Western classical music, and with the visual aid of spectrographs and pitch plots, we found that this vocal conversation lasting 27 seconds has definite musical features, and that it makes a story, or narrative, in sound (fig. 3.1). From this and other analyses a set of criteria were defined for identifying the “pulse,” “quality,” and “narrative” of “communicative musicality” (Malloch, 1999), the special expressive and emotionally regulated or “phatic” communication of human mutual interest and meaning in rhythmic gestures of sound. Pulse is defined as the regular succession of discrete behavioral events—​coos, syllables, utterances and gestures, phrases, and longer elements. These represent the Intrinsic Motive Pulse (IMP), a rhythmic time sense or “future creating” process by which subjects may anticipate what might happen, and when (Trevarthen, 1999). Quality consists of the contours of expressive vocal and body gesture, shaping “feeling” in movement, expressing sensitivity for the temporal variation in intensity, pitch, and timbre of voices and of instruments that mimic the “vitality affects” of the human mind (Stern, 2010). Narratives of both individual experience and of companionship combine the units of pulse and quality in sequences of gesture that are shared as affecting chains of expression or “emotional narratives” (Trevarthen, 1999). Mutual perception of this musical mother-​infant companionship supports anticipation of repeating harmonious sounds, phrases, and emotional forms in a performance that generates “a shared sense of passing time” (Malloch, 1999, p. 45). By testing infants’ listening preferences, how they orient with instinctive curiosity to hear sounds, Canadian psychologist Sandra Trehub and colleagues have shown they detect differences in pulse, rhythm, pitch, harmony, and melody (Trehub, 2000). These are listening skills for sharing feelings and interests with the mother or any companionable adult. Mechthild and Hanuš Papoušek compared the musical features of the vocalizations of their daughters to the sounds of parents’ speech to infants and concluded that musical talk to infants paves the way for learning language (Papoušek, 1996). Ellen Dissanayake (2000) finds this intimate communication between mother and infant to be the source of art, most obviously musical, poetic, and dramatic art, “making special” dramatic stories of human interest. These stories become carriers of the conventional features and rituals of the mother’s culture. They are the biological foundations of her language. Young infants expect responses from a partner that are timed to meet the infant’s actions with appropriate emotional tone—​evidently the contingent timing and a sympathetic quality affirms the infant’s feelings. An interruption of the partner’s responses results in gaze avoidance by the baby and expressions of confusion and distress (Marwick & Murray, 2009). This sensitivity is evident even in engagements

Musicality and Musical Culture

Pitch G F E D

INTRODUCTION

29

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMAX

RESOLUTION

C5 B A G F E D C4 B A G F E D 1 C3 0.00

2

3

4 5.00

5

6 7

8

9

10.00

10 11 12

13

15.00

14 15 20.00

16

17 25.00

TIME IN SECONDS INTRODUCTION 1 Come on 2 Again 3 Come on then 4 That’s clever 5 INFANT 6 INFANT

DEVELOPMENT 7 Oh yes! 8 Is that right? 9 Well tell me some more then

CLIMAX 10 Tell me some more then 11 INFANT 12 Ooorrh 13 Come on 14 Ch ch ch ch With INFANT

RESOLUTION 15 Ch ch With INFANT 16 Ahgoo 17 Goo

Figure 3.1  Photos show the expressions of Laura and her mother in dialogue. The pitch plot indicates how the narrative segments into four parts: Introduction, Development, Climax, and Resolution. Utterance numbers appear immediately above the time axis and in the table. (Adapted from Malloch, 1999.)

with newborns (Trevarthen, 1999; Trevarthen, Delafield-​Butt, & Schögler, 2011). Each has expectations of a confirming and appreciative contribution from the other. The self-​awareness of each is realized in the awareness of the other (Reddy, 2008). Engagement of minds without words, or beneath words, is regulated by a spectrum of emotions, or forms of vitality (Stern, 2010), generating feelings of moral relationship. By “moral” we mean sustained by intuitive affective response to each other’s actions. These “relational emotions” condition all learning of meaning.

30

Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch

Music is capable of transmitting all colors of human emotion by representing the movements of their expression. And music does not just serve in the creation of meaning for cultural life; it motivates our loyalties and the personal place each of us has in society (Dissanayake, 2000; MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2002). Perhaps the most important finding of our analysis of the short dialogue between Laura and her mother, Kay, is that it makes a “narrative” with clear poetic flow created by the feelings they express within a shared sense of time. The protoconversational narrative makes a story, with “introduction,” “development,” “climax,” and “resolution” or “conclusion” (fig. 3.1). This dynamic form is not made up of semantic, referential elements or “facts” by a “logical discernment,” and rational assembly according to some abstract syntactic formula. It is a humanly motivated process of “story-​making” (Bruner, 2003) that transmits emotional information about how an engagement or dialogue of imaginative agency is progressing. A narrative affirms the play of expressive impulses linking the phenomenal present to an expected future, and to a remembered past, as music does, making “musical sense.” Martin Buber, in his inspiring philosophy of dialogue, placed mutual awareness first in the genesis of consciousness: It is only because the meeting of the I and the Thou precedes the child’s awareness of himself as I that he is able to infer the meaning of the actions of others. On the basis of his relationship with others, the child then comes to a knowledge of the external world, that is, through his social relationships he receives those categories that enable him to see the world as an ordered continuum of knowable and passive objects. This is the process which Buber has described as the movement of the child from the I-​Thou to an I-​It relation with people and things. The child establishes what is “objective” reality for him through the constant comparison of his perceptions with those of others. (Friedman, 2002, pp. 193–​194).

Cooperating to Create Meaning In the second year, toddlers have gained new mobility, and with this a lively awareness of others’ intentions that makes possible the sharing of completely arbitrary actions, ideas, and tasks, and the learning of conventional ways of communicating with many kinds of tools and rituals. Part of this new learning leads to language use via “learning how to mean” by combining gesture and vocalization to request, command, refuse, and complain in “acts of meaning” (Halliday, 1979), all dependent on the whole person’s use of dramatic or performatory actions with controlled expressive form and intonation, and which lead to performance of entertaining ways of showing off with expressive artistry. It signals a new level of other-­​­person awareness that is productive of much sociable meaning even before the child can speak (Bjørkvold, 1992). The playful making of meaning grows from the six-​month-​old infant’s propensity for participating in the time and expression of others’ actions in

Musicality and Musical Culture

31

games and nursery songs (Eckerdal & Merker, 2009). It constitutes a momentous transformation in the infant’s motives for creative communication.

The Chronobiology of Human Musicality The human brain animates the movements of the most complex mammalian body—​one with more parts that have more freedom of action than the body of any other primate. We are agile on two legs, and communicate while standing or walking by voice and gesture in rapid and complex sequences, monitoring our bodies’ actions with acute sight and hearing, which are both specially sensitive to the proprioceptive effects of a person’s own body in action (Sherrington, 1906) and also intensely sympathetic to the pulses of actions of other moving human bodies. All this movement and sensibility must be coordinated prospectively, with imagination (Bernstein, 1967; Feigenberg, 2014), in a synchrony of rhythms, like the performance of members of an orchestra. A  purposeful consciousness of one single Self is possible because the human brain is one whole, integrated time machine, spontaneously active, rhythmically coherent, and yet capable of granting regulated independ­ence of action to separate feet, head, eyes, hands, and vocal apparatus (Osborne, 2009; Trevarthen, 2016). The same organs are the messengers of brain states between persons, expressing mutual awareness and changing emotions. The dynamic vitality of this human brain and body, felt as “musical” or “songlike” within the self and shared easily with others, is infinitely adaptable, ready to learn new cultural “tricks” and codes in elaborate narrations (Trevarthen, 1999, 2009; Trevarthen, Delafield-​Butt, & Schögler, 2011). It is fundamental to the representational powers of speech and language, and appears to have arisen earlier in evolution (Cross & Morley, 2009). Human brains are built for life in a community of elaborated and highly vocal consciousness. They share intentions, imitate new ideas, and work together in the acquisition of skills. In the fetus the special organs of expression, especially eyes, oral and vocal system, and hands, have elaborate characteristics adapted to this human intersubjective life. We are made to sing and dance together, and this helps us learn to speak and manufacture together.

Teaching and Learning Encouraging Natural Musicality and Musical Art Sophisticated musical art requires the skill of a precisely controlled body and mind. Years of practice are required to attain the degree of control in performance that

32

Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch

educated listeners will find most satisfying, moving, and memorable. And yet, paradoxically, people totally naïve to the conventions and totally unpracticed in performance, including young children, can be sensitive critics and can share the novelty and drama of a piece of music never heard before. Music participation in cultures without electronic means of storage and reproduction is more communal, less of a private occupation such as listening is for a modern Western pedestrian with iPod plugged in. But the essential purposes of music—​to give companionship, to comfort, excite, synchronize, and celebrate triumphs—​are the same everywhere, and apparently have been so for thousands of years (Cross & Morley, 2009). The education of a musician can begin early, if the child has the enthusiasm and persistence to imitate and practice technique, and is supported in this interest by appreciative parents and peers. But culture needs not just obedience and practice of established forms, not just maintaining the tradition—​it requires creativity. Even performing a standard song or instrumental piece needs the spirit of invention and discovery. It has to be improvised with daring. That is where the inherent motives to “play” with musicality, and to share its pleasure, come in. The passing on of music is a creative act for teacher and learner, one that requires their cooperation. It falters if its spontaneous motives are not confirmed and given support (Bannan & Woodward, 2009). Parents and infants improvise a miniculture of action chants and songs together, using old ideas as jazz musicians do to make new conversations (Gratier & Trevarthen, 2008). Teachers and young music students have to do the same, respecting the well-​loved rules but stretching them, exploring new musical spaces, and above all respecting one another’s imaginative artistry (Custodero, 2009; Frölich, 2009). Even a two-​month-​old is equipped with a feeling for a simple story in action and song, knowing how it should go with cycles of expressive energy and changing emotional color, making patterns that will be remembered and used again, participating with simple confirmations and contrasts with what the mother or father offers. The baby is not just a music receiver, and any benefit the experience may bring is not simply a result of teaching—​it comes from education of a willing companion. Bannan and Woodward (2009) present a “model of musical learning” as a spiral of learning in which attainments at one level are revisited at progressively more complex levels, steps in vocal learning moving between cognitive mastery of skills and more emotionally motivated behaviors of “the child within” (Custodero, 2009). No one can put music into a young human being, but a sensitive and affectionate companion can facilitate growth of the germ of music that is in all of us, responding to the levels in the exploratory and creative spiral of its growth and development, finding the path to lifelong enjoyment of creating and experiencing music and dance. The key emotion that propels this work is the shared pleasure of pride in making an action that others appreciate (Trevarthen, 2002). The emotion that stunts enthusiasm and blocks both creativity and cooperation is shame. Although disciplined practice is part of the task, a young aspiring musician’s spirit can be deadened in the face of a curriculum of tasks to be done and

Musicality and Musical Culture

33

discriminations to be learned in a standardized way, however “age appropriate” its methods strive to be.

Problems Inherent in Instruction “Teaching” of music is, therefore, challenged by two paradoxes:  that young children are already “musical,” yet with no technical skill; and that the compositions or performances of the greatest mature artists arise from a deep understanding of established musical culture, yet draw on the same simple power of improvisation. Given that every child is born with musical sensibilities, how are the intricacies of musical art to be taught? What must the path of instruction be like that keeps alive the spontaneous sensibilities and proud creativity while bringing forth new ways of using the voice or hands within particular traditions? Clearly the child is not a tabula rasa or passive receiver of cultural wisdom. Nor does an infant or toddler need “reinforcement” to be interested in music and to memorize a tune. The solution would seem to be to harness the youthful enthusiasm in a development or cultivation of cooperative musical work that is also play (Flohr & Trevarthen, 2008). Lori Custodero (2009) finds that adults are inspired by observing the spontaneous musicality of children. She quotes Cobb, as follows: The comparison of the natural genius of the child with the cultivated inventiveness of adult genius, especially at the highest levels, is justified by the fact that both ages are in search of true metaphor[s]‌which release the organizing powers of mind and nervous system into action and the making of meaning. (Cobb, 1977, p. 102)

Custodero concludes: These two groups—​young children and mature artists—​are more alike than adolescents and adults, who differ in their tolerance for the metaphors of which Cobb writes. Picasso’s famous comment about working a lifetime to recapture the child-​like approach to his own artistry has been echoed in the reflective words of countless musicians. (2009, p. 514).

The “culture of education” (Bruner, 1996)  presumes that pupils are motivated to learn to perceive and understand the world in particular cultural ways in order to participate in and contribute to their culture. It is easy for the planner of education or the teacher to think that the matter to be learned is what is important, plus a technique for imparting it. But, as Bruner insists, and as most experienced and effective teachers learn, a factor that must be taken into consideration and respected is the learner’s motivation—​her curiosity and willing attention to getting the knowledge and skill, and to cooperating in shared work (Donaldson, 1992). Getting the balance right is important for transmitting mastery of all the cultures of art and technique, and this is most apparent early in life when the child’s unruly playfulness drives imitative learning and resists imposed tasks (Trevarthen & Delafield-​Butt, 2016).

34

Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch

Creative Musicality in Action—​ Healing and Performance Dissonant Musicality and Collaborative Healing in Music The “affect attunement” between mother and infant in protoconversational play (Stern, Hofer, Haft, & Dore, 1985), within which a creative relationship normally grows, can be affected by emotional illness. The voice of a mother suffering from depression is pitched low and lacks vitality (Marwick & Murray, 2009), and that of a mother with bipolar affective disorder tends to find a repetitive and obsessive narrative of its own, without sensitivity for the infant’s lively expectations and feelings (Gratier & Apter-​Danon, 2009). Musicality is not a language about anything outside human affect. It is emotions in action, seeking affective contact and confirmation. When the emotions are defensive in the face of aggressive behavior, or confused by anxiety transmitted from an anxious or depressed parent, this can impair the process of learning that is normally so strong in a young child. Maternal depression, bringing loss of creative musicality for shared experience, can have lasting effects on the social and cognitive development of a child (Marwick & Murray, 2009). Music therapy attunes to the temporal and visceral impulses of a disturbed psyche, coordinating movement, giving the self emotional harmony and companionship (Trevarthen & Malloch, 2000; Robarts, 2009). A music therapist becomes a companion in a search for harmony of feelings and coherence of thinking about the Self. By giving a patient initiative in making expressive sounds and actions, and helping goals of communication in time and concordance of expression to come about, a musician trained in the art of therapy can assist moving and feeling, and bring about a joyful well-​being (Daniel & Trevarthen, 2017).

Performing with Imagination—​For Infants and for the Young Musician The function of babies’ innate musicality in learning and performance is very clearly seen in the work of Helena and Paulo Maria Rodrigues, who have created a theatre for babies and parents that opens the way to a collective performance that brings joy and discovery. In their work, they witness how even very young infants are naturally excited to perform on stage to a public in a lively crowd of actors (Rodrigues, Rodrigues, & Correia, 2009). The aim of this theatre production, called Bebé Babá, is educational. These musicians and researchers want to teach people how a celebratory, imaginative occasion can be made with infants and their parents, and how

Musicality and Musical Culture

35

this immensely strengthens a sense of community, as in a village celebration. The authors say, “our aim, we emphasize, was not to provide a ready-​made show—​not just to entertain. . . . We provide the conditions, but the parents themselves have to be the artists for their own children” (p. 586). Unfortunately, as young people grow and mature, and if they choose to become students of music, their performances can become a trial rather than a celebration. In formal instruction, creativity and imagination motivating actions imbued with shared cultural meanings, so much part of the young child’s learning, can be replaced by a far less creative motivation to simply get complex cultural rules “right.” The flute teacher Jorge Salgado Correia has experimented with ways to reignite a young musician’s imagination in musical performance through physically enacting the music’s narrative. He has found that graduate musicians learning a new piece can find creative freedom by acting as if they were protagonists of the “story” of the music, discovering the “dramatic movements” of the piece they are learning (Rodrigues, Rodrigues, & Correia, 2009). Thus, encouraging his students first literally to “act out” the drama of a piece, and then to portray that drama in their playing, he found students focused far less on anxiety around technical difficulties, and far more on conveying their interpretation of the piece. Their embodiment of the musical drama freed them to become better musical communicators. They regained the “playful” imagination of a young child celebrating with companions.

Conclusion Alfred North Whitehead, who gave first importance to the zest for learning, the creativity and cooperation of the child, called the first stage of education “romance.” He observed that all rich educational experiences begin with an immediate emotional involvement on the part of the learner. The primary acquisition of knowledge involves freshness, enthusiasm, and enjoyment of learning. He said: Another contrast is equally essential for the understanding of ideals—​the contrast between order as the condition for excellence, and order as stifling the freshness of living. This contrast is met with in the theory of education. The condition for excellence is a thorough training in technique. . . . The first, the second, and the third condition for high achievement is scholarship, in that enlarged sense including knowledge and acquired instinct controlling action. . . . The paradox which wrecks so many promising theories of education is that the training which produces skill is so very apt to stifle imaginative zest. (Whitehead, 1978, pp. 338–​339)

Margaret Donaldson addressed the same problem in a slightly different way. We all walk but we are not all ballet dancers. . . . We must apply ourselves. We must become able to guide and direct our own minds. Thus the need for discipline appears. And, though it is self-​discipline that is in question, this is not

36

Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch easy to acquire unaided. Few can do it alone. The question is: what help is needed and how can it best be offered? This question, so simple in appearance, is the educational question. The answering of it is peculiarly delicate and difficult. For there is a narrow path between the pitfalls that lie on either side. (Donaldson, 1992, pp. 252–​253)

The artistic expression of musicality—​in music and dance and in story-​making of poetry and drama—​can express profound human emotions and mercurial flights of fancy. It can do this because it uses as its raw materials the very gestures that express our human need for companionship of emotions, whether this be between mother and child or between members of a whole society, or between musicians in an orchestra guided by and inspired by a conductor who molds the spirit of the composition. As our musicality is shaped by our particular cultural heritage, it can either be helped by sensitive teachers who walk with us along a path of mutual cultural discovery, or hindered by those who would see culture as something to be upheld and protected, separate from life. To trust that, with sensitive guidance, our ingenious musical creativity will find its own way within the rich, complex cultural worlds humans have created is the paradox that all teachers of music face.

Reflective Questions



1. Spend time watching how a young baby and a sensitive adult share in the creation of narratives of gestures—​stories in sound and movement. Or observe how preschool children or teenagers make life musical. Consider how, as a teacher, you might cocreate narratives of musical sounds and movements with young children, or an older student, so they experience their own ability to explore the world, and share it, in wordless narratives. 2. To what extent do the “rules” of music bind you, or liberate and support you to create? 3. What is the balance for you between self-​discipline and play with affectionate vitality? 4. As a teacher, how do you use metaphors in your teaching? What would be discovered if you introduced greater freedom of imagination in how you teach music? What risks might there be?

KEY SOURCES Deliege, I., & Sloboda, J. (eds.) (1996). Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Musicality and Musical Culture

37

Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (eds.) (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miell, D., MacDonald, R., & Hargreaves, D. (eds.) (2005). Musical communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wigram, T., Pedersen, I. N., Bonde, L. O. (eds.) (2002). A comprehensive guide to music therapy. London Jessica Kingsley.

REFERENCES Bannan, N., & Woodward, S. (2009). Spontaneity in the musicality and music learning of children. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 465–​494). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bateson, M. C. (1979). The epigenesis of conversational interaction: A personal account of research development. In M. Bullowa (ed.), Before speech: The beginning of human communication. (pp. 63–​77). London: Cambridge University Press. Bernstein, N. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon. Bjørkvold, J.-​R. (1992). The muse within: Creativity and communication, song and play from childhood through maturity. New York: Harper Collins. Blacking, J. (1976). How musical is man? London: Faber & Faber. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (2003). Making stories:  Law, literature, life. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York: Columbia University Press. Cross, I., & Morley, I. (2009). The evolution of music: Theories, definitions and the nature of the evidence. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 533–​544). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Custodero, L. A. (2009). Intimacy and reciprocity in improvisatory musical performance:  Pedagogical lessons from adult artists and young children. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 513–​530). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daniel, S., & Trevarthen, C. (eds.). (2017). Rhythms of relating: Stories from children’s therapies. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Art and intimacy:  How the arts began. Seattle:  University of Washington Press. Dissanayake, E. (2009). Bodies swayed to music: The temporal arts as integral to ceremonial ritual. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 533–​544). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donaldson, M. (1992). Human minds: An exploration. London: Allen Lane/​Penguin Books. Eckerdal, P., & Merker, B. (2009). “Music” and the “action song” in infant development: An interpretation. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 241–​262). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erickson, F. (2009). Musicality in talk and listening: A key element in classroom discourse as an environment for learning. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 449–​464). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38

Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch

Feigenberg, J. M. (2014). Nikolai Bernstein: From reflexes to the model of the future. Studies in Sports History, Volume 17. Munich: LIT Verlag. Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative interest in mother’s speech to infants: Is the melody the message? Child Development, 60, 1497–​1510. Flohr, J., & Trevarthen, C. (2008). Music learning in childhood: Early developments of a musical brain and body. In W. Gruhn & F. Rauscher (eds.), Neurosciences in music pedagogy (pp. 53–​100). New York: Nova Biomedical Books. Friedman, M. S. (2002). Martin Buber: The life of dialogue (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Frölich, C. (2009). Vitality in music and dance as basic existential experience: Applications in teaching music. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 495–​512). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gratier, M., & Apter-​Danon, G. (2009). The improvised musicality of belonging: Repetition and variation in mother-​infant vocal interaction. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality:  Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 301–​327). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gratier, M., & Trevarthen, C. (2008). Musical narrative and motives for culture in mother-​ infant vocal interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(10–​11), 122–​158. Halliday, M. A. K. (1979). One child’s protolanguage. In M. Bullowa (ed.), Before speech: The beginning of human communication (pp. 171–​190). London: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, R. A.  R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. (eds.) (2002). Musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malloch, S. (1999). Mother and infants and communicative musicality. In I. Deliège (ed.), Rhythms, musical narrative, and the origins of human communication. Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue, 1999–​2000 (pp. 29–​57). Liège, Belgium: European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2009). Musicality: Exploring the vitality and interests of life. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 1–​11). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marwick, H., & Murray, L. (2009). The effects of maternal depression on the “musicality” of infant-​directed speech and conversational engagement. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 281–​ 300). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mazokopaki, M., & Kugiumutzakis, G. (2009). Infant rhythms: Expressions of musical companionship. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 185–​208). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Osborne, N. (2009). Toward a chronobiology of musical rhythm. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 545–​564). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Papoušek, M. (1996). Intuitive parenting: A hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In I. Deliège & J. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 88–​112). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robarts, J. Z. (2009). Supporting the development of mindfulness and meaning:  Clinical pathways in music therapy with a sexually abused child. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 377–​ 400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Musicality and Musical Culture

39

Rodrigues, H. M., Rodrigues, P. M., & Correia, J. S. (2009). Communicative musicality as creative participation: From early childhood to advanced performance. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 585–​610). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sherrington, C. S. (1906). The integrative action of the nervous system. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stern, D. N. (2010). Forms of vitality:  Dynamic experience in psychology and the arts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, D. N., Hofer, L., Haft, W., & Dore, J. (1985). Affect attunement: The sharing of feeling states between mother and infant by means of inter-​modal fluency. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 249–​268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Trehub, S. (2000). Human processing predispositions and musical universals. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (eds.), The origins of music (pp. 427–​448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Trevarthen, C. (1999). Musicality and the intrinsic motive pulse: Evidence from human psychobiology and infant communication. In I. Deliège (ed.), Rhythms, musical narrative, and the origins of human communication. Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue, 1999–​2000 (pp. 157–​213). Liège, Belgium: European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music. Trevarthen, C. (2002). Origins of musical identity: Evidence from infancy for musical social awareness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 21–​38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trevarthen, C. (2009). Human biochronology: On the source and functions of “musicality.” In R. Haas & V. Brandes (eds.), Music that works: Contributions of biology, neurophysiology, psychology, sociology, medicine and musicology (pp. 221–​265). Vienna: Springer. Trevarthen, C. (2016). From the Intrinsic Motive Pulse of infant actions, to the Life Time of cultural meanings. In B. Mölder, V. Arstila, & P. Øhrstrom (eds.), Philosophy and psychology of time (Vol. 9, pp. 225–​265). Springer Studies in Brain and Mind. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer International. Trevarthen, C., & Delafield-​Butt, J. (2016). Intersubjectivity in the imagination and feelings of the infant: Implications for education in the early years. In J. White & C. Dalli (eds.), Under-​three year-​olds in policy and practice (pp. 17–​39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Trevarthen, C., Delafield-​Butt, J., & Schögler, B. (2011). Psychobiology of musical gesture: Innate rhythm, harmony and melody in movements of narration. In A. Gritten & E. King (eds.), New Perspectives on Music and Gesture (SEMPRE studies in the psychology of music), 11–​43. Farnham, Surrey, UK/​Burlington, VT, USA: Ashgate. Trevarthen, C., & Malloch, S. (2000). The dance of wellbeing: Defining the musical therapeutic effect. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 9(2), 3–​17. Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality. (The Gifford Lectures 1927–​28. Corrected Edition. D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, eds.). New York: Free Press.

Chapter 4

MUSIC AND LANGUAGE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING Lily Chen-​Hafteck and Esther Mang

Music and language are the two symbol systems that humans have developed to communicate through sounds. Evidence gathered from research in various disciplines, including anthropology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and the neurosciences, demonstrates that music and language are closely related in development. Anthropological studies investigating the evolution of music and language have demonstrated that our early ancestors (Neanderthals) developed a means of communication that lay between music and language prior to the development of the two separate systems (Mithen, 2005). Music is deeply rooted in human evolutionary history and belongs to our biological nature (Dissanayake, 2000; Mithen, 2005). Cognitive psychologists have found that music and language stem from common origins and are dominated by common processing tendencies (Trehub, 2006). Moreover, the perception of speech and music seems to be related from the earliest stages of development (Trehub, 2006). Recent findings on brain development provide further insight into such relationship. Sound is processed in the auditory cortex, whereby the acoustic cranial nerve synthesizes various sensory inputs and then interprets linguistic, musical, tactile, visual, and kinesthetic stimuli (Özdemir, Norton, & Schlaug, 2006). Hence, music processing often utilizes overlapping regions in the brain and shares processing

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 41 components with language. Adding to such complexity, evidence for both distinct and integrated processing modules for music and speech has also been found. Some processing components appear to be perceptual prerequisites for music processing; some appear to be specialized for music; and some appear to be involved in the processing of both music and speech (Peretz & Hyde, 2003). Music and linguistic research literature has indicated that music and language are indistinguishable during the early stages of development, only becoming more diversified at the later stages. During the early stages of life, fetuses and babies perceive sounds in their environment without necessarily differentiating between the sounds as music or language, although they are able to make sense of the music and language they encounter. Babies also produce vocalizations without considering whether they are singing or speaking (Chen-​Hafteck, 1997). It is clear that the development of musical and linguistic abilities is closely related. Besides exerting influence on each other, there is also some overlap between these abilities. In addition, environmental factors play an important role in the learning of music and language. Children are exposed to both music and language sounds in their environments, which are specific to their culture (see fig. 4.1). This chapter is informed and underpinned by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of development. Development is not only something that happens within the child.

Culture in the Sounds Environments Musical

LEARNING

Development of Musical Abilities

Linguistic

Development of Linguistic Abilities

LEARNING Sounds

Environments in the

Figure 4.1  The relationships and influences on the development of musical and linguistic abilities.

42

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

More important, the world into which the child is growing must also be considered. Development is the process of growing in and through culture. Welch’s (2006) “Russian Dolls” model (see fig. 4.2) highlights the complex yet integrated nature of the various influences that shape musical development and is also used as the basis of the present discussion. The basic neuropsychobiological design of each child is the core, shaped by musical and linguistic enculturation and generative musical and linguistic skill development, both of which arise from interacting with social groups and formal and informal education within a wider community. In this chapter, we will investigate the relationship between music and language in development and learning during early childhood. Such relationship will be examined through investigating the potentials and inborn abilities in early childhood, the environmental influences, and the interactions between music and

Figure 4.2  The Russian Dolls Model of Musical Development (Welch, 2006). Adapted with permission from Welch (2006, p. 252). Intellectual copyright © 2006 G. F. Welch, design copyright © 2011 E. Himonides.

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 43 language development in children. Finally, the implications for education will be discussed, suggesting an integrated approach to music and language learning.

Musical and Linguistic Abilities in Young Children Certain elements in sounds, such as frequency, timing, and timbre, are commonly used in music and language. The cognitive processes needed to perceive, organize, and produce these sound elements facilitate the production of music and language. A large body of infant music research has demonstrated that babies are born with a range of musical abilities (see Adachi & Trehub, ­chapter 2). In this section of the chapter, discussion will focus on how young children’s musical abilities are closely connected to linguistic abilities. Research findings on infants’ sensitivity to and production of sound features that are fundamental to both music and language will be presented for this purpose. The common musical and linguistic abilities to be examined include (1) the discrimination of pitch and rhythm; (2) the recognition of melodic contour/​speech intonation; (3) the perceptual organization of sounds into musical phrase/​sentences; (4)  the memory of speech/​music; and (5)  vocalization. The parallel between the abilities in music and language is evident, in particular during early childhood, as young children tend to work in a holistic manner, without differentiating between the two domains. What adults classify as music or speech may not necessarily be the case for children of this age.

Pitch and Rhythm Discrimination Pitch and rhythm are important elements in both music and language. Pitch and rhythm discrimination is not only required in learning music, it is also needed for language acquisition as children learn the nuances of the language in their environment. The ability to discriminate pitch and rhythm is important from early childhood, as infants detect subtle changes in pitch and rhythm from birth (Trehub, 2006).

Recognition of Melodic Contours/​Speech Intonation The ability to recognize melodic contours in music is used to recognize the intona­ tion contour of speech, which is also a series of pitch variations. Intonation is a prosodic feature that enhances the understanding of the meaning of language,

44

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

particularly its emotional implications. Very young babies can recognize a recently heard melody played to them. They can distinguish the transformation of a melody if the melodic contour is altered or if some sounds are changed (Trehub, 2006). Such pitch-​contour processing is an important perceptual organizational device for infants, in processing not only musical sequences but also speech sequences (Trehub, 2006).

Perceptual Organization of Sounds Infants demonstrate their abilities of perceptual organization of sounds very early in life. The ability to group sounds appears around the age of two months; and the ability to group and segment units in both speech and music then emerge at the age of four to six months (Trehub, 2006). Moreover, babies of this age also demonstrate awareness of musical phrase structures that are based on pitch and rhythmic patterns (Trehub, 2006). According to Patel (2008), the ability to form categories of sounds, to extract regularities from rhythmic and melodic sequences, to integrate incoming sound elements into syntactic structures, and to derive emotional meanings from acoustic signals are needed for processing both musical and linguistic stimuli. Thus, there is clearly a substantial overlap in the mechanisms of our cognitive and neural systems that process the common elements in music and language.

Memory of Music and Speech The ability to remember music and speech is important for music and language development and learning. Infants’ musical and language memory is evident from the findings of studies investigating preference for familiar over unfamiliar words in a story and familiar over unfamiliar passages in Mozart piano music. In both studies, preference for familiar words and music were found after a two-​week delay following repeated exposure (Trehub, 2006). Prenatal memory is also present. Infants are attentive to speech sound and can identify their mothers’ voices (Parncutt, 2006). Newborn babies are able to recognize music that they heard before birth (Woodward, 1992). This suggests that music and language learning start even before birth, as soon as the developing auditory cortex becomes enabled in the fetus.

Vocalization Early vocalization of young children serves an important function in both music and language development by preparing them for vocal production in the two domains. Crystal’s (1997) linguistic developmental stages of early vocalization, well

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 45 established in the literature of language development, are used as the basis of the following discussion.

Basic Biological “Noises”1 (Zero to Eight Weeks) Infants’ early “noise”-​making includes reflexive vocalization, vegetative noise, and crying. At this stage, due to the limitation of physical motor skills, infants have little control over their vocalization. Such “noises” serve as practice and preparation for more controlled vocalization in the future.

Cooing (8–​20 Weeks) Cooing is quieter, lower pitched, and more musical than crying. It consists of short vowel-​like sounds preceded by consonant-​like sound made toward the back of the mouth. Cooing emerges as the first gross activities required before speech production starts. These activities include the tongue moving vertically and horizontally; the vocal folds becoming more coordinated; and lip movement and tongue thrusting appearing. In music development, cooing is considered to be the earliest of vocal sounds, leading toward the development of melodic modulations and phrasing vocalization (H. Papoušek, 1996).

Vocal Play (20–​30 Weeks) When engaging in vocal play the developing infants’ sound-​making is characterized by high pitch levels with wide glides from high to low and a wide range of consonant and vowel qualities. Typical sounds include squealing, growling, and yelling. This is an important time for children to experiment with their voices and explore the capacity of their vocal mechanism. In this way, they are preparing to sing and speak as they gain more vocal control.

Babbling (25–​50 Weeks) Babbling is less varied than vocal play. “Reduplicated babbling,” which involves the repetition of a single syllable, develops first. It is followed by “variegated babbling,” which is multisyllabic. Babbling can be related to development of rhythmic abilities, resembling rhythmic games through which rhythmic abilities can be enhanced (H. Papoušek, 1996). Some describe babbling as a kind of vocal exploration of pitch loudness and timbre (Dowling, 1988).

Melodic Utterance (9–​18 Months) Variations in melody, rhythm, and tone of voice are evident as infants begin to produce melodic utterances. These utterances are characterized by a variety of stress patterns and intonation contours. According to Crystal (1997), they are the first real signs of language development. It is during this stage that the vocalization of children from different language environments begins to sound different. At this stage

46

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

the melodies of songs in children’s environment can be more clearly identified in children’s vocalization. From the age of one year onward, first songs and first words start to emerge, and singing and speech begin to become more distinct (see Barrett & Tafuri, ­chapter 6).

Distinction between Singing and Speech It is actually quite difficult to distinguish between the intonation contour in speech and melodic contour in singing in early vocalization (Chen-​Hafteck, 1997). Mang (2001) calls such a phenomenon “intermediate vocalization.” In a study of the early vocalization of English monolingual and Chinese bilingual children she found that even though English monolingual children displayed clearer distinctions between speech and singing than Chinese bilingual children, these distinctions were somewhat “fuzzy.” In summary, this cross-​domain comparison of music and linguistic abilities in early life suggests interesting connections between music and language development in early childhood. Many overlapping and indistinguishable characteristics are evident in the two. Therefore, in early childhood education, it is important to consider the two areas of development simultaneously.

Musical and Linguistic Sounds in the Environment Children are born with unlimited potentials to learn the language and music of any cultures (Eimas, 1985). However, the development of linguistic and music skills gradually narrow to focus on the language and music of the native culture and environment in which children live. They then gradually lose their abilities as natives to learn readily the sounds of music and languages that differ from their own. For instance, children who are born in Hong Kong keep their minute pitch discrimination abilities, as they have to listen and speak a tonal language, Cantonese, in their everyday lives. Children in South Africa keep their singing and rhythmic skills strong as they grow up in an environment where they often engage in singing and dancing. Children from other cultures where such skills are not promoted will not keep these specific abilities, which they also possessed at birth. Therefore, the sounds in the environment that young children are exposed to are crucial to their music and language development.

Beginning of Environmental Sound Experiences Both music and language sounds in the environment start to influence children even before they are born. The auditory system of the fetus begins to process sounds as early as the sixteenth week, before it is anatomically mature. Conversely, sensory

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 47 learning begins only after the twenty-​fifth week, when the connections between peripheral sense organs and the central nervous system start to mature (Parncutt, 2006). The acoustic environment surrounding the fetus, both inside and outside the womb, is rich in sounds and stimulation for the unborn child. The fetus responds to external auditory stimuli through body movement and changes in heartbeat (Woodward, 1992). Prenatal hearing seems to have its survival value. It serves its role in the preparation of sound perception, language, and bonding (Parncutt, 2006). When infants are born, they have already experienced, in some ways, elements of the music and language sounds of their culture and are ready to interact with people in their environment.

Infant-​Directed Speech and Singing Very young children are born with a natural preference for sounds that possess more musical characteristics over those with less, as demonstrated by their preference for:

• Infant-​directed speech over adult-​directed speech (M. Papoušek, 1996) • Maternal singing over maternal speech (Trehub & Nakata, 2001/​2002) • Infant-​directed singing over adult-​directed singing—​even among hearing infants of deaf parents who had minimal acoustic exposure to music and language in comparison to infants with typical hearing parents (Masataka, 1999)

Infant-​directed speech and singing are the vocal communications that adults use in addressing children. Both possess strong musical elements. Infant-​directed speech has a relatively higher and wider pitch range, more expanded pitch contours, a slower tempo, longer pauses, and shorter phrases containing less syllables as compared to adult-​directed speech (M. Papoušek, 1996). Infant-​directed speech has been found in many cultures and languages, including among German, Caucasian American, Mandarin Chinese, and Japanese mothers (Masataka, 1999; M. Papoušek, 1996). Although infant-​directed speech has been found in many cultures, it is not universal. Among the African-​American working-​class community in North Carolina, people in Samoa, the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea, parents rarely talk to babies. Among the Quiche Mayan in Guatemala, high pitch is used to address people with high status, and children who have low status are addressed in low pitch (Cruttenden, 1994). Cruttenden suggested that the standard features of infant-​directed speech occur among the middle-​class parents in industrially advanced societies, but not in certain more traditional societies such as the ones discussed above. “Communicative musicality” (see Trevarthen & Malloch, ­chapter  3), the use of music to converse emotionally with others, is often present in mother-​infant communication. This phenomenon can be explained by the so-​called Intrinsic Motive Pulse (IMP), which is generated by brain mechanisms to act, experience, and communicate. Such musical expression is considered to be important because

48

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

it allows free and sympathetic expression of IMP, and of moving and feeling. IMP is necessary for both the development of the mind and for emotional health (see Trevarthen & Malloch, c­ hapter 3). This supports Dissanayake’s (2000) position that early music-​making is a survival mechanism and that the mutuality in mother-​child interactions actually helps us to evolve as humans. In summary, songs and speech that are directed to children are most influential to their music and language development. It is evident that infants are born with sensitivity to and preference for musical characteristics across infant-​directed speech and singing.

Songs and Singing in Children’s Environment As children are naturally attracted to musical sounds and music enhances emotional expression, many parents like to communicate with infants through singing. Singing is found to be the most common musical activity in which parents engage with their babies. Moreover, it is used in everyday life in American families with young children for routines, associated with daily activities, maintaining, adapting, and creating traditions of the families and their culture, and musical play with songs (Custodero, 2006). The two genres of songs that are often present in children’s environment are play songs and lullabies (Trainor, 1996). Since songs are an integration of text and melody, being exposed to songs implies having an integrated experience in music and language. Children’s songs exist across different cultures in the world. Every culture has its own traditional children’s songs. They play a significant role in providing a means of communication between young children and adults, and transmit sociocultural values and customs to the new generation. Differences due to the functions of children’s songs and the role children play in various societies can be observed. For instance, a majority of English nursery rhymes are reported to have a simple melody and rhythm so as to help young children learn them easily. By contrast, many South African children’s songs have strong rhythmic character, as children are expected to move and dance with the songs. Traditional Cantonese children’s songs have complicated and long texts, as they are not supposed to be sung by children themselves but rather by adults for children to follow (Chen-​Hafteck, 2007). There is also a reported link between language and singing style within the constraints of the cultural setting, including impacts on the pitch and rhythmic structures of the songs. In tonal languages, pitch serves a lexical or grammatical meaning in the form of linguistic tones. Most Asian languages (including all the Chinese languages and Vietnamese, Thai, and Lao) and most languages of sub-​ Saharan Africa are tonal. In contrast, the intonation of nontonal languages serve expressive purposes. Thus, the pitch inflections of tonal and nontonal languages are very different, and as songs consist of words, songs in tonal and nontonal languages bear different characteristics, as discussed below.

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 49 Language-​specific vocal behaviors are observed. Compared with English monolingual and English bilingual children, Cantonese-​speaking children tend to sing songs with a pitch center closer to the one used for speech. Cantonese-​ speaking children were also found to be more prone to conflate linguistic pitch movement in speech with melodic interval in music (Mang, 2001). Moreover, differences in children’s singing of their cultural songs have been found among children speaking different languages. The meters of Venda children’s songs are reported to be determined often by the spoken rhythm of the first word-​pattern in their text, and their melodies are closely related to the tones of ordinary speech (Blacking, 1967). Japanese children sing in the style of “intermediate performance between talking and singing” when singing traditional Japanese songs, demonstrating a strong characteristic of the Japanese language (Fujita, 1990). When compared with British children, Cantonese-​Chinese children sing with a more detached style, while African children sing with more glissandos (Chen-​ Hafteck, 2007). Thus, a close relationship between language characteristics and children’s singing is evident.

Interactions of Music and Language Development in Young Children Reciprocal Influence of Music on Language Development Songs are an integration of text and melody. Singing a song is, therefore, an experience not just in music, but in language as well. Thus, educators often use musical experience in songs as a vehicle to facilitate language development in young children. The structuring properties of music in songs facilitate segmentation of word syllables while the music in songs can help keep children engaged and thus motivate learning of the language (Schön et al., 2008). In education, songs are often introduced to young children in order to develop, enrich, and consolidate a wide range of knowledge and skills that are both musical and nonmusical. Traditional children’s songs carry with them the language, together with the cultural knowledge and values from their original culture. Through singing these songs, children can learn both the language and the cultural context of the songs. Moreover, through singing play songs such as singing games or action songs with other children and adults, opportunities to develop social skills and hands-​on experience to use language interactively with others can be provided. The positive influence of musical abilities on language abilities has also been supported by an observed music-​syntactic processing ability appearing at an earlier age than those of syntactic language processing. It is suggested that developing musical abilities at an early age will enhance children’s abilities in processing the

50

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

musical elements in speech, which is crucial for language acquisition (H. Papoušek, 1996; Trehub, 2006). In addition, research in neuroscience has also demonstrated the effects of early musical training on language development. Music training during childhood invokes domain-​specific processes that affect salience of musical input and the amount of cortical tissue devoted to its processing (Hannon & Trainor, 2007), and serves as a kind of sensory stimulation that somehow contributes to the better development of the left temporal lobe in musicians, thus facilitating verbal memory (Ho, Cheung, & Chan, 2003) and literacy (Anvari, Trainor, Woodside, & Levy, 2002). Furthermore, it was found that music training brings about more efficient auditory discrimination by enhancing language areas in the brain to process pitch and timing changes. Music training appears to have cross-​domain effects on language development, such as enhancing word syllable discrimination (Gaab et al., 2005), promoting sensitivity to prosodic structures (Wong, Sloe, Russo, Dees, & Kraus, 2007), increasing brain responses to violations of linguistic pitch (Magne, Schön, & Besson, 2006), as well as syntactic structure (Jentschke, Koelsch, & Friederici, 2005). Moreover, an increase in the duration of music training might lead to a greater extent of cortical reorganization in the left temporal region (Hyde et al., 2009) and thus yield increasingly better verbal learning ability (Ho, Cheung, & Chan, 2003). In addition, it has been suggested that music training affects verbal long-​term and working memory and enhanced verbal memory advantage (Franklin et  al., 2008). As can be seen, the research literature suggests that music training enhances the development of specific language-​ processing networks (see fig. 4.3), which are not found in nonmusically trained counterparts. A recent review of literature also reports on a significant relationship between higher musical aptitude and second-​language skills, thus suggesting

Primary auditory cortex For processing auditory information Broca’s area For speech motor control

Left temporal lobe For processing sound and written words into meaningful information, to read and integrate new information into memory

Wernicke’s area For speech comprehension

Figure 4.3  Main language-​processing structures in the left hemisphere of the brain.

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 51 further examination of the interconnected nature of music and language skills (Milovanov & Tervaniemi, 2011).

Music Instruction with Children with Delay in Language Development When examining structural differences in dyslexic brains, the left planum temporale, a brain area involved in auditory processing of language and music, was found to be smaller than the right side. By contrast, nondyslexic brains feature normal asymmetry of the planum temporale, with the left side being larger. Findings in brain research have revealed that the cerebella and the left planum temporale region of the brain are found to be larger in musicians than nonmusicians (Patel, 2008). Research findings and anecdotal evidence from music teachers and therapists concur that music training may be an effective remediation tool for children with dyslexia (Overy, 2003). Douglas and Willatts (1994) report that “poor readers” who received six months of music lessons performed significantly better on a reading test than a similar group who received training in discussion skills. Snowling and Thomson (1993) found that tapping out the number of syllables in a word to a steady beat can improve spelling performance in children with dyslexia. Since children with dyslexia often have problems with temporal processing, remediation programs with emphasis on clapping and percussion music games are recommended (Overy, 2003). The use of music in assisting language learning among children with delay in language development has been found to be effective (Seeman, 2008). Music has served as a motivating factor that helps keep those children experiencing learning delay engaged in learning and enhances their learning skills (Portowitz & Klein, 2007). Even for children with hearing loss, songs and musical activities can facilitate their language development and communication skills (Schraer-​Joiner & Chen-​Hafteck, 2009).

Reciprocal Influence of Language on Music Development The childhood language environment plays a crucial role in formulating a foundation for music processing in adulthood. Evidence for possible language influences on musical abilities has been found, for example, in processing of the “tritone paradox” (Deutsch, Henthorn, & Dolson, 2004). It was also suggested that exposure to certain patterns of speech could influence perceptions of musical rhythms (Patel, 2008). Moreover, Chinese subjects were reported to demonstrate greater accuracy over American subjects in music perception (Ivry & Robertson, 1998). Such differences may be explained by differences between these groups in exposure to stimuli of native spoken language. Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin

52

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

languages), being a tonal language, utilizes pitch to express emotional and other paralinguistic information as well as lexical information. English, being a nontonal language, utilizes pitch to express emotional and other paralinguistic information but not lexical information. Studies have shown that language has significant effects on the singing competency of children. It was found that the tonal characteristics of Cantonese language (a Chinese dialect) might give an advantage in singing accuracy to Cantonese-​speaking children over English-​speaking children in Hong Kong, as the former achieved a higher level of pitch accuracy in singing songs than the latter (Chen-​Hafteck, 2010). In Hong Kong, Cantonese monolingual children were reported to perform consistently better than English bilingual children in both melodic singing accuracy and the use of singing voice (Mang, 2006). Cantonese-​ speaking children were also found to use more distinctive pitch centers for speech and for song at an earlier age, compared to English-​speaking children (Mang, 2001). In addition, children in a Cantonese immersion preschool in the United States showed higher accuracy in pitch-​matching than their English-​speaking counterparts (Trollinger, 2004). On the basis of such findings, Trollinger suggests that native English speakers who also learn to speak a tonal language while young may develop vocal skills that allow them to match pitch and consequently sing accurately. Because pitch in language is processed unconsciously, tonal language speakers decipher lexical information via subcortical pathways in the brain. Hence, there is evidence suggesting that the childhood language environment plays a crucial role in formulating a foundation for music processing in adulthood (Mang, 2007). In addition, research findings on children from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds demonstrated differences in the use of singing voice. Children from Israel scored lower than Hong Kong and American children in a Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM), indicating that the Israeli children did not use their singing voices as much as the other two groups of children (Rutkowski, Chen-​Hafteck, & Gluschankof, 2002). This was clearly related to the Israeli children’s speaking range, which was relatively lower than the others, leading to lack of the use of their higher singing range. In Africa, due to the characteristics of the indigenous songs and languages, higher singing accuracy among the Nharira children in Zimbabwe (Kreutzer, 2001) and more advanced song-​learning development among the South African children in comparison to the American children have been found (Chen-​Hafteck, 2007). The reciprocal influence of language skills on musical skills is evident from these study findings. As we see from the above discussion, there is a symbiotic relationship between music and language in development. For very young children, the relationship between music and language is so close that they are indistinguishable. Yet as children grow in age, it is important that they continue to experience a close connection between the two, even though they may start to learn and experience them differently due to their environment.

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 53

Toward an Integrated Approach to Music and Language Learning The parallel development of both musical and linguistic abilities is natural to children. We suggest such parallel development should be encouraged so that young children may realize their musical potential as naturally and easily as they do their linguistic potential. Moreover, the learning of music can enhance the learning of language, and vice versa. This idea has long been promoted by music educators, such as Carl Orff and Zoltan Kodály. Orff believed in the unity of speech, music, and movement in artistic expression. Kodály considered traditional rhymes that reflect the natural speech rhythm to be important materials for music teachers. The two approaches, therefore, encourage the development of both linguistic and musical skills simultaneously. The Orff approach starts musical training from speech rhythm, traditional rhymes, and songs, which are then integrated with musical expression, movement, and creativity. Music and language learning experiences become an integrated whole. The Kodaly approach uses game songs that are highly repetitive and melodically simple to help build “inner-​hearing” (aural) skills and accurate singing (oral) skills. Those music activities could be valuable to the development of social skills and self-​confidence in children, including those children with special needs, whereby language experience, aural sensitivity and discrimination, and motor skills are cultivated in enjoyable and purposeful music game settings. Some contemporary music learning approaches support the principal of simultaneous development of musical and linguistic skills. Education Through Music (ETM) (Richards Institute of Education, 2011), which emphasizes language and communication experience through music games, is one example. ETM seeks to align with contemporary understanding of learning, motivation, child theory, and cognitive development. Similar to the Kodaly approach, it derives real-​life learning situations for children through “song-​experience-​ games.” The repetitive game format provides an incentive for children to engage in repeated practice in symbolizing its musical and linguistic elements and draws children to learn in an engaging and fun environment. Over the past two decades, the ETM approach has been implemented in Japanese schools as a musical tool for learning English as a second language (Richards Institute of Education, 2011).

Conclusion Infancy and early childhood are periods of enhanced perceptual flexibility (Trehub, 2006). For parents and educators, it is a period when children most

54

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

readily engage in musical exploration and creativity and are able to respond positively to musical activities that integrate with other areas of learning, such as language and social skills. Whereas the benefits of early childhood music education have received tremendous attention in recent years, we should not overlook how children are innately predisposed to take pleasure in music and language experience, which profoundly enhances the meeting of their developmental needs. Although all children have the potential to develop their musical abilities, not all environments maximize such development early in life. Unfortunately, due to the need in many language-​oriented societies for children to acquire linguistic skills as soon as possible for communication purposes, language is reinforced much more than music. So musical abilities have lagged behind, even though young children a­ rguably possess similar potential to develop both musical and linguistic skills. Thus parents and educators need to provide an environment that will encour­age a well-​balanced development of both music and language from the earliest stages. It is, therefore, imperative to pay special attention to selecting songs that are rich in linguistic stimuli. Songs that involve words with rhythmic articulations and prose with potentials for distinctive speech inflections provide developmentally appropriate music and language experiences for children. In this way, we will be able to promote an integrated approach to music and language learning. Such an approach will provide young children with the opportunities to explore their potentials to connect their musical and linguistic abilities and, thus, enhance the mutual development of music and language.

Reflective Questions



1. Observe and describe how (a) young children of three different age groups (zero to one year; two to three years; four to five years) communicate with adults and/​or peers, and (b) a mother, father, or adult caretaker communicates with a child. What are the musical and linguistic elements present in these communications? Are there any overlaps? 2. Observe and describe a typical music lesson for young children. To what extent are music and language connected in the lesson? 3. What are the benefits that children can gain through an integrated approach to music and language learning? 4. Design a lesson for young children that demonstrates an integrated approach to music and language learning. 5. Have you noticed any interconnectedness in language and music while working with children? Can you share some examples of your observations?

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 55

KEY SOURCES Chen-​Hafteck, L. (1999). Discussing text-​melody relationship in children’s song-​learning and singing: A Cantonese-​speaking perspective. Psychology of Music, 27(1), 55–​70. Papoušek, M., & Papoušek, H. (1981). Musical elements in the infant’s vocalisation: Their significance for communication, cognition, and creativity. In L. P. Iipsitt (ed.), Advances in infancy research (pp. 163–​224). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Trehub, S. E., Trainor, L. J., & Unyk, A. M. (1993). Music and speech processing in the first year of life. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 24, 1–​35.

NOTE 1 Note that the term “noise” is used by Crystal (1997).

REFERENCES Anvari, S. H., Trainor, L. J., Woodside, J., & Levy, B. A. (2002). Relations among musical skills, phonological processing, and early reading ability in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 111–​130. Blacking, J. (1967). Venda children’s songs. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Chen-​Hafteck, L. (1997). Music and language development in early childhood: Integrating past research in the two domains. Early Child Development and Care, 130, 85–​97. Chen-​Hafteck, L. (2007). Children, music, and culture:  A cross-​cultural perspective on musical development. In K. Smithrim & R. Upitis (eds.), Listen to their voices: Research and practice in early childhood music (pp. 140–​160). Toronto: Canadian Music Educators Association. Chen-​Hafteck, L. (2010). Enhancing the development of pitch perception and production through learning a tonal language. In M. Runfola & J. Rutkowski (eds.), TIPS: The child voice (pp. 75–​81). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Cruttenden, A. (1994). Phonetic and prosodic aspects of babytalk. In C. Galloway & B. J. Richards (eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 135–​152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Custodero, L. A. (2006). Singing practices in 10 families with young children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 37–​56. Deutsch, D., Henthorn, T., & Dolson, M. (2004). Speech patterns heard early in life influence later perception of the tritone paradox. Music Perception, 21, 357–​372. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Art and intimacy. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Douglas, S., & Willatts, P. (1994). The relationship between musical ability and literacy skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(2), 99–​107. Dowling, W. J. (1988). Tonal structure and children’s early learning of music. In J. Sloboda (ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 113–​128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

56

Lily Chen-Hafteck and Esther Mang

Eimas, P. D. (1985). The perception of speech in early infancy. Scientific American, 252(1), 46–​52. Franklin, M. S., Moore, K. S., Yip, C-​Y., Jonides, J., Rattrap, K., & Moher, J. (2008). The effects of musical training on verbal memory. Psychology of Music, 36(3), 353–​365. Fujita, F. (1990). The intermediate performance between talking and singing—​from an observational study of Japanese children’s music activities in nursery schools. In J. Dobbs (ed.), Music education: Facing the future (pp. 140–​146). Christchurch, NZ: ISME. Gaab, N., Tallal, P., Kim, H., Lakshminarayanan, K., Archie, J. J., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2005). Neural correlates of rapid spectrotemporal processing in musicians and nonmusicians. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 82–​88. Hannon, E. E., & Trainor, L. J. (2007). Music acquisition: Effects of enculturation and formal training on development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 466–​472. Ho, Y. C., Cheung, M. C., & Chan, A. S. (2003). Music training improves verbal but not visual memory: Cross-​sectional and longitudinal explorations in children. Neuropsychology, 17, 439–​450. Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A. C., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A., & Schlaug, G. (2009). Music training shapes structural brain development. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3019–​3025. Ivry, R. B., & Robertson, L. C. (1998). The two sides of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jentschke, S., Koelsch, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Investigating the relationship of music and language in children: Influences of musical training and language impairment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 231–​242. Kreutzer, N. J. (2001). Song acquisition among rural Shona-​speaking Zimbabwean children from birth to 7 years. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 198–​212. Magne, C., Schön, D., & Besson, M. (2006). Musician children detect pitch violations in both music and language better than nonmusician children: Behavioral and electrophysiological approaches. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(2), 199–​211. Mang, E. (2001). Intermediate vocalizations:  An investigation of the boundary between speech and songs in young children’s vocalizations. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education, 147, 116–​121. Mang, E. (2006). The effects of age, gender and language on children’s singing competency. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 161–​174. Mang, E. (2007). Speech-​song interface of Chinese speakers. Music Education Research, 9(1), 49–​64. Masataka, N. (1999). Preference for infant-​directed singing in 2-​day-​old hearing infants of deaf parents. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 1001–​1005. Milovanov, R., & Tervaniemi, M. (2011). The interplay between musical and linguistic aptitudes: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 321. doi:10.3389/​fpsyg.2011.00321 Mithen, S. (2005). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind and body. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Overy, K. (2003). Dyslexia and music: From timing deficits to musical intervention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 497–​505. Özdemir, E., Norton, A., & Schlaug, G. (2006). Shared and distinct neural correlates of singing and speaking. Neuroimage, 33(2), 628–​635. Papoušek, H. (1996). Musicality in infancy research: Biological and cultural origins of early musicality. In I. Deliege & J. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 37–​55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Music and Language in Early Childhood Development and Learning 57 Papoušek, M. (1996). Intuitive parenting: A hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In I. Deliege & J. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 88–​112). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parncutt, R. (2006). Prenatal development. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician (pp. 1–​31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Patel, A. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. New York: Oxford University Press. Peretz, I., & Hyde, K. L. (2003). What is specific to music processing? Insights from congenital amusia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 362–​367. Portowitz, A., & Klein, P. S. (2007). MISC-​MUSIC:  A music program to enhance cognitive processing among children with learning difficulties. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3), 259–​271. Richards Institute of Education. (2011). Education through music:  About the institute. Retrieved from http://​richardsinstitute.org/​Default.aspx?pg=41. Rutkowski, J., Chen-​Hafteck, L., & Gluschankof, C. (2002). Children’s vocal connections: A cross-​cultural study of the relationship between first graders’ use of singing voice and their speaking ranges. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the ISME Early Childhood Conference (pp. 39–​50). Copenhagen: Danish University of Education. Schön, D., Boyer, M., Moreno, S., Bison, M., Perutz, I., & Kolinsky, R. (2008). Songs as an aid for language acquisition. Cognition, 106(2), 975–​983. Schraer-​Joiner, L., & Chen-​Hafteck, L. (2009). The responses of preschoolers with cochlear implants to musical activities: A multiple case study. Early Child Development and Care, 179(6), 785–​798. Seeman, E. (2008). Implementation of music activities to increase language skills in the at-​risk early childhood population. Unpublished M.A.  thesis, Saint Xavier University, Chicago. Snowling, M., & Thomson, M. (eds.) (1993). Dyslexia:  Integrating theory and practice. London: Whurr. Trainor, L. J. (1996). Infant preferences for infant-​ directed versus non-​ infant-​ directed playsongs and lullabies. Infant Behavior and Development, 19(2), 83–​92. Trehub, S. E. (2006). Infants as musical connoisseurs. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician (pp. 33–​49). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trehub, S. E., & Nakata, T. (2001/​2002). Emotion and music in infancy. Musicæ Scientiæ, Special Issue, 37–​61. Trollinger, V. L. (2004). Preschool children’s pitch accuracy in relation to participation in Cantonese-​immersion preschools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(3), 218–​233. Welch, G. F. (2006). The musical development and education of young children. In B. Spode & O. Saracho (eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 251–​ 267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wong, P. C., Sloe, E., Russo, N. M., Dees, T., & Kraus, N. (2007). Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 420–​422. Woodward, S. C. (1992). The transmission of music into the human uterus and the response to music of the human fetus and neonate. Unpublished doctoral diss., University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Chapter 5

MUSICAL PARTICIPATION FROM BIRTH TO THREE: TOWARD A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

Very young children develop musically by participating in a variety of practices that occur in the complex worlds of their everyday lives. These complex worlds include the children’s families and intergenerational social networks, child-​care and nursery settings, and a range of local, community organizations. Each of these is, in turn, interwoven with wider cultural influences, both actual and virtual. Increasingly, young children in industrialized and nonindustrialized countries move between different environments, and although many of the world’s young children may still spend their first years in one fairly stable context, even this will likely include the homes of extended family, neighbors, villagers, and surrounding community (Lancy, 2008; Tudge, 2008). As it happens, many children have access to forms of institutionalized music provision, whether as part of day care, private classes, or nursery education, but the majority1 of the world’s children do not. So this chapter, concerned as it is with the music education of very young children, attempts to take a broad and all-​encompassing view across a diversity and multiplicity of settings and ways of learning in music. Formal music education in schools, being an invention of Western societies, tends to draw attention to the opportunities provided by societies for children to participate in structured, formal

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

59

education; but these are only one facet of all the music learning opportunities available to young children. These musical worlds for young children with their carers are shaped by larger cultural, political, and economic forces and institutions. These larger forces are based on varying ideologies, creating different norms for participation. It has been widely recognized, for example, that the earliest years can be of major importance in shaping behaviors and subsequent learning, not only in music, but overall (see Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Although far from being a universal trend, the early years of childhood have been high on political agendas in some parts of the world. In a number of industrialized countries, national guidelines now set out requirements for general early years practice that are mandatory and that shape environments in which musical opportunities are included. These guidelines may include varying levels of specification and expectations for children’s learning in music. In the United Kingdom, for example, the national drive toward raising standards in language skills, spelled out in early years policy and guidance, pulls music in to the service of communication and language development. Taking another example of these “larger forces,” the “for profit” motives of entrepreneurial organizations offering music classes and other resources are influencing the range and nature of musical opportunities available for many young children (see Paul, 2009). These musical worlds become even more complex because neither societies nor their institutions are static but change over time in a dynamic interaction—​as will be seen ahead—​between types of activity, traditions, material circumstances and economics.

Current Context During the last 10–​20 years, there has been a rapid expansion of research and practice in early childhood music education. As a consequence, a division of labor has emerged between early years and later years music education research and practice, with the early years usually occupying a distinct and separate field. Early childhood music education is complicated by the patchwork of provision for young children that exists in many countries (e.g., Andango & Mugo, 2008; Ilari, 2007), the underlying orientation (care, education, development) that marks its goals in different settings, and the variety of approaches and diversity of professionals working in the field. These complications add to its distinction from the primarily school-​based, largely teacher-​focused concerns of mainstream music education. The ways the very young learn music have been researched and analyzed, resulting in a coherent body of work around some key areas such as learning to sing, the development of aural abilities, and rhythmic movement, to name a few (Young, 2000). There has been considerable interest in researching music in babyhood, where certain laboratory experimental techniques can be applied (e.g.,

60

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

Adachi & Trehub, ­chapter 2) and there is a relatively generous number of studies once children enter in to nursery education aged around three years. Research is in short supply in the “toddler” years of one year to three. It is also in short supply from the more difficult-​to-​access contexts of home and everyday life. We have, as yet, very little information about how the majority of the world’s children participate and learn in music within and across the multiplicity of contexts and settings that make up their worlds. In sum, then, early childhood music education has a few distinct areas of research-​based information from which to draw, but there are many wide and serious gaps.

Theoretical Framework and Principles The last three decades have seen the emergence of a new discipline of childhood studies, made up of contributions from sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies (see Qvortrup, Corsaro, & Honig, 2009). This new discipline has reexamined the ways children and their lives have been understood and analyzed, thereby challenging many dominating and universalizing ideas about them. Childhood studies acknowledges that children undergo recognizable patterns of development and growth, but argues that the meanings given to these vary enormously within and between cultures. As a result, childhood studies calls for taken-​for-​granted categories such as childhood, babyhood, toddlerhood, and families to be critically examined and rethought. It also suggests that a focus on development neglects the activities, expectations, and resources of a whole host of socializing institutions—​ parents, educators, community adults, media providers, commercial entrepreneurs, marketers, welfare bodies, arts organizations, politicians, governments—​and the way these mediate and shape early years educational experiences in their broadest sense. In early childhood music education, childhood studies is just beginning to have an influence. A critical reexamination of orientating concepts has also taken place in music, with ethnomusicology making a similar contribution in raising awareness of cultural diversity and of music as social practice (see Nettl, 2005; Turino, 2008). Ethnomusicology with its companion fields of music sociology and popular music studies helps us to see how music, conceptions of musicality, and musical practices are culturally embedded and culturally diverse. In particular, it has helped us to understand music as an activity to be engaged in and made between people, rather than as a “thing” to be learnt, or a set of uniform skills to be imparted, and, moreover, to see how music and musical practices are ever-​changing. Looking through an ethnomusicological lens at young children’s music illuminates the way that music interweaves their whole social lives, not just music in the narrow context of educational settings.

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

61

The overall implication of these important shifts in thinking is that a greater effort and different theoretical frames are required to understand children’s musical development and participation in musical activities from the perspective of their social and cultural contexts. The work of Barbara Rogoff (2003) offers one such theoretical frame.

Participation Rogoff (2003) has made careful study of how children learn in everyday life, at home, and in community contexts, not only in schooling. From this work she arrived at a broad notion of children’s learning and development occurring through participation in the sociocultural activities of their communities. Participation, as an orientating concept, fits well with the idea of music as fundamentally about different forms of participation in culturally meaningful musical activities. For young children, musical learning becomes, then, synonymous with joining in a social activity. Learning is meaningful because it is embedded in the social and physical context within which it is used; it is not detached and abstract. Skills and knowledge are situated within the practice, rather than existing in objective form as things to be learnt. Importantly, Rogoff (2003) also emphasizes that the ways children participate and appropriate from their activities, present cultural variations. The concept of participation is of critical importance in the many everyday, nonschool contexts for learning—​an aspect of Rogoff ’s theory that is particularly relevant to very young children. She emphasizes the relationships between different contexts, highlighting the importance of the wider contexts of society, culture, religion, economics, and historical backgrounds and how these all interact. As an example to illustrate, in a recent project to explore how we might successfully work in music with women recently arrived into the United Kingdom from Somalia and Afghanistan, understanding the religious, social, and cultural values and priorities through which they received the work was paramount; and indeed understanding the economic, political, and historical factors that had caused their migration. The usual approach in working with young children and their families is to present songs and music activities as if they are neutral and stand alone, with less thought as to the families’ backgrounds or how they perceive the songs and activities. Yet this project taught us to reverse our view and to enquire and think carefully about the realities of each family’s circumstances first, before embarking on the detail of activity. Such experiences also remind us that there are important cultural variations related to conceptions of parenting and the musical aspirations and goals parents hold for their children (Lancy, 2008) and that education practices need to be designed with reference to all those wider dimensions. Taking a view of learning as participation, as embedded within everyday activity and the environments for young children made available in different cultural

62

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

contexts, also draws our attention to the ways much of that learning is implicit and unintentional rather than deliberate. In contrast, most curricularized or formalized learning experiences involve activities out of context, where the learning is purposive. Education practice with older children is often described as being either “formal” or “informal” to take account of in-​context, everyday learning (informal) in contrast with school-​based learning (formal). But in our view to use these terms for early childhood music sets up an oversimple opposite that fails to capture its nature and complexity. For young children in particular, the majority, if not all, of whose learning takes place in informal, noninstitutionalized contexts, the distinction is not very helpful. We prefer, therefore, to conceptualize very young children’s learning as taking place across a network of different strands that interweave (some interlinking and some blending) and adopt Eraut’s ideas of intention in learning to help distinguish the various strands. Eraut (2000) has considered the level of intention in learning and the extent to which learning is implicit, reactive, or deliberative. According to Eraut there is a distinction between implicit learning, which occurs with little conscious awareness of what is being absorbed as part of ongoing activity; reactive learning, where learning takes place spontaneously in response to current activity; and deliberative learning, which occurs in times set aside and is planned for. Eraut was interested in adult, self-​guided learning and takes a more individualistic than social view of learning. So, in applying his model to early childhood, we have added to Eraut’s analytical categories descriptions of whether the children are learning collaboratively or working individually, and who initiates and leads the learning (see table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Adaptation of Eraut’s levels of intention in learning to the early years Implicit

Reactive

Deliberative

Family

Everyday music in the Imitation and self-​ family directed musical activity. Modeled input by family members and extended kin.

Directed activity by family members, such as programs which include activities to continue at home

Commercial (direct and via media)

Children’s and family music resources in the home

Imitative music play—​self-​directed music play with music resources

Private classes and resources that include an instructive element.

Education and care environments

“Embedded” music

Self-​initiated music play and adult responsive co-​play

Structured music sessions led by staff

Imitation: absorbed and interactive engagement

Community music occasions

Neighborhoods and Absorbed or partial wider culture (actual engagement to music and virtual via media) for and by musicians

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

63

Leading on from our conception of early childhood music as forms of participation characterized by different levels of intention, the questions then become: What forms of participatory opportunities for music are available to young children? How do young children participate in these musical activities? What and how do children learn? These questions are explored along with illustrative examples derived from our own experiences.

Strands of Musical Participation In Families, at Home It is a very hot summer’s day. Two-​year-​old Beatrice and her parents are staying indoors in their small apartment in Florence. She has just woken up from a nap and, still drowsy, sits on her mother’s knee. Her mother plays a simple lap game with Beatrice, rocking her rhythmically to and fro to improvised words translated from the Italian as “Pull and pull and pull and let go.” At the final point, her mother pretends to let go so that Beatrice will fall backward, except that she doesn’t fall far (of course) and is caught firmly in her mother’s hands. Beatrice asks for the game to be repeated. Her mother does it again and then again. But as Beatrice gets excited, her mother ceases the game and turns her attention elsewhere. Later in the day, both Beatrice’s parents are busy in the kitchen, so they take her into the sitting room and invite her to select a favorite song cassette to play. The one chosen is a collection of children’s songs. Beatrice listens for a little while alone, but then fetches her father in. He sits and listens, joining in with parts of the song, and in another song with actions, models the actions with and for her. He carefully watches her, providing both encouragement and small well-​judged singing and action inputs to support her joining in with the songs. Later still, when getting a little tired in the evening, Beatrice is sitting on the large family sofa and the Disney video Snow White is put on for her to watch. The expansive, dramatic Disney orchestral film music fills the room.2

Music in the everyday contexts of home among family members3 is integrated with and embedded into other activities, as with this Italian family, and therefore the learning is more implicit than reactive or deliberative (see also Ilari & Young, 2016). Musical engagement is for the “here and now,” for the children’s “being” rather than “becoming.” Musical activities follow the needs and desires of those family members present, perhaps for distraction, to blend with and render work or other tasks more pleasant and easier in some way, for entertainment, enjoyment, celebration, and quality of life (see Barrett, 2009; Custodero, 2006). A more experienced other, adult or older child, may explicitly model some aspect and guide the child’s participation—​perhaps singing along and directing his singing at the child, or carrying her to join in a dance or in some other way moving their bodies rhythmically. The adults may watch, encourage, support, and enable young

64

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

children’s participation, but without preplanned or instructional structure, as in the Florentine home. In some family settings, music may occupy a more central role as the economic activity of the parents or as an important unpaid or leisure occupation. Describing their upbringing (Tang, 2006), the griots of West Africa emphasized their peripheral participation in adult drumming activity and how, even as very young children, they imitated drumming with makeshift tin can or plastic bucket drums. Turino (2008) also draws on his evidence of musical practices in diverse communities to suggest that musical abilities are largely due to early formation of socially valued activities that are modeled and shaped by values of key people around the child and reinforced by encouragement and praise. Young and Gillen (2010) suggest that: The extent to which child-​focussed, rather than adult-​focussed musical activities in families are provided varies. In some “minority-​world” homes, provision for child-​centred, playful activity may be considerable, particularly where parents have absorbed culturally dominant messages about the value and importance of educationally orientated playful activity from the start. Small, reactive, intentional learning moments may be woven into ongoing, everyday, and informal activity (p. 74).

The only instances of deliberative learning in families at home might occur where children are participating in music learning programs that have a distinct, home-​ learning component; such as early-​stage Suzuki instrumental learning or song-​ learning programs based on CDs. However, whatever the nature of activities, motivation on the part of children is likely to be more intrinsic. Their involvement will depend on both how parents conceive of their parenting role and other factors such as family size, and how busy the mother is with domestic and outside work. In nonindustrialized countries it will also depend on the musical interests and practices of extended kin, nannies, and other carers of young children, as many parents are frequently absent from the home environment due to work-​related commitments.

Commercial In Montreal, a group of wealthy Chassidic women and their toddlers consent a music class for toddlers in a “ready-​made” program. With the permission of the rabbi, they meet for a class every Thursday morning. The music teacher begins the class with a good morning song, and the women observe but do not sing. A movement song about teddy bears follows and once again, the women do not fully engage in it, although some children respond by shaking their bodies or babbling. Other activities follow and, once again, a similar reaction. The only sounds in the room are the voices of children and music teacher. As the class ends, the women get ready to leave and speak to one another in Yiddish, now enthusiastically, all holding their bags with instruments, props, CDs. The music teacher watches the scene in silence. In spite of her excellent musical abilities and

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

65

many years working as a preschool teacher, she keeps wondering whether it is the performing aspect of music that makes her nervous and therefore unsuccessful with the class.

Contexts for learning are often conceptualized as ever-​expanding circles of family as inner circle, care and learning environments as the next, wider cultural organizations, and so on. Yet the commercial, corporate world pervades all these dimensions, networked across and through them (Hughes, 2005; Paul, 2009). Corporate versions of music for children infiltrate the home via multi-​ media (Young, 2008), are represented in private classes, and are present in the resources available in settings in many parts of the world. The reach of commercial music extends deep into nonindustrialized countries (Ilari, Moura, & Bourscheidt, 2011). The commodification of music for young children extends into the provision of private music programs where the “for profit” motive aims to make the music class attractive to prospective purchasers, as in the Montreal class, where there was apparently no attempt to connect the proposed musical activities with the children’s lifestyles. Here the learning is highly deliberative. The content is often franchised with uniform materials and methods in a traditionally didactic mold that serves to affirm constructions of musical childhoods held by the parents. Children are introduced to a repertoire of children’s songs and some related activities, usually with the goal of developing the “whole child” as well as socializing the child. Many of these “ready made” programs emphasize cognitive gains and music as a medium for giving the child a “head start.” These programs have been partially based on the emerging understanding of early brain growth that has fueled politicians’, music providers’, and parents’ desires that there may be ways to accelerate brain development and raise levels of intelligence (for a discussion see Young, 2005). Small (and at times nonsignificant) findings have been raised to the level of certainty, and causal links have been assumed, all reinforced by “heavy” marketing strategies. The internet has also allowed for the presentation of “brand” images of happy children, with testimonials designed to appeal to parents, often accompanied by evidence of research to show the success of the program in raising achievement in aspects, such as math scores, prized by parents. Thus, the privileging of expert knowledge, which characterizes middle-​class parenting irrespective of country (Furedi, 2001), is harnessed for commercial gains. Most parents and teachers have neither the time nor the training to submit the claims to the scrutiny they deserve. Studies of home environments have also revealed the plethora of musical items, such as toy instruments, music-​playing and sound-​making toys, mobiles, CDs, and media playing equipment, which are available to children in different homes around the world (e.g., Ilari, Moura, & Bourscheidt, 2011; Young, 2008). These items provide a multiplicity of opportunities for implicit learning and also reactive learning, with children initiating their own experiences in response to the learning-​engendering properties of the items. The desire on the part of parents to provide toys that are both

66

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

educational and entertaining has led to the term “edutainment.” For busy parents, there are also often subtle messages that the toys will take over some aspects of the parenting role; comforting children to sleep, as surrogate companions, even as song and language partners (Paul, 2009).

Education and Care Environments In a private nursery in a relatively affluent suburb of London, six three-​year-​olds are gathering around a table for “snack time.” The arrival of the food is delayed, and so the carer, Linda, who is sitting with the children, starts to sing a song, one that incorporates each child’s name in turn. She changes the words to suit the present situation—​that they are “waiting, waiting, waiting for our snack.” One child knows the song fairly well and joins in with phrases of the song that are almost complete. Another can only manage certain repetitive words and short motifs. Another taps an empty mug on the table, two others continue to play with the leg of the table, taking no obvious part in the song-​singing at all, and one watches and listens very intently, but does not actively participate. Linda has a repertoire of such children’s nursery songs, for daily routines and lining up, for playing out-​of-​doors, for soothing the children to sleep, and more. Often she changes and adapts songs to suit a situation, happily improvising and playing with the songs. The children, in turn, often initiate song-​singing with her, and she takes up the invitation to sing. There are some instruments in this day care, the usual simple percussion instruments that are regularly found in such settings, but these are kept on a fairly high shelf. Linda confesses she rarely gets them out, as it’s “so noisy” when the children play with them, but she adds that she knows she “ought to,” as free play with instruments is one of the requirements in the National Framework Guidance for early years practice.

In education and care environments, opportunities for children to participate in and learn from musical activity are highly intentional, designed to engender or impart some kind of learning, and may vary between implicit, reactive, and deliberate, often depending on how the balance between “education” and “care” shapes the nature of experiences with which children are provided. Increasingly care environments for babies and very young children in the industrialized world are being encouraged to identify and plan for the learning content of activities, as in the London day-​care center. Early years education and care occupy delineated times and places, with special educational resources, including special children’s music (Young, 2000). In the network of children’s music worlds, of which we spoke earlier, education and care environments represent a very distinctive strand. In these settings, numbers of children are grouped, usually according to age,4 and adults provide for, structure, and manage the children’s activities and encourage their motivation. In this deliberative mode of learning, adults are likely to offer more explicit instructional modes of behavior than the everyday practices where learning is implicit. These more explicit instructional models may be designed around a strong image of the child as becoming; the future-​oriented goals of education are strong drivers. In contrast everyday musical activity may be more about “being” in the

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

67

present than “becoming.” Deciding which types of experience will best foster the acquisition of skills and competences required by society carries therefore wider implications. Preparing children for their future becomes a highly meaningful, politically charged, and ideologically loaded activity. Types of experience will often be formulated on a conceptualization of “good” musical development, and such conceptions are anchored in a relationship between social practices and their connecting values. In nursery settings adopting the ­principles of Reggio Emilia, for example, “good” musical development may be conceptualized as the maturing of children’s own creative resources in making their own music in order to foster free-​thinking children who can engage in democratic decision-​making with one another. By way of contrast, many Hong Kong preschools place high value on Western classical music and strive to give children a structured and skills-​based introduction to music, even from the youngest ages, in a society that values diligence, hard work; and achievement. These examples denote two main, broad conceptions of what counts as quality in children’s musical development, which in turn frame how education is designed: the one child-​centered, the other content or music-​centered. From a child-​centered perspective, the child is conceived to be innately capable, and the aim of education is to draw out and build on the child’s unique musical capabilities, often in improvisational activities that prize children’s own musical processes and productions. From a music-​centered perspective, the child is more likely to be considered a blank sheet; the child is understood to have the potential to acquire musical skills and knowledge, but the content and skills need to be simplified so that they can be imparted to the child and built up incrementally. A music-​centered perspective depends on some kind of preplanned sequencing of learning framed by a curriculum. Conceptions of “good” musical development are also stratified by income. Andango and Mugo (2008) discuss early childhood music education in Kenya, where the preschool setting staff serving poor communities sing and dance to music, traditional to their local regions of Kenya, whereas educators working in more affluent communities introduce “Western”-​style children’s songs and activities. In some nonindustrialized parts of the world, such as some South American countries, many advocate for the presentation of repertoires that are appreciated by or that represent a cultural and economic elite to children, as a way to “tame the savage mind” from babyhood onwards (Ilari, 2007). Furthermore, in some parts of the world it is also common to have music with a nationalistic content or music that is ideologically indoctrinating introduced early on in the lives of children, thus serving more explicit political agendas.

Neighborhoods and Wider Culture It is about 8:00 p.m. and pouring in the city of Rio de Janeiro. A large crowd of spectators gathers around the stage of the well-​known Circo Voador [Flying Circus] arena to hear Luciane Menezes and the Pau da Braúna group perform traditional Brazilian rhythms such as jongo, toadas de boi, and cirandas.5

68

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari The group is well known for the ways it engages the audience, and the open space of the circus arena seems perfect to accommodate singers, watchers, clappers, and dancers alike. A ciranda invites the audience to make a circle holding hands. Yet the space is too crowded, so four or five concentric circles are quickly made, and one can see the delight in people’s faces as well as their bodies moving from right to left or from left to right in perfect synchrony with the music. Suddenly (and apparently from nowhere) a young man moves to the center of the smallest circle and holds a baby boy, no older than one, on his shoulders. Quiet at first, the baby then moves his arms and body up and down, and claps as he observes the scene in delight: a massive crowd moving, one circle to the right, the other one to the left, turning the circus arena into a wonderful human mosaic. All eyes are turned to him, as if he were flying.

In our conceptualization of musical participation in its many interweaving strands, this strand is possibly the least distinct. Babies and the youngest children are unlikely to go independently into the neighborhood, so it clearly connects strongly with their families and extended kin. It relates to how young children participate as a family in the musical practices of their sociocultural environments and how those practices are imbued with the values and aspirations of those communities. Opportunities are granted in everyday life, by means of participation in community musical experiences of all sorts (for a discussion, see Volume 4, Part 2). The “flying baby” of Rio de Janeiro on a rainy night would probably be considered inappropriate by many middle-​class parents, not only due to the overall loudness of the place but also due to the fact that a young child is out of the house past his bedtime. Yet this is a common practice in some families, as some parents believe that such early exposure will result in both better socialization skills and the development of musical abilities in the young child (see also Mans, 2002). It also strengthens family participation and sense of belonging to the community.

Influences on Pedagogy in Education and Care Environments Having offered a broad overview of very young children’s music learning and considered it across the range of contexts in which contemporary young children live out their musical lives, in this final section we take a closer look at one strand, that of children’s music learning in education and care environments and the different forms of influence that are brought to bear on the design of pedagogical approaches in these contexts. Our aim is to move from a wide-​angle-​lens view to a closer consideration of pedagogy that is the immediate concern of music educators, before drawing the threads of the chapter to a conclusion.

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

69

Children’s Musicality The child study movement of the early part of the century motivated the Pillsbury Nursery studies of 1937–​1944. Children from the age of 18  months upwards attended the nursery where the staff made provision for the children’s spontaneous ­ music-​ making in singing and playing with instruments and through careful ­observation and collection of their activities, wrote several booklets detailing the children’s own musical outpourings (Moorhead & Pond, 1941). Following the Pillsbury studies there has been a small, but distinct, lineage of activity seeking to collect and understand children’s spontaneous creative musical activity, by those interested in what children produce of their own accord. Varying theoretical influences, of Piagetian schema and explorative play for example, have given this lineage of studies differently framed impetuses along the way. This activity has led to conceptualizations of practice as child-​centered, and the importance of following the interests of the child. A revision of Western ideas of musicality as being linked to innate talent, rather than a potential possessed by all, has strengthened the child-​centered movement. Models of practice that provide children with opportunities for exploration of their own musical ideas fit well with the principles of general early childhood pedagogical practice in minority world contexts, dedicated as they are to the centrality of play as a medium for learning. While exploratory play with educational percussion instruments is a common provision in many nursery settings, the children can be left to their own devices with little supportive or extending input from the adults. Influences from theories that understand learning to be extended through processes of shared musical thinking with a more experienced partner, an adult usually therefore, have emphasized the adult role in interacting with and extending children’s self-​ initiated musical play.

Pedagogical Theories In many industrialized countries learning and pedagogy have been, and continue to be, strongly influenced by developmental psychology, supplemented in recent years by research into the musical capabilities of babies and very young children. This theoretical perspective has been mostly shaped in the United States through discourses of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). In music DAP usually takes the model of adult-​led input in which the songs and activities have been deliberately designed to conform to the presumed ages and stages of children’s musical development (NAEYC, 2009). While music psychology proposes that there are norms of musical development that can apply to all children, a sociological view of childhood challenges this, pointing out the impossibility of fixing uniform pathways of development that could be appropriate to all children in all contexts. The principles of the Italian nurseries of Reggio Emilia, for example, have influenced pedagogical practice in

70

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

other parts of Europe, particularly Scandinavia. The approach emphasizes the uniqueness of individual children and enables them to evolve their own learning pathways in dialogue between adult educators and children. Children’s i­ ndependent and idiosyncratic thinking is valued, and creative responses to materials and ideas are encouraged.

Embedded Models Ideas of “everyday” music—​that children do not separate out music from ongoing activity and that it is interwoven with their everyday lives—​have influenced models of music practice in care settings for babies and the very young. Accordingly, sound-​making, instrumental, movement, and song play activities may be integrated into a range of self-​initiated general play activities offered to children in care settings. Songs and other musical activities may be included as part of routines, to assist with the physical care and management of children and to encourage sociability (Suthers, 2004; Young, 2000). These models of practice have an important additional advantage in that they are more accessible to practitioners working day-​to-​day in settings, being less reliant on specialist music-​leadership skills.

Studies of Mother-​Infant Interaction Since the 1970s, there has been a considerable rise of interest in and revised conceptions of babies, even from birth, as being competent, rather than incompetent as originally thought. This work has drawn attention to the musical qualities of the exchanges between adults and babies and the very young (see Trevarthen & Malloch, ­chapter 3). It offers, for example, a theoretical frame for understanding the simple rocking lap game between the Italian mother and her daughter. As a consequence, educators have come to recognize the value of providing musical input and classes for babies and the very young. Many early childhood music education programs now emphasize empathetic interaction through singing between parents and their babies or young children. Practice framed by studies of mother-​infant interaction research often connects with welfare and philanthropic concerns to intervene in the upbringing of very young babies by their parents. The paradox here is that apparently “biological” and “natural” parenting behaviors analyzed in the laboratory often convert into an expert version that is then adopted as the basis of interventions. Setting up such ideals of musical parenting, however, may be a minority world priority. While studies of musical parenting worldwide are scarce, there are many more studies of adult-​infant interaction revealing a wide variation in styles. The combination of the above-​mentioned factors with distinct repertoires, strands of participation, beliefs, and values concerning music and childhood helps to compose the complex mosaic of music in the lives of young children,

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

71

from babyhood onward. These in turn are influenced to a larger or lesser extent by global and local contexts and by the many changes taking place in our world.

Conclusions In this chapter we have looked at children’s musical learning from a broad perspective, encompassing the many different kinds of situation and types of musical participation from which children learn. Music educators concerned with the music education of very young children mainly, understandably, concern themselves at the micro-​level with the day-​to-​day detail of what to teach and how, and rarely take a meta-​level view. A wide-​angle-​lens view reveals this diversity of forms of participation and raises awareness that musical learning happens not only in conventional educational settings or music class and is subject to many different influences. Further, the forms and structure of these settings impinge on how the children participate, how they learn, what they can take from the musical input, and from what they might most benefit. A wide-​angled view encourages analysis of the conceptions of young children as musical and what constitutes “good” musical development in terms of social values, and encourages consideration of how these shape practice. As an example, the music teacher who brought materials and methods that had been entirely appropriate with other groups of mothers and children to the Chassidic group was confounded with the mothers’ lack of engagement. Rethinking the conceptions and assumptions that lie behind what seems unproblematic in practice enables the revisioning of practice and expansion of pedagogical repertoires so that opportunities for all children are increased. Young children’s musical lives, worldwide, are certainly not static and will continue to change. Some of the most striking changes are brought about by the influx of new technologies—​from radio or TV sets to sophisticated digital players and computers in the most remote rural villages, not to mention urban areas—​and are likely to become even more so. Middle-​class children and their families are also likely to continue exploring new products in an ever-​growing market of music-​related, edutainment goods. And although it may never keep up with the market, research will continue in its attempts to follow these trends, bringing certain claims to scrutiny. As an example, it was not very long ago that the Walt Disney Company had to offer reimbursements to buyers of the best-​selling and award-​winning Baby Einstein musical videos that promised to educate young children, after researchers debunked these claims (Campaign for a Commercial-​Free Childhood, 2010). Thus, a dynamic interplay between research, market, institutionalized, and noninstitutionalized musical practices in the early years will hopefully grow and help educators to become more critically aware of practices in early childhood music education and the various

72

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

influences and motives by which it is increasingly shaped. This is again an example of raising awareness that supports independent decision-​making about the detail of what to teach and how, and enables educators to remain responsive to change. There are small strands of research and theorizing of early childhood music education practice emerging that consider cultural diversity, and the influence of new technologies and of market forces on forms of musical participation for very young children. We would like to see these areas of research and theory develop, and develop hand in hand with exploratory, research-​driven approaches to new forms of practice. These expanding areas of activity could—​should, in our view—​link up with critical perspectives. As yet there is scarcely any critical analysis of many of the traditional practical methods and approaches in early childhood music. For the future we would like to see practice that is strongly theorized and supported by empirical research, where critical thinking analyzes the assumptions of childhood and of music on which practice is constructed, and where children may be provided with opportunities to participate in an abundance of richly humanizing musical activity.

Reflective Questions

1. How can early years practitioners working in multicultural contexts be more culturally sensitive when developing musical activities for children and families? 2. In what ways can musical practices from children’s homes be incorporated into routines of day care and other early years settings in a meaningful way? 3. How can early years practitioners work with parents to support and extend young children’s musical experiences and learning? 4. Should popular culture content and digital technologies be used in early childhood music education? If so, how and why? 5. In what ways do representations of childhood held by practitioners affect their musical practices with young children?

KEY SOURCES Burton, S. L., & Taggart, C. C. (2011). Learning from young children:  Research in early childhood music education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Custodero, L., & Hafteck, L. C. (2007/​2008). International perspectives on early childhood music education. Special Issues. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(2–​3). DeLoache, J., & Chiong, C. (2009). Babies and baby media. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(8), 1115–​1135.

Musical Participation from Birth to Three

73

DeLoache, J., & Gottlieb, A. (2000). A world of babies: Imagined childcare guides for seven societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smithrim, K., & Upitis, R. (eds.) (2007). Listen to their voices: Research and practice in early childhood music. Vol. 3. Research to Practice: A Biennial Series. Lee Bartel (ed.). Canadian Music Educators Association.

WEBSITES A Day in the Life Research Project: http://​dayinthelife.open.ac.uk/​. Anthropology of childhood:  http://​www.anthropologyofchildhood.usu.edu/​coursesyllabi. html. Digital beginnings (research report): http://​www.digitalbeginnings.shef.ac.uk/​.

NOTES 1. We adopt the terms “majority and minority” to refer to the nonindustrialized or developing world (majority) and industrialized or developed world (minority). The terms refer to the populations of children and are used widely as terms which are more neutral than many alternative comparative terms (refer to Fleer, Hedegaard & Tudge, 2009). 2. This vignette is taken from the Day in the Life Project (S. Young and J. Gillen, 2010). 3. We are aware that a few babies and very young children may be living in orphanages or children’s care homes. 4. In Scandinavian preschools children are often in mixed aged groupings, although still all preschool age. 5. Three genres of traditional Brazilian music. The jongo is an Afro-​Brazilian dance form found primarily in Southern Brazil (e.g., states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro), which is sung in call-​response and accompanied by drumming and hand clapping. Toadas de boi are narrative songs that are commonly heard in Northeastern Brazil (state of Maranhão). Cirandas are circle dances also found in Northeastern Brazil (Pernambuco state) and accompanied by drums.

REFERENCES Andango, E., & Mugo, J. (2008). Early childhood music education in Kenya: Between broad national policies and local realities. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(2), 43–​52. Barrett, M. S. (2009). Sounding lives in and through music:  A “narrative inquiry” of the everyday musical engagement of a young child. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(2), 115–​134. Campaign for a Commercial-​Free Childhood. (2010). CCFC Victory: Disney offers refunds on Baby Einstein videos. Retrieved from http://​www.commercialfreechildhood.org/​ babyeinsteinrefund.html.

74

Susan Young and Beatriz Ilari

Custodero, L. A. (2006). Singing practices in ten families. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 37–​56. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-​formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge. In F. Coffield (ed.), The necessity of informal learning (pp. 12–​31). Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Fleer, M., Hedegaard, M., & Tudge, J. (eds.) (2009). World yearbook of education 2009—​ Childhood studies and the impact of globalization: Policies and practices at global and local levels. London: Routledge. Furedi, F. (2001). Paranoid parenting. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. Hughes, P. (2005). Baby, it’s you:  International capital discovers the under threes. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(6), 30–​40. Ilari, B. (2007). Music and early childhood in the Tristes Tropiques: The Brazilian experience. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(2), 7–​18. Ilari, B., Moura, A., & Bourscheidt, L. (2011). Between interactions and commodities: Musical parenting of infants and toddlers in Brazil. Music Education Research, 31 (1), 51–​67. Ilari, B., & Young, S. (2016) Children’s home musical experiences across the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lancy, D. (2008). The anthropology of childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mans, M. (2002). Playing the music: Comparing children’s song and dance in Namibian education. In L. Bresler & C. M. Thompson (eds.), The arts in children’s lives: Context, culture and curriculum (pp. 71–​86). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1941). The music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation Study. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate Practice. Retrieved from http://​www.naeyc.org/​files/​naeyc/​file/​positions/​position%20statement%20Web.pdf Nettl, B. (2005). The study of Ethnomusicology. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Paul, P. (2009). Parenting Inc: How the billion dollar baby business has changed the way we raise our children. New York: Times Books. Qvortrup, J., Corsaro, W., & Honig, M. S. (eds.) (2009). The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, P. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods:  The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Suthers, L. (2004). Music experiences for toddlers in day care centres. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29, 45–​50. Tang, P. (2006). Telling histories: Memory, childhood and the construction of modern Griot identity. In S. Boynton & R. Kok (eds.), Musical childhoods (pp. 105–​120). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Tudge, J. (2008). The everyday lives of young children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turino, T. (2008). Music as social life:  The politics of participation. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. Young, S. (2000). Music with the under fours. London: Routledge. Young, S. (2005). Changing tune:  Reconceptualising music with under three year olds. International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(3), 289–​303. Young, S. (2008). Lullaby light shows: Everyday musical experience among under-​two-​year-​ olds. International Journal of Music Education, 26(1), 33–​46. Young, S., & Gillen, J. (2010). Musicality. In J. Gillen & C. A. Cameron (eds.), International perspectives on early childhood research (pp. 59–​76). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Chapter 6

CREATIVE MEANING-​ MAKING IN INFANTS’ AND YOUNG CHILDREN’S MUSICAL CULTURES Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

Creativity research has investigated the characteristic features of creative people, processes, products, and places; has explored the dimensions of creativity at individual, group, organizational, societal, and cultural levels; and has sought to identify those educational behaviors, practices, and environments that support and foster creative thought and activity.1 Among this plethora of research, the study of the early manifestations of creative thought and activity has received less attention. While the domain of the visual arts2 in particular has concentrated considerable attention on the early creative products and processes of children’s art-​making, in comparison, the investigation of young children’s creative meaning-​making in music has been largely unexamined. Paradoxically, children’s creative engagement with the domain of music far precedes that of their engagement with the visual arts. As we demonstrate in this chapter, well before the infant can grasp the materials of art-​making in order to make an original impression, s/​he has been engaged in creative music-​ making for some considerable time. What do we know of this early creativity in music? How is it manifested? What are its characteristic features and forms? What

76

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

role does this early activity play in children’s development? How might c­ hildren’s early creative work be supported and extended? As teachers and early childhood educators, how might we draw on this rich resource of music engagement in developing further children’s musical understanding and skills? In this chapter we shall explore these questions by focusing on the creative meaning-​making of children from birth to early schooling (age birth–​5 years approximately). We shall examine the ways young children engage in creative music activity in family and community settings, individually, socially, institutionally, and culturally, and consider the implications of this engagement for their music learning. Paolo is standing by the metal water radiator in the kindergarten, observing the activities of his peers. It is his first day in the kindergarten and he is nervous and somewhat shy, disturbed by the noise, activity, and sheer exuberance of the children at play. He begins to fiddle with the radiator behind him, nervously fingering and brushing the metal ridges. Gradually his attention is drawn to the sound he is producing as his hand brushes back and forth. He turns towards the radiator and begins to experiment with the effects of drawing his hand at varying speeds over the elements of the radiator. A pattern emerges and settles into a regular rhythm. Paolo has soon forgotten the hubbub behind him, and his nervousness, as he becomes absorbed in his radiator music. (Observation of a three-​year-​old, Bologna).

Researching Children’s Creative Meaning-​Making in Music: Beginnings, Descriptions, and Definitions Cultural theorists would have it that we live in a primarily visual society, that, following the “visual turn,” the image dominates and shapes our interactions and means of engaging with and making meaning of our worlds (Mirzoeff, 1999). Yet, well before we develop the capacity to see and make meaning of the image, we have been engaging with and making meaning of the world through sound. The ear develops in the fetus between the twenty-​fourth and thirtieth weeks of prenatal life. Research suggests that the fetus is actively engaged in processing the sounds and music encountered in those early months of life (Lecanuet, 1996). Indeed, some research suggests that the newborn reacts distinctively to that music heard previously only during life in the womb, suggesting that even at this early stage of life a musical memory is active and developing (see Adachi & Trehub, ­chapter 2). From birth and the infant’s initial cry, the capacity to make sound as well as respond to sound commences. While the infant’s early sound-​making may be primarily concerned with communicating the need to be fed, to be cared for, to be comforted, or to engage with another, the features of musical organization can be

Creative Meaning-Making

77

detected in much of the young infant’s sound-​making. Such musical organization is particularly evident when infants are interacting with caregivers in a mutually supportive dialogue. The concept of “communicative musicality” (see Trevarthen & Malloch, ­chapter 3) provides a framework for viewing the infant’s earliest communications with mother or caregiver as imbued with meaning, generative in nature, and foundational to children’s linguistic, musical, physical, emotional, social, and cultural development. Ellen Dissanayake suggests that the “preverbal rhythms and modes of infancy . . . that underlie our ability to engage intimately with others . . . facilitated the acquisition of human cultural life” (2000, p. 7). For Dissanayake, human cultural life is underpinned by five psychosocial needs, those of mutuality, belonging to, finding and making meaning, competence through handling and making, and elaboration. Dissanayake suggests that the capacity to “elaborate,” which arises from and is expressive of the human needs of mutuality, belonging, and meaning-​making, is the foundation on which the arts and creative endeavor is built. Specifically, she asserts that “the improvised duets of mother-​infant mutuality predispose us to perform in and respond to temporally organized rituals or group belonging and bondedness” (p. 156). In short, the early mother-​infant interactions that are evidenced in episodes of “communicative musicality” play a vital role in the development of human creativity. As children become increasingly independent and less reliant on others to satisfy their needs, the musical features of early communicative musicality are taken up in their independent song-​making and musical play (Barrett, 2006, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2016, 2017b; Tafuri, 2008). From the above, it is evident that infants are simultaneously engaged in building a musical memory and a repertoire of musical gestures through their interactive sound-​making episodes with self, others, and the materials of their environment. Whether such engagement can be described as “creative” has been subject to some debate. A systems view of creativity suggests that creativity occurs when a number of components converge—​those of the person, the domain of creative thought and activity (for example, music), and the field (for example, artists, critics, theorists, gallery owners) that regulates activity in the domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Csikszentmihalyi suggests that creativity arises when the individual intrapsychic processes of the creative person (motivation, cognitive style, psychological dispositions) converge with domain-​specific factors (such as the knowledge and skills in the standards and traditions of a style of music) to produce a creative product that is judged by the field to be a novel variation on existing activity in the domain. Such definitions of creativity tend to emphasize qualities such as novelty, usefulness, social value, and the capacity to change a domain of human thought and activity.3 Clearly, these qualities are difficult to attribute to the work of very young children in any domain of human activity where performance standards are set and regulated by adults. Yet, when creativity is considered more broadly, as a component of everyday life (see, for example, the emergent field of everyday creativity [Richards, 2007]), as a personal rather than an historico-​social phenomenon (Boden, 2004), it is evident that infants and young children are engaging in

78

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

creative thought and activity in their day-​to-​day activities. Runco argues that young children’s imaginative play fulfils the criteria of originality and usefulness, as children are engaged in “authentic self-​expression” (2006, p. 122) that is both original and useful for the child. For Runco, creativity is behavior which is original, spontaneous, and self-​expressive. It may not result in a tangible product but is instead manifested in a process, . . . the process of original self-​expression. . . . A definition of children’s creativity must accept self-​ expression instead of normative appropriateness. Children are not creative in the same fashion as adults. (p. 128)

We suggest, further, that children’s imaginative play is a domain of human thought and activity where performance standards are set and regulated by children, individually and collectively. Increasingly, accounts of the distinctive nature of children’s worlds and peer cultures (Qvortrup, Corsaro, & Honig, 2009) have focused attention on children’s agency and their capacity to engage actively and independently with their worlds. When we view creativity as located in a continuum that ranges from personally significant output such as that evidenced in the domain of children’s imaginative play and generative activity, through to cultural-​historically significant domain changing activity, it is evident that children are capable of creative thought and activity. Play theorists point to the centrality of creative play to children’s learning and development (Fleer, 2009), suggesting that it is a “leading activity” in children’s learning, not just a peripheral phenomenon. It is yet another paradox that children’s musical play has not received the attention that other forms of play have, nor has its role in children’s musical learning and development been closely interrogated. In what follows, we provide a historical account of a number of studies that have investigated children’s musical play and generative behaviors as singers and instrumentalists. Our aim is not one of comprehensiveness; rather, our focus is those studies that have potential to contribute further insights into the nature of children’s early creativity in music across a range of cultural settings.

Infants’ and Young Children’s Creative Music-​Making: An Historical Account In investigating children’s musical play and creative activity, researchers have worked in both naturalistic (Barrett, 2006, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2016, 2017b; Bjørkvold, 1989; Moorhead & Pond, 1978; Sundin, 1997; Tafuri, 2008) and experimental settings (see Davidson, 1994, for an overview). Much of this research has focused on children’s early output as singers rather than instrumentalists, an artifact of the greater access to and ease of vocal productions that is characteristic of young children’s early music

Creative Meaning-Making

79

engagement. An emerging focus, given the advent of the “digital native,” explores children’s musical play and creative activity in digital media environments, such as those afforded by smartphones, iPads, and other digital media devices (Bickford, 2013; Chaudron, 2015). One of the earliest accounts of young children’s creative music-​making is that provided by Gladys Moorhead and Donald Pond (1941/​1978). In a unique study that brought together a developmental psychologist and a composer, respectively, these researchers studied the spontaneous music-​making of children aged 2–​8, approximately, as they participated in an unstructured play setting at the Pillsbury Foundation School in Santa Barbara, California. This study is significant in training the lens on music made by children rather than music made for children. The researchers’ aim was to identify children’s “natural forms of musical expression and to determine means of developing their musical capacities, particularly in the field of spontaneous creation” (p. 3). Over a period of several years, the researchers observed and recorded children’s spontaneous chanting, singing, and instrumental play (using tuned and nontuned classroom percussion instruments). The reports of the study provide a rich description of the diversity of children’s early music-​ making, including children’s capacity and willingness to experiment (vocally and instrumentally), their readiness to engage in invention individually and in conjunction with others, the strong relationship between words and rhythm in early chant, and the embodied nature of much of children’s early music-​making. Working in the 1960s in a kindergarten setting in Sweden, Bertil Sundin also focused on children’s spontaneous music-​making, in particular on their invented songs (1997). Working in three kindergartens in Stockholm with children aged 3.4–​ 6.6, Sundin employed both naturalistic (nonparticipant observation) and quasi-​ experimental approaches to access children’s independent music-​making. From his analysis of children’s observed spontaneous music-​making and their sung responses to the researcher’s request to sing known and original songs, Sundin concluded that children’s early song-​making was marked by considerable variation in the content, meaning, and function of the songs, and that creative capacity was independent of singing ability (1997). Coincidentally, while Sundin was working with young children in Stockholm, Helmut Moog’s doctoral research focused on the musical experience of newborns, infants, and young children (birth–​6  years). His intent was to investigate the “musical experience of the pre-​school child” (1976, p.  1) as a means to stimulate thought about the ways in which the young child’s early music environment should be structured, rather than to directly focus on their creative thought and practice. Nevertheless, Moog recorded and reported instances of spontaneous music-​making that have provided important insights into children’s early creative activity in music. Moog identified two main types of musical activity in young children:  “vocalizations” and “musical babbling” (p.  59). For Moog these early manifestations are precursors to speech and music-​making, respectively. Recent research (Tafuri, 2008)  has extended the findings of Moog’s work to demonstrate that infants’ dialogic musical babbling with mothers starts at approximately

80

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

2 months of age. These early musical exchanges are built on the tonal and rhythmic patternings of the infant’s musical environment, another indicator of both early musical and emotional memory. Some two decades after the work of Sundin and Moog, Jon-​Roar Bjørkvold observed the spontaneous singing of children aged 4–​7 in three kindergartens in Oslo, over an 8-​month period in 1981–​82. Bjørkvold’s focus was the functions of children’s spontaneous singing, as well as the musical forms and structures of this singing. For Bjørkvold, children’s spontaneous singing is “viewed as a means of expressing, conveying, and arousing emotion, giving information and establishing contact” (1989, p. 216). Bjørkvold locates children’s spontaneous singing in a sociocultural frame and demonstrates the ways children adopt and adapt the patterns of their musical cultures as a means to “protest,” “plead,” “command,” “tell stories,” “annoy,” and “tease.” Bjørkvold distinguishes between egocentric and communicative singing (1989, p.  215), suggesting that the former predominates in young children’s musical behavior, with a gradual decline evident as the child matures. This distinction between private and social vocalizations—​and music-​making—​is evident in much younger children. Dumaurier (1982) suggests that at the age of 2 months infants’ “private” vocalizations predominate over their “social” ones. For Dumaurier, both private and social vocalizations are a form of exercise through which the infant practices the sounds of his environment. In distinguishing between the two types of vocalization, private vocalizations are more repetitious in shape, whereas social vocalizations contain greater variation and provide opportunity to explore new sounds that extend the existing repertoire of sound (pp. 57–​58). The 1980s witnessed a growing interest in the song-​making of young children, with a number of psychologists focusing on this aspect of young children’s musical engagement. However, such study was not necessarily concerned with understanding the creative nature of this engagement. For example, Davidson’s study of preschool children’s invented and rehearsed songs sought to identify the developmental trajectory of children’s musical thinking, with a focus on the development of tonal knowledge (see Davidson, 1994, for a summary). Jay Dowling’s study of two children’s song productions (spontaneous and familiar songs) took as its focus another aspect of music development, specifically the development of melodic contour and patterning in such songs (Dowling, 1984a, b). The “intrinsic creativity” of infants’ early vocal play was remarked on also by Hanus and Mechtild Papoušek (1996). These researchers observed that the vocal production of infants develops from the reproduction of simple sounds in the earliest months of life to exploration of sound through repetition and variation until the emergence of the infant’s first words. Significantly, they argue that these creative vocal productions lay the foundations for language and music. While creativity was not the primary focus of these researchers’ work it is of significance that children’s “spontaneous,” “invented” song-​making has been recognized as a “normal” aspect of children’s musical engagement, and a rich avenue for exploring the nature and extent of children’s musical thinking.

Creative Meaning-Making

81

Increasingly, creativity itself has become the focus of many researchers’ work. As society has come to value the notion of creative thought and activity in the life and education of all children, experience in the arts, and music, has been viewed as one means of coming to understand the nature of creative thought and activity in young children’s learning and life. Working in the 1980s, Keith Swanwick and June Tillman proposed a model of musical development based on the analysis of 745 musical compositions collected from 48 children aged 3–​11 years initially, over a 4-​year period. These researchers suggest that children move progressively in age-​related stages from a concern with musical materials to a successive focus on expression, form, and value (1986). While some studies have supported the developmental model outlined, other studies have suggested that children move between the features of musical experience and may operate on a range of levels simultaneously in their creative work (Barrett, 1996; Marsh, 2008). Significantly, research findings have suggested that children’s creative response to tasks is also shaped by cultural and contextual factors, including children’s perceptions of the nature and intent of the task (Barrett, 2006; Marsh, 2008). Several years after Swanwick’s and Tillman’s work, a French expert in music education, Jean-​Pierre Mialaret (1997), carried out research on children’s exploration of instruments. The study built on previous work and focused on 61 children’s exploration of a chromatic metallophone (the children ranged in age from 2 years 10 months to 9 years 6 months). Mialaret’s objective was to observe how children express themselves in exploring and playing instruments, and, at the same time, demonstrate how they have absorbed the musical culture around them. Mialaret’s findings suggest that children’s exploratory behavior with this instrument is highly expressive and reflective of their developing understanding of the music of their culture. Focusing on the productions of children aged approximately three years, Mialaret observed an early awareness of form and capacity to structure musical ideas through the use of repetition and variation of melodic ideas. In particular, he noted that the children employed two distinctive ways of developing the melody: “rectilinear” and “melismatic.” These he attributed to the personal style of individual children. French researcher Francois Delalande (2009) conducted a project in Italy to study the musical exploration of children (aged 10–​37  months) when left alone in a room with either one instrument (autoharp, cymbals, or timpani) or several instruments. Analysis of the video-​recordings revealed a range of musical behaviors, including pleasure in the gesture of producing sounds; early indications of an individual style; repetition and variation; initial genre differences; the transfer of particular gestures from instruments to other objects; and in the presence of adults or other children, richly interactive musical behavior. Repetition and variation as identified in these and other studies (see Imberty, 2002) are fundamental features of children’s early musical engagement. The mother is the newborn’s first model for imitation, and she, in turn, imitates what the child has just done, for example, the reproduction of sounds. In this way, a series of alternate imitations is activated, made possible precisely because small babies are

82

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

relatively unable to imitate something that they have not experienced spontaneously, at least not until the corresponding schemata for that action have become mature. This sequence of alternate repetitions marks the beginning of socialization (Stern, 1977). In his investigations of interactions between mother and infant, music psychologist Michel Imberty (2002) demonstrated how repetition and variation regulate social and affective interaction between the mother and baby and, in turn, become a basic principle of musical organization. Working in Italy, Johannella Tafuri (2008) has undertaken a longitudinal investigation of the origins of musical development in children aged birth–​6 years. The inCanto Project, implemented over an 8-​year period in Bologna, followed families and their infants through the first years of life and musical engagement. Three distinctive features of the inCanto Project are:  the age at which the infant study participants began their work in the project (in the third trimester of pregnancy); the involvement of parents in their children’s music engagement and music-​ making and in the data collection processes of the project; and the provision of a specific music educational program to study participants throughout the period of their involvement. As research clearly identifies the last trimester of pregnancy as the period in which the fetus’ auditory apparatus develops, study participants were recruited at this time in order to commence music engagement at the very origin of auditory functioning. The research involved 119 mothers-​to-​be, initially, at the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy, with, after birth, their infant. Mothers-​to-​be, in groups of 8–​10, participated in a weekly course of music activities up to the time of birth. Some 30–​45  days after birth, mothers and infants commenced weekly music sessions for neonates. These weekly sessions provided participants with interactive musical experiences in singing, listening, playing percussion instruments, moving, dancing, and playing musical games. As a component of the music education program, mothers-​to-​be were requested to use music daily at home during pregnancy and, later, in interactive communication with their babies. Such use included the singing of simple songs, the playing of rhythmic movement games, and listening to recorded music. Parents participated in the data generation processes of the proj­ ect in several ways: these included completing a researcher-​devised diary that recorded the nature and extent of musical activity in the home, and the children’s responses and participation in such activity, and periodically audio-​recording the vocal productions of their child (with some limited use of video-​recording). The analysis of the diaries and audio recordings of the vocal productions of 60 children aged 2–​8 months has identified several different aspects of early musical development. The data provide a rich and varied picture of the first vocal sounds and musical babblings of young children, indicating early engagement in creative activity. Importantly, the capacity to sing in tune was evidenced by a high percentage of the participating children at age 2–​3 years, compared to the average age documented in other Italian and overseas studies. This result is attributed to the rich musical experience that the children were engaged in from the last trimester of pregnancy. It should be noted that this experience was characterized by the support

Creative Meaning-Making

83

and encouragement of the parents; the development of a repertoire of vocal and instrumental material practiced through the reproduction and invention of rhythmic phrases; and opportunity to engage in frequent creative meaning-​making in music through singing and instrumental play. In children’s spontaneous singing it was found, testified by parents and verified through the recordings, that they sang freely and invented songs during the day. The analysis of the recordings showed the presence of three distinctive types of inventions: phrases, when the children invented one or two phrases (to call a doll, to tease someone, to ask for water, etc.); monologues, when the children, self-​absorbed and doing something else, repeated vowels or syllables using few sounds; songs, when the children (sometimes prompted by parents) were using song to tell a story or to recount their experiences. In these invented songs there is a clear presence of intervals and rhythmic-​melodic patterns pertaining to Western musical culture. The findings of the research suggest that early exposure to and participation in a supportive, rich, and diverse musical environment has the potential to build children’s early in-​tune singing capacity, expand their repertoire of musical possibilities, and encourage their willingness to engage in musical activity. Tafuri suggests that such programs as that developed through the inCanto Project may provide models for early music education more broadly (2008). In North America, ethnomusicologist Patricia Shehan Campbell (2010) has utilized ethnomusicological research methods of observation, dialogue and interview, and artifact analysis to investigate the meaning and value of music in children’s lives. While her study participants ranged in age from just over 2 years through to the early teenager years, Campbell’s study provides rich examples of the ways young children engage in music-​making and to what purposes. Significantly, for the purposes of this chapter, she makes the distinction between music learned and music made, music-​ making that is intentional and musically purposeful and music-​making that accompanies the day-​to-​day activities of children’s lives. Campbell observed and interacted with children in settings as diverse as preschool playgrounds, school buses, family homes, school cafeterias, and toy stores to document the ways children use and generate musical materials and ideas in their daily lives. She suggests that children make music intentionally and purposefully as a means of making meaning of and communicating their understandings of their worlds. Such meanings include emotional expression, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, physical response, enforcement of conformity to social norms, validation of religious ritual, maintenance of continuity and stability of culture, and integration of societal norms and expectations. Margaret Barrett (2009, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2016) has undertaken a series of longitudinal investigations of the invented song-​making of children aged 18 months to 4 years. The focus of these investigations has been to identify the nature of young children’s invented song-​making, and the function of such activity in their musical and general development. The research project has followed the musical lives of 18 children and their families over periods ranging from one to three years.4 Participants in the study were recruited from two sites, a Kindermusik program

84

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

and a daylong child-​care center, at approximately 18 months of age. The study employed a range of data generation techniques, including observation of the children participating in the activities of the Kindermusik program and the child-​care program, respectively; interviews with Kindermusik and child-​care workers, and parents; maintenance of a researcher-​devised “weekly overview” diary by parents that mapped in brief the musical activities in which their child engaged during the week; and parent-​generated video diaries of their child engaging in music activity in the home. The latter data generation techniques, engaging the parents in the project as coresearchers, proved a particularly rich source of data, providing rare insights into the day-​to-​day engagements in music-​making of individual children in their home environments. Findings from this research demonstrate that these children draw on a broad range of resources in their early song-​making. These include those materials and resources children encounter in their day-​to-​day interactions in the home, the child-​care center, the drive to the shopping mall, the supermarket, and the journey up and down its aisles. Children’s songs and music-​making bear witness not only to the musics of these environments but also to those of the virtual environments they encounter through digital media technology. The last decade has seen an exponential boom in the generation of children’s media and music entertainment. And, not surprisingly, children’s song and music-​ making is shaped in part by their engagement with such children’s entertainment groups as The Wiggles and Hi-​5. Such programs not only provide children with models of music performance practice, song forms, and musical structures, they also provide children with models of musical engagement, demonstrating ways audiences engage with and participate in live music performance (see, for example, http://​ www.hi-​5.com.au/​#/​home/​). Many children’s toys feature embedded sound and music, further increasing young children’s exposure to musical models, and their experience of the ways music is taken up in a range of day-​to-​day practices. Increasingly, young children access music through digital media technology, such as using smartphones and iPads to listen to music, to dance (with apps such as Toca Dance), and to create music (with apps such as Kapu Bloom Tunes and Toc and Roll). Children demonstrate distinctive preferences for musical styles in their choices of music to which they listen and their subsequent use of features of this music in their own creative music-​making (see, for example, Barrett, 2012b, 2016). A significant feature of the music use of children and families in the study is the way parents (and children) employ song-​making as a means to regulate behavior and communicate with each other (see Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012b, 2017a, 2017b). Parents share the ways they invent songs to encourage their children to complete tasks such as brushing hair, tidying up toys, cleaning teeth, or eating porridge. This strategy is not lost on children, who, in turn, have been observed inventing song as a means of shaping the behaviors not only of themselves but also of others (Barrett, 2011). The musicking practices of parents are taken up by their children in a range of ways, as evidenced in the following vignette:

Creative Meaning-Making

85

Lucy and William are strapped into the back seat of the car singing through their favorite songs. Lucy is delighting in prompting William to provide the endings to each song phrase. She suddenly turns to the camera, points to herself, and says: “Lucy wants to do it.” She begins to sing a song about a “special little girl,” alternating between hugging William, and turning to the camera to sing of “my special little boy.” As her singing unfolds, she rejoices “Oh beautiful you, oh beautiful, oh beautiful you are.” Her exuberance and joy in her own beauty, and that of William, her “special little boy,” is infectious. She sings secure in her knowledge of her “specialness,” her “beauty,” and the “specialness” of her brother William. (Lucy, aged four years, and William, aged two years, video diary, October 2005; see fig. 6.1)5

In this vignette we see Lucy take on the family practice of prompting children to join in singing through contributing the final words of favorite songs. While she may be largely unconscious of her parents’ underlying purpose—​to develop their children’s language and vocabulary—​she is alert to the possibilities of

Figure 6.1 Lucy’s song.

86

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

communicating personal meaning through song. Lucy’s subsequent invented song about a “special little girl” and a “special little boy” captures her exhilaration in the moment and her wish to share that feeling with others. Through the analysis of the song-​and music-​making of these children, Barrett suggests that children’s invented song-​making provides narrative structures in which children explore, perform, and enact multiple ways of being (Barrett, 2009, 2017a, 2017b). As such, in addition to the uses and meanings of music-​making outlined by Bjørkvold (1989) and Campbell (2010), it is evident that children’s early song-​and music-​making plays a significant role in their developing sense of self, their identity work, and their understanding of their relationship to the worlds in which they live.

Young Children’s Early Creative Music-​Making: A Summary As the findings of the research outlined above have suggested, creative music-​ making through invented song and music-​making would appear to be an ubiquitous part of the cultures of early childhood. We are able to trace a developing trajectory from those earliest instances of generative shared music-​making, evidenced in the mutual engagement of the infant and caregiver in communicative musicality (see Trevarthen & Malloch, ­chapter 3), to the emergence of individual “vocalizations” and “musical babbling” (Moog, 1976; Tafuri, 2008) by the infant in her crib, to the “egocentric” and “communicative” spontaneous singing (Barrett, 2011; Bjørkvold, 1989; Tafuri, 2008)  of the toddler and young child at play. The research outlined above suggests that early creativity in music is manifest in children’s early communicative engagements with others, self, and environment. As such, their creative work in music occurs independently, and through working collaboratively and collectively with others. Children’s early creative work may be entirely spontaneous, arising in a moment of independent play, prompted by another, or, planned and led by musical guides, including parents, siblings, and professionals. Importantly, these differing features of young children’s early creative work may overlap and merge in the process of creative music-​making. Children’s early creative work in music draws on the musical materials and resources that they encounter, including the intentionally shared cultures of the mother and primary caregivers, and those cultures young children encounter incidentally through the experience of living in cultures in which music and sound are increasingly an embedded feature of technology and day-​to-​day engagement. In inventing songs, children employ strategies of repetition and variation of musical ideas (Imberty, 2002), in this manner developing musical ideas that are original and useful for them (Runco, 2006) in the expression of self in culture.

Creative Meaning-Making

87

A number of the studies referred to here indicate that young children’s creative music-​making has a range of purposes for them, from establishing the mutuality of the infant-​caregiver relationship in “communicative musicality” to taunting and teasing in the playground (Bjørkvold, 1989), to establishing social bonds and communicating feeling-​states (Campbell, 2010), to trialing different ways of being in the world and undertaking identity work (Barrett, 2011, 2017a, 2017b). Beyond these purposes demonstrated directly by children, song and vocalization is also a medium for early music and language development, providing fertile ground for children’s exploration of vocal verbal possibilities. Rather than being surprised at the presence of invented song and music-​ making in young children’s early engagement, we should be surprised at its absence. Perhaps this perception of absence lies in the very intangibility of children’s creative music-​making. As Runco (2006) suggests, we must look to the process of children’s creative music-​making as well as its products to understand its originality and usefulness. We suggest that young children’s interest lies in the moment of creation, not in anticipation of a product to be reproduced for the approval and admiration of others. Consequently, the capacity to “fix” a musical idea in a manner that bears exact repetition is not a priority in young children’s creative music-​making. Nevertheless, the study of the musical output of young children can be revealing, as such analysis indicates those musical influences and resources on which children draw, their musical and stylistic preferences, and their developing vocabulary of musical ideas and gestures. While children may not have a lasting interest in their invented songs and music-​making once shared, for researchers and music educators much can be learnt from the study of these artifacts. Such study needs to acknowledge children’s interests and purposes in engaging in invented song and music-​making, the processes by which these were generated, and the contexts in which they arose. As those who have studied children’s creative music-​making have observed, such activity can be difficult to grasp, noisy, and seemingly unmanageable. Sundin (1997) provides a telling account of the ways young children’s early music-​making is ignored and unnoticed. He comments: Children’s spontaneous songs come and go, are often of short duration and many times go unobserved by adults. In a way this singing falls outside the adult-​oriented concept of music, a concept which sets a boundary for our understanding of the children’s songs. For example: one day in one of the schools, when the children had gone home, I had a chat with the teacher. She was very interested in music and led music lessons several times a week. I mentioned the spontaneous singing, which she said she had never heard. I played back some excerpts from one of the tapes, and what she heard came as a revelation to her and sharpened her awareness of what was going on around her in the children’s group all the time! (p. 52)

When we examine its early manifestations, this seeming chaos begins to reveal a pattern through which parents, caregivers, and teachers may understand and facilitate children’s engagement in creative music-​making.

88

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

Supporting and Promoting Musical Creativity in Early Childhood In the above we have focused on research literature in order to consider what is known about young children’s creative song and music-​making. In this section, it is our intention to consider the implications of this literature for early learning environments. While for research purposes a distinction might be made between children’s engagement in vocal, movement, and instrumental creative work, these elements are often combined in the young child’s play. Singing is often accompanied by movement, and instrumental sound-​making. Movement might well precipitate singing, sound-​making (for example, stamping or clapping), or instrumental play. Experimentation with an instrument might well arise from the feel of the gesture as much as from the sound produced; alternatively, during movement children may produce sound incidentally, which in turn draws their interest and attention and leads to a more direct focus on this aspect of their creative play. In this way, vocal and instrumental sound and movement are complementary and reinforcing in the child’s creative music-​making. When the above is taken into consideration it is evident that learning and teaching processes and environments that support and promote musical creativity should provide opportunity for children to move between these varying modes of creative exploration and engagement. Much of the research literature has focused on children’s creative song and music-​making in naturalistic settings, predominantly play settings in both formal play environments (child-​care centers and kindergartens, for example) and the informal environments of the school yard and home. The focus has been largely on spontaneous child-​generated creative thought and practice, rather than on planned creative experience lead by another. Yet, even within these instances of spontaneous creativity the role of the more experienced other begins to emerge: we see parents and caregivers building repertoires of musical possibilities through singing known songs with their children, through inventing songs for and with their children, and through interacting with their children in a range of music-​making experiences. This suggests that learning environments that promote and support children’s creative music-​making are rich in models of musical engagement by and with others, provide children with opportunity to build a vocabulary of musical possibilities in song, dance, movement, and games, and recognize, support, and extend children’s creative music-​making. The research literature indicates that children’s musical cultures are shaped by the overlapping social and cultural systems in which they live: those of the home, the local community, and the larger social and political systems that shape policy and practice in the early childhood domain.6 As such, individual children bring varying musical experiences and vocabularies to the learning environment; this constitutes not only a rich resource for the further development of children’s creative thought

Creative Meaning-Making

89

and practice in music but also the beginnings of individual musical identities and identities in and through music. Learning environments that support and extend children’s creative music-​making provide opportunities for children to engage with a range of musical styles and genres, and to take on the role of engaged listener, performer, music-​maker. In reviewing the developing body of research investigating young children’s generative behaviors we suggest that there are some common emergent principles. We suggest that:









1. Children begin life in aural and kinesthetic interaction with the culture of the mother and primary caregivers. The emotional, social, cultural, physical environment of the mother shapes the first “la scuola è una palestra di vita.” Consequently, those educators working with parents should encourage them to engage in music participation as singers, listeners, and music-​ makers from the first moments of their child’s life in utero. 2. From birth onward we learn through engagement with the tools, artifacts, and sociocultural interactions of our environment. We are born into and of culture (Bruner, 1996). The early learning environment of the infant should be rich in interactive music possibilities. Educators working with parents and caregivers should encourage and provide models of ways music may be used in interactions with the child, as a means of communication, of comfort, of play, and of emotional support. 3. Children are not “blank slates”: eliciting sound engagement and interaction with children from birth is crucial in building on the infant’s musical skills and understandings. Music education is not “done” to the child; it is a growing interaction between the child and her environment. In the young child’s life everything is a “teacher,” everything is a learning experience. Educators working with parents and caregivers recognize the potential learning possibilities of children’s playful and purposeful engagement with their sound environments and provide opportunities for children and their parents and caregivers to play purposefully with sound. 4. Repetition and variation are fundamental features of children’s early creative engagement with music. 5. Creative work occurs in interaction with others (carer-​child dyad), with tools and artifacts of the environment (songs about toys, etc.), and in children’s individual play. Educators working with young children should provide an environment rich in individual and social possibilities for creative sound-​making. 6. Young children display strong musical preferences in both listening and performing: a music-​learning environment should provide many models of ways of engaging with music, of varying genres and styles of music, and extend children’s musical repertoire beyond the “habitual.” A greater experience and knowledge of musical genres and styles provides the building blocks for the child’s own creative expression and work.

90

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri 7. As children’s skills, knowledge, and understandings of music materials develop, their capacity to use these for creative purposes grows. This is an interactive process where the development of cultural knowledge and creative thought and activity are mutually constitutive (Barrett, 2006; Tafuri, 2006).

While creative music-​making in early childhood settings may not be recognized as a formal teaching interaction, powerful learning does occur in these settings. This learning is fostered through engagement with sound, encouragement to make sound, and children’s sound-​making being responded to and extended through positive interactions. The aim of “teaching” in this environment might be to provide opportunities for children to build a repertoire of musical gestures, phrases, and genres, and to create a safe and supportive environment in which children are able to experiment and take risks. In this process, children’s creative music-​making is not only original and useful for them in the moment; we suggest it lays the foundations for their future engagement with and through music.

Reflective Questions



1. What marks a person, a product, a process, an environment, or experience as creative? 2. What are the facilitators and constraints on young children’s creative thought and practice? 3. We invite you to go for a walk. As you walk, listen to the pulse of your steps, the sound of your feet on the Earth’s surface, the way your breath marks the steady beat of your feet. Of what do you sing as you walk? Your surroundings? The thoughts that preoccupy you? The way you feel this moment? Are you singing aloud or in your head? Why do you sing? What would it be to recapture the spontaneous and invented song and music-​ making of your earliest years? 4. Observe a young child at play. Close your eyes. How does the child communicate his experience of play? What sounds accompany the play—​ speech, song, the percussion of the play process, an internal dialogue externalized from time to time? In listening carefully to a young child’s play, what do you notice?

KEY SOURCES Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (eds.). (2010). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creative Meaning-Making

91

McPherson, G. E. (ed.). (2016). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (eds.) (2006). Handbook of research on the education of young children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Young, S. (2003). Music with the under fours. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

NOTES 1. See Barrett (2012a) for an overview of these varying approaches to the study of creativity. 2. See, for example, Viktor Lowenfeld’s studies of children’s creative and mental growth, first published in 1947. 3. See Barrett (2012a) for an overview of varying descriptions and definitions of creativity. 4. The differing periods of study reflect the length of time each child and his or her family participated in the study. 5. This extract reprinted from the original (Barrett, 2009) with permission from the editors of the Journal of Early Childhood Research. 6. See Barbara Rogoff ’s (2003) account of the micro, meso, macro, and exo spheres of influence.

REFERENCES Barrett, M. S. (1996). Children’s aesthetic decision-​making: an analysis of children’s musical discourse as composers. International Journal of Music Education, 28 (1) 37–​61. Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The “genesis” of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–​220. Barrett, M. S. (2009). Sounding lives in and through music: A narrative inquiry of the “everyday” musical engagement of a young child. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(2), 115–​134. Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives:  A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39 (4), 403–​423. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/​0305735610373054. Barrett, M. S. (2012a). Mutuality, belonging, and meaning-​making: Pathways to developing young boys’ competence and creativity in singing and song-​making. In S. Harrison, G. F. Welch, & A. Adler (eds.), Perspectives on males and singing (pp. 167–​187). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Barrett, M. S. (2012b). Preparing the mind for creativity: A case study of early music learning and engagement. In O. Odena & G. F. Welch (eds.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 51–​7 1). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Barrett, M. S. (2016). Attending to “culture in the small”: A narrative analysis of the role of play, thought, and music in young children’s world-​making. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 41–​54.

92

Margaret S. Barrett and Johannella Tafuri

Barrett, M. S. (2017a). Laying the foundations for narrative identities in and through music. In R. MacDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Handbook of musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2017b). Singing and invented song-​making in infants and young children’s early learning and development:  From shared to independent song-​making. In G. F. Welch, D. M. Howard, & J. Nix (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Bickford, T. (2013). Tinkering and tethering in the material culture of children’s MP3 players. In P. S. Campbell & T. Wiggins (eds.), Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 527–​542). New York: Oxford University Press. Bjørkvold, J. (1989). The muse within:  Creativity and communication, song and play from childhood through maturity (trans. W. H. Halverson). New York: HarperCollins. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind:  Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meanings in children’s lives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Chaudron, S. (2015). Young children (0–​8) and digital technology: A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Davidson, L. (1994). Songsinging by young and old: A developmental approach to music. In R. Aiello with J. Sloboda (eds.), Musical perceptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Delalande, F. (ed.) (2009), La nascita della musica. Esplorazioni sonore nella prima infanzia. Milan: Franco Angeli. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Art and intimacy:  How the arts began. Seattle:  University of Washington Press. Dowling, W. J. (1984a). Development of musical schemata in children’s spontaneous singing. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 145–​163). Amsterdam: North-​Holland. Dowling, W. J. (1984b). Tonal structure and children’s early learning of music. In J. Sloboda (ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 361–​373). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dumaurier, E. (1982). Le domaine sonore du tout jeune enfant. In F. Delalande (ed.), L’enfant du sonore au musical (pp. 15–​66). Paris: INA GRM/​Buchet/​Chastel. Fleer, M. (2009). A cultural-​historical perspective on play: Play as a leading activity across cultural communities. In M. Fleer (ed.), Play and learning in early childhood settings (pp. 1–​17). Dordrecht: Springer. Imberty, M. (2002). La musica e il bambino. In J.-​J. Nattiez & M. Bent (eds.), Enciclopedia della musica, Vol. 2 (pp. 477–​495). Turin: Einaudi. Lecanuet, J.-​P. (1996). Prenatal auditory experience. In I. Deliège & J. A. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings (pp. 3–​34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan Co. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mialaret, J. P. (1997). Explorations musicales instrumentales chez le jeune enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Mirzoeff, N. (1999). An introduction to visual culture. London: Routledge. Moog, H. (1976). The musical experience of the pre-​ school child (trans. C. Clarke). London: Schott.

Creative Meaning-Making

93

Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1978). Music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. (Original work published 1941, 1942, 1944, 1951) Papoušek, H. (1996). Musicality in infancy research: biological and cultural origins of early musicality. In I. Deliege & J. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings (pp. 37–​55). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Papoušek, M. (1996). Intuitive parenting:  A hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In I. Deliege & J. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings (pp. 88–​112). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Qvortrup, J., Corsaro, W. A., & Honig M.-​S. (eds.) (2009). The Palgrave handbook of child studies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Richards, R. (ed.) (2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Runco, M. A. (2006). The development of children’s creativity. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 121–​134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stern, D. (1977). The first relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sundin, B. (1997). Musical creativity in childhood: A research project in retrospect. Research Studies in Music Education, 9(1), 48–​57. Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development. British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 306–​339. Tafuri, J. (2006). Processes and teaching strategies in musical improvisation with children. In I. Deliège & G. Wiggins (eds.), Musical creativity (pp. 134–​157). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Tafuri, J. (2008). Infant musicality:  New research for educators and parents. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

PART 2

MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING DURING CHILDHOOD: AGES 5–12 Part Editor Kathryn Marsh

Chapter 7

COMMENTARY: MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING DURING CHILDHOOD: AGES 5–​12 Kathryn Marsh

This part of the volume is devoted to the discussion of issues pertinent to the learning and teaching of music during what might be termed the middle years of childhood, basically equating with the first stages of formal schooling. In defining the content parameters, there have been many considerations, including delineation of what constitute the initial stages of schooling and what constitute music learning and teaching practices, given that these vary widely in different cultural, national, and international contexts. For the purposes of this discussion, this part of the volume relates to a period of childhood from ages 5–​12, while acknowledging that localized practices may mean that the boundaries of this age range could be slightly extended in formal educational settings in different geographical locations. Although formal provision of music education is not universal in schools for this age group, this part of the volume endeavors to offer a glimpse of varied and innovative forms of musical learning and teaching from a range of international locations, though it is, of necessity, limited by access to published research and is therefore exemplary rather than exhaustive in scope. From a global perspective, the starting age for formal education varies from four to seven years of age. This first stage of formal schooling is most frequently referred to in English as “primary” or “elementary” school and extends for an equally

98Kathryn Marsh variable period of time, for example, until children are 10 years of age in Austria, through to 14 years of age in Montenegro (see meNet: Music Education Network). In some countries, such as the United States, there is a defined middle school period bridging elementary and secondary schools, while in other countries children move directly from primary to secondary school. At any given time in some parts of the world, formal schooling may not be readily available for many children, due to economic conditions or disruptions brought about by social and political upheaval or conflict. Thus to provide a generalized view of music learning and teaching, even within the defined arena of formal schooling, is highly problematic. Music in schools has different components, is taught by different kinds of teachers in different ways, and with different expectations of both learners and teachers in the various formal educational contexts in which it takes place. It is also evident from research emerging over recent decades that the ways children engage with, learn, and teach music in more informal settings outside school are of equal importance to children and have much to offer in terms of developing relevant pedagogy within school classrooms and ensembles. The chapters in this part of the volume address these issues and explore the potential for developing pedagogical practice in new and thoughtful ways. One of the major differences between music education in various localities is the provision of music learning experiences either by a music specialist, with extensive training and skills in music, or by a general classroom teacher, who is also responsible for teaching children across all curriculum areas. In this respect there are definitional as well as philosophical and practical differences. For example, in the United States, the term “general music” refers to integrated classroom music programs that may incorporate a range of learning experiences, including singing, instrumental playing, listening, moving, and creative activities. However, in many U.S. states, these “general music” classes are provided by a music specialist, albeit one who has a broad range of music skills, rather than a specialization in choral or instrumental work. By contrast, in a greater number of international educational jurisdictions, music for children of this age group is one of multiple curriculum areas taught to a single class by a general classroom teacher. There is an ongoing debate as to whether the music specialist or generalist classroom teacher is better able to meet the music learning needs of primary or elementary school children (Mills, 2009). Economic considerations may preclude the employment of a specialist, and classroom teachers may be in a better position to integrate a music program within the global learning needs of children within their classes. Classroom teachers, however, may lack the training, skills, and confidence to teach music in a meaningful way. Neryl Jeanneret and George DeGraffenreid outline some of the issues that frame the teaching of music by generalist classroom teachers and the various forms of support on which these teachers may draw in order to teach music effectively, including those provided by professional arts bodies and the community sector. They elaborate on the kinds of musical experiences that reflect current best practice in both music-​specific and more general education for

Commentary

99

children of this age and that align with the pedagogical competency of generalist teachers. This ameliorates the concern that music pedagogy is in some way too difficult or differentiated from other forms of teaching and learning to be negotiated by generalist teachers. It also offers precepts of best educational practice as it relates to music, which is of relevance to specialist and generalist teachers alike. For both specialist and generalist teachers the place of music within the wider curriculum is an issue of some importance. The competing demands for funding of school programs and for primacy of curriculum areas have resulted in increased advocacy for music education in recent decades. In some instances this has taken the form of promoting the benefits of music for learning in other developmental domains and across curriculum areas, though not without controversy (Gee, 2002). Music education is seen to benefit creative, emotional, social, physical, and cognitive development in children and to contribute to children’s engagement with school environments. Advocates for music education in schools have particularly focused on the ways it appears to enhance “core” skills in literacy and mathematics, but it is evident that music can be a vehicle for wider forms of engagement with society (Fiske, 1999; Hallam & MacDonald, 2013). At the same time, the need to rationalize the progressively more complex content of curricula for which the classroom teacher is largely responsible has led to a fluidity of curriculum in primary and elementary schools. Increasingly, strategies are sought for making meaningful rather than perfunctory connections between curriculum areas. In particular, the identification of synergies between the various art forms has resulted in interdisciplinary approaches to the teaching of the arts in educational settings for this age group. In utilizing the term “comprehensive music curriculum,” Janet Barrett and Kari Veblen seek to delineate a music curriculum that offers both breadth and depth and that is wide-​reaching in its curricular connections. They offer a variety of approaches to creating these connections, exploring the implications of this for teachers (whether specialist or generalist) and for children participating in interdisciplinary programs involving music. Beyond school, music is used by children for enjoyment, identity formation, emotional release, creative activity, and cultural connectedness with local, global, and virtual communities (Campbell, 2010; Green, 2011), contributing significantly to their well-​being (Marsh, 2016). The discussion of what is regarded as important in music learning and teaching in the classroom therefore must be framed by consideration of forms of music learning and teaching outside the classroom. In this regard, several areas of recent research have informed our understanding of the musical lives of children and the ways these might be better reflected within a formal educational context. These areas have focused on children’s and young adolescents’ modes of learning and teaching when involved in informal music activity; the kinds of musical experiences that engage children in informal settings; the social dimensions of learning and the ways that learning is constructed; the influence of culture and subculture on musical experience; and the effect of different forms of musical transmission within and between cultures, through a variety of

100Kathryn Marsh media (Barrett, 2011; Burnard, Mackinlay, & Powell, 2016; Campbell & Wiggins, 2013; Green, 2008; Marsh, 2008). An initial exploration of these issues is made by Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh, who focus on children’s musical play, including that involving interactions with popular music and popular culture. They outline features of musical play, especially as found in communities of practice in the playground, and the disjunction that may often occur between children’s challenging, social, and participatory enactment of play and the pedagogical characteristics of classroom music. Their suggestions for a child-​centered approach to music learning and teaching endeavor to bridge the gap between children’s external informal music-​making and musical experiences in the school. The multifaceted worlds of children’s musical experience are further investigated by Chee-​Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh. Reflecting on cultures of childhood, cultural transmission, and cultural renewal, they examine the major changes to children’s musical worlds brought about by globalization, migration, and the media. The increasing cultural diversity of these worlds, both real and virtual, provides challenges for teachers working within schools, but also promising prospects of renewed pedagogical practices and resources, particularly those provided by school communities and by the new media, with which children are remarkably adept. Connectedness between schools, communities, and children’s own ways of knowing and interrelating with their worlds is seen to be of benefit to all participants in this process of mutual exchange. Integral to these new pedagogies is the recognition of the skills and knowledge that children bring to the classroom and the empowerment of the learner as a result of this recognition. Learner agency is considered by a number of authors within this part of the volume to be of prime importance in enabling children to generate and work productively with musical ideas. However, as Jackie Wiggins and Magne Espeland demonstrate in their discussion of social constructivist approaches to creative activity in the music classroom, children’s musical learning and creativity can be actively enhanced by a process of “artful teacher scaffolding,” whereby teachers provide authentic and holistic learning opportunities that extend on what children already know and can do, at the same time providing them with the confidence to take risks and move beyond their current levels of competence. Children can also work collaboratively to scaffold the learning of peers. These ideals of collaborative learning are further developed by Sharon Davis in the context of cocurricular instrumental ensemble learning in primary and elementary schools. As Davis notes, different practices abound in school systems around the world, and instrumental ensembles may be developed within the classroom, or as extracurricular activities completely separate from the classroom curriculum. In many instances, ensemble learning has traditionally been teacher-​directed and hierarchical. Davis draws on social constructivism and the tenets of informal learning to outline a democratic and creative approach to ensemble learning, which promotes learner agency and sociality, thereby “fostering a musical say” for children.

Commentary

101

Clearly there are many challenges for teachers in initiating and maintaining music programs for children aged 5–​12. In a global environment, differing value afforded music within society and schools, differing economic and social conditions, and differing contexts, practices, and expectations all ensure that there cannot be a “one size fits all” approach to music education. It is hoped, however, that a considered response to the varied ideas presented in this part of the volume, all reflecting current research but based within practical experience, may assist teachers with this worthwhile and rewarding endeavor.

REFERENCES Barrett, M. S. (ed.) (2011). A cultural psychology of music education. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Burnard, P., Mackinlay, E., & Powell, K. (eds.). (2016). Routledge international handbook of intercultural arts research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S., & Wiggins, T. (eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. Fiske, E. (ed.). (1999). Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership/​President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Gee, C. B. (2002). The “use and abuse” of arts advocacy and its consequences for music education. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 941–​961). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (ed.). (2011). Learning, teaching, and musical identity:  Voices across cultures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hallam, S., & MacDonald, R. (2013). Introduction:  Perspectives on the power of music. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(1), 83–​86. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K. (2016). Creating bridges:  Music, play and wellbeing in the lives of refugee and immigrant children and young people. Music Education Research. doi:  10.1080/​ 14613808.2016.1189525. Mills, J. (2009). Music in the primary school (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WEBSITE meNet: Music Education Network. http://​menet.mdw.ac.at/​menetsite/​english/​index.html

Chapter 8

CHILDREN’S WAYS OF LEARNING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

In recent years, researchers have looked beyond classroom walls for insights into how children learn music outside of school. The purpose is at least twofold. First is to identify what children already know and can do musically. It is a long-​standing pedagogical maxim to teach from the known to the unknown; thus familiarity with the rich world of children’s musical experience outside school is requisite teacher knowledge when planning formal instruction. A second purpose is to understand how children learn music informally with each other, and from popular music and other mediated performance models. The goal here is to understand the learning processes that children use when left to their own devices. Individual or group listening and singing along to commercial recordings, which constitute a noncommunal or communal form of musical play, are important in the lives of children today, as is the communion with distant or virtual teachers via YouTube, smartphone, streaming video, karaoke, video games, and other digital technologies. As school becomes only one of many sources for musical learning, how we teach needs rethinking as much as what repertoire we choose, and what musical experiences we choose to offer our students. The intent of a formal school curriculum is to complement rather than duplicate out-​of-​school experiences, both in terms of content and learning processes. But when we ask children to learn repertoire that is unfamiliar to them (including

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

103

classical musics, vernacular musics, traditional and contemporary repertoire from varied cultures) and at the same time ask them to learn it in a way that is unfamiliar and unpracticed, we place our learners and ourselves at a double disadvantage.

Conceptualizing Out-​of-​S chool Learning This chapter relies on two principal areas of research conducted outside of schoolrooms:  transmission of children’s playground repertoire, and learning practices associated with popular and vernacular music-​ making. Both have implications for designing school curricula and rethinking teaching practice. The musical play of children aged 5–​12 encompasses a range of activities and settings. Some musical experiences occur during solitary or small group improvisatory play at home (see for example, Lum, 2007, 2008; Young, 2007, 2012). Other musical play evolves in communities of practice such as playgrounds where a traditional repertoire is learned. In her detailed exposition of music in the everyday lives of children in a North American city, Campbell (2010) has outlined a broad range of musical activities, from the briefest improvisatory utterances (whistling, tapping on a table top), through listening or singing along to popular music, alone or with friends, to experiencing and/​or participating in music performed or enjoyed by parents within the family home or as part of a larger community, maintaining particular familial preferences or cultural traditions. We focus in this chapter primarily on research on playground games, those found in the interstices between formalized school activities, in playgrounds and waiting spaces, in the margins of adult-​endorsed pursuits. All have in common rhythmically delivered text (pitched or unpitched), accompanying movement, and a high level of sociality. In describing these games, Factor states that they are “at once conservative and innovative, inherited and improvised, rule-​bound and adaptive, collaborative and competitive, ritualistic and creative, universal and minutely local, secure and challenging, self-​regulatory and group orientated, stylized in form and boundless in content” (in Bishop & Curtis, 2001, p. 25). Bishop and Curtis (2001) have categorized playground games according the levels of verbal, musical, imaginative, and physical content entailed in them, as shown in table 8.1 (see also Marsh & Bishop, 2014). However, as Bishop and Curtis (2001) state, there is often an overlap between the characteristics of these games as they are played out by different groups of children and in different cultures. For example, many forms of role enactment occur within singing games, whether these are in pair, circle, or line formation (for example, the many international variants of When Susie Was a Baby). Highly physical games with or without playthings may involve rhythmic chanting, for example, the Korean

104

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

Table 8.1 Classification of play traditions involving musical play High verbal content

Singing games

General verbal play, e.g., jeers Entertainment rhymes Counting out Song and dance (circle, line, popular) Clapping rhymes & songs Skipping/​jumprope rhymes & songs Ball-​bouncing rhymes & songs

High imaginative content

Role enactment

Set plot, characters &/​or dialogue

High physical content

Games without playthings

Individual Group Team

Games with playthings

Individual Group Team

Balls Ropes Stones Miscellaneous

Adapted with permission from Bishop & Curtis (2001, p.14)

tug-​of-​war game Uri Jip-​ae Whae Wanni (Marsh, 2008) or the stone-​passing games traditionally found in Ghana. Some games, such as the South American Lobo,1 may combine, at various stages of the game, singing in a circle, rhythmic chanting to a child who is “in” who controls the pace and outcome of the game, and energetic chasing (Marsh, 2008). The way children learn and teach in their own environments exemplifies one kind of informal learning. Informal learning practices and traditions in music have been cataloged by Patricia Campbell (2001, p. 217) as “enculturative (natural and without formal instruction), partly guided (guided by informal and nonconsecutive directives),” as opposed to “highly structured (transmission as it happens in schools).” For our purposes, the discussion is limited to kinds of music-​making that children engage in for their own pleasure, away from direct instruction by an adult teacher. Thus formal music learning is equated with highly structured in-​school learning, where there are defined teachers and learners and established “methods” of instructing children. So what does informal music learning look like? Characteristics of informal music learning have been articulated by ethnomusicologists, folklorists, and music educators, among others.2 There are different ways of conceptualizing what is meant by informal or out-​of-​school learning. The following categorizations have proved useful in describing different ways of learning and their attendant musical values, repertoire selection, and meaning to the participants.

• Participatory versus presentational fields of music-​making • Playground learning traditions

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

105

• Popular musicians’ practice • Emerging forms of music acquisition from mediated, virtual sources

Participatory and Presentational Music-​Making In Music as Social Life, Turino (2008) proposes the labels participatory and presentational music as a means of clarifying the musical and social values embedded in these fields of music-​making.3 In brief, “participatory music is not for listening apart from doing; presentational music is prepared by musicians for others to listen to, and the simple distinction has many ramifications” (p. 52). By this definition, children’s playground music is a subset in the participatory category. While there may be listener/​learners present, the players are singing and moving for their own purposes and “the quality of the performance is ultimately judged on the level of participation achieved” (p. 29). In some parts of the world a significant part of the formal training of many music teachers working in schools is devoted to presentational music,4 that is, in learning repertoire for presentation to a listening audience. In North America, preparing the next generation to perform capably in this way has been and remains one of the central goals for music education programs. For many teachers even in the primary or elementary classroom, the preparation of public concerts is an important expectation of the school and parent community. Often the perceived quality of such musical performance is the basis for judging the quality of instruction, even though music teachers have many curricular goals that cannot be measured through presentational music performance. A central value in participatory music is that all participants’ contributions are considered to be of equal importance. More experienced musicians take responsibility for supporting and inspiring those around them to join in, at whatever level of competence they possess, even though it may limit their own opportunities for extensive improvisation. In presentational music, a central value is the quality of the sound produced. More experienced musicians are expected to demonstrate virtuosity through distinguished contribution to a polished musical product. Music teachers are familiar with the tension between defining success by the number and level of engagement of student participants and defining success by the sound quality and individual virtuosity of student performers. It has often come to a choice between providing musical experiences to as many students as possible and limiting participation to the most adept performers. Baldly stated, it has been conceptualized as a choice between inclusion and quality. Turino’s (2008) argument is more complex and nuanced than can be conveyed here. However, his description of style features associated with participatory music

106

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

bears remarkable similarity to much playground music-​making. An obvious point is that playground musicians are performing for their own pleasure, at whatever level of skill they possess. A revealing comment is “We don’t practice, we just play,” from a girl asked by a researcher when she and her friends practiced complicated handclap patterns (Harwood, 1998a). Playground music exemplifies many of the characteristics of participatory music. Keeping a large group of children of various skill levels together requires internal repetition, short musical forms, predictability, and a level of rhythmic stability. The repertoire includes repetitive forms, predictable strophic song types (though often containing forms of surprise at points of culmination), and internally repetitive texts and movements. Players employ idiomatic conventions in improvisation and performance practices and, above all, create a strong sense of rhythmic groove. Indeed, in some forms such as African-​American routines,5 and particular clapping games of skill found in the United States, Korea, and Australia,6 body percussion and established group movements suffice to provide a rhythmic groove in the absence of melody or lyrics. Whereas individual virtuosity is a value embedded in presentational music, social synchrony, a sense of belonging to the group, is a deeply embedded value of playground music. Repetition of the rhythmic groove and predictable musical forms are essential to getting and staying in sync with others. Social synchrony is a crucial underpinning of feelings of social comfort, belonging, and identity. In participatory performance, these aspects of being human come to the fore. (Turino, 2008, p. 44)

The lesson from Turino’s (2008) work is that one of these kinds of music-­​ ­ aking is not better or even more “natural” than the other. There is room for mum sical growth and skill development in both. Rather, these are two different fields of musical endeavor, with their own teaching and learning practices, social and musical values. The ways children learn and teach this music differ markedly from those used by teachers of presentational music, because the goals and values of these two forms are different. Children’s musicianship develops in different ways in each musical field. However, some movement toward common ground may benefit music learning in the classroom.

Learning in the Playground Children’s songs and games have been the subject of scholarly study from the nineteenth century. More recently, the focus for such studies has shifted from repertoire collection to include analysis of learning, social bonding, ethnic and gender identity, interactions with the media, and the musical and social values embedded

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

107

in various playground traditions (Bishop & Curtis, 2001; Burn & Richards, 2014; Blacking, 1967/​1995; Campbell, 2010; Emberly, 2013; Gaunt, 2006; Harrop-​Allin, 2010; Harwood, 1998a, 1998b; Lum, 2007; Marsh, 1999, 2006, 2008; Marsh & Young, 2016; McIntosh, 2006; Minks, 2013a, 2013b; Riddell, 1990). In terms of learning principles, several emerge as common observations across these studies.

Shared Responsibility for Learning within a Learning Community Responsibility for learning is shared between the individual and the peer community. The community provides both necessary social support for individual attempts and verbal critique of group performances. Children choose which chants, cheers, games they will learn, and have several years to acquire the complete repertoire. Learners also choose the repertoire they acquire, and such choices express and define their identity. Gaunt (2006) maintains that “black girls’ play is not only indicative of, but central to, understanding African-​American expressive culture and black popular musical aesthetics” (p. 9). Playground repertoire is also tied to gender identity. Boys often know the songs played by girls and may also play them with female siblings at home or with playmates during waiting times at school but may publicly identify such performances as “what girls do” (Minks, 2013b). This alters significantly with context. For example, in Korean schools where there are short breaks in the school day rather than more extended recess times, boys, confined indoors for recreation between lessons, often play various forms of elimination games and games of skill involving rhythmic movement and chanting, as these require no equipment or space (Marsh, 2008). McIntosh (2006) notes that, in Bali, song games containing a competitive element are played by both boys and girls aged 3–​12 and that boys also participate with girls in the singing of communal songs of enjoyment and nonsense songs. Boys and girls in many cultures also have an extended repertoire of antischool parody songs that they take pride in performing.

Legitimate Peripheral Participation The distinction between performer and listener is blurred, with opportunity to participate at many levels. A  child might keep the beat or clap on the sidelines, join in on some parts of a song, or act as a song leader in a circle or line game for instance. Harwood (1998a) characterizes the African-​ American girls’ playground as an example of Lave’s situated cognition: legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice. Very adept players may be simultaneously singing the complete melody and lyrics, following the prescribed set of movements and monitoring

108

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

the performance of other players. Novices to a particular game may be simply beat keeping or performing only the handclap and movement pattern, relying on more practiced players to maintain the complete song and game pattern for them. All contributions are seen within the group as legitimate forms of participation, although the differences between novice and more adept players are generally acknowledged.

Repertoire Defines Organization of Curriculum Because learning is organized by repertoire chosen by the learners, there is no perceived progression of skills from simple to complex, no set of preparatory exercises required before applying them to a whole musical playground performance. A number of scholars have noted that informal learning in the playground progresses quite differently from the ways teachers organize material. For example, Blacking (1967/​1995) indicated that Venda children frequently sang more complex songs earlier than easier ones, and Marsh (2008) has identified children’s capacity to engage in complex rhythmic activities7 in the musical play of children as young as six in school playgrounds in Australia, the United Kingdom, United States, Korea, and Norway (see also Marsh & Young, 2016).

Aural/​Oral Transmission The primary means of acquiring repertoire is close observation and imitation of aural/​oral models performed by more experienced peers (Harwood, 1998a, 1998b; Marsh, 2008).

Learning from Musical Wholes Holistic learning rather than analytical or learning segments is preferred. Campbell observes that “the natural flow of the transmission and learning process appears to be more holistic than atomistic in style” (2001, p. 218). One of her informants summarized an observation by many playground researchers that even when a game breaks down, play resumes from the beginning: “we have to sing it because it’s not a talking song. And we start from the beginning, not in the middle, so listen for what you need to get” (p. 219). This has been found to occur with children in Australian, Bengali, English, Eritrean, Korean, North American, Norwegian, and Punjabi play traditions (Marsh, 2008). Left to themselves, children choose to repeat whole songs and games, even though to adult observers it seems less efficient. In contrast, teachers instruct students in how to segment and analyze musical wholes. Isolating technically

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

109

difficult sections, beginning a performance in the middle and acquiring a song from line-​by-​line repetitions by the teacher, appear to be learned through formal instruction, although these modes of atomized learning also are encouraged by children’s use of YouTube clips as virtual teachers (Burn & Richards, 2014).

Communal Ownership of Repertoire On the playground everyone owns the music, and local communally accepted standards maintain integrity of the repertoire. However, Riddell (1990) notes that in notated traditions, the score acts as the retrieval system. She surmises that in schools, the teacher may well be thought to own the music, whereas in aural traditions, the community of performers takes that role.

Embedded Opportunity for Composition and Improvisation As the children play together, there is a focus on creative reworking of musical material rather than a fixed product. While there are many precedents for classroom improvisation and composition, for pedagogical reasons these have often been conducted within preconceived frameworks devised by teachers. Although formal frameworks and expectations also operate within children’s musical play, the aesthetic decisions are ongoing and their own, allowing more fluid, steadily developing, and satisfying performative outcomes. Novelty is part of playground game practice, enabling children to respond to the new and different in their sonic and kinesthetic environment, in turn transforming it into something that meets with individual and communal approval (Countryman, 2014; Countryman, Gabriel, & Thompson, 2016; Marsh, 2008).

Learning Through Movement Body movement is an integral part of music performance and onlooker participation in the playground. Learning “by feel” is preferred over intellectual analysis. One 10-​year-​old interviewee in Harwood’s (1987) study when trying to recall a certain song had to get up and start stepping and swaying. “I can’t get my beat” was her comment (p. 89). Once the body groove was established with her friend, they were both able to sing the piece. Harwood (1998a) has described her own unsuccessful attempts to learn a cascading 13-​beat handclap pattern through transcription and analysis. Only when she stopped counting and simply gave way to the hand patterns performed with another player did they fall easily into place.

110

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

Informal Learning: Popular Musicians’ Practice There are a number of corollaries between playground learning and the learning of adolescent or adult musicians in other informal contexts. Several music educators have drawn attention to the dichotomy between in-​and out-​of-​school learning experiences, with in-​school or “formal” music teaching being extensively based on presentational music’s values and needs (Green, 2008). Even within presentational music the formal curriculum has often been narrow in terms of pedagogy, including teacher stipulation and interpretation of repertoire, and emphasis on pattern drill or acquisition of notational literacy. Many musicians in the popular music realm have acquired high levels of performance proficiency through other means, and Green (2001, 2008) has explored the ways in which they learn. In the Musical Futures project carried out in the United Kingdom, over 1,500 young adolescents (beginning at age 11)8 were asked to learn popular music in school, based on Green’s (2001) prior research on how popular musicians learn, and their resultant learning processes were analyzed. Green proposed five principles of informal learning that became the core of instructional design for the Musical Futures curriculum (2008):

• Learning always starts with pieces the learners have chosen for themselves. • Skills develop through copying recordings by ear. • Learning takes place alone and in friendship groups, through self-​directed, peer-​directed, and group learning. • Skills and knowledge may develop in haphazard, idiosyncratic, and holistic ways in relation to “real-​world” music. • Learning integrates listening, performing, improvisation, and composing throughout the process, with emphasis on individual creativity.

It can be seen that there are many commonalities between these learning characteristics and those found in children’s musical play. Green (2008) attributes the lack of engagement with school music in part to the kinds of learning available in school programs. At one time, standard curricular goals in many countries emphasized musical literacy, singing as the main performance medium, and repertoire drawn from classical and folk sources. In recent years curricula have expanded to include musical cultures from many parts of the world, and to incorporate technology. Green contends that while new content entered the curriculum, the methods of teaching remained the same: We can surmise that many children and young people who fail and drop out of formal music education, far from being either uninterested or unmusical, simply do not respond to the kind of instruction it offers. But until very recently, music educators have not recognized or rewarded the approaches involved in informal music learning, nor have they been particularly aware of, or interested in, the

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

111

high levels of enthusiasm and commitment to music displayed by young popular or other vernacular musicians. (2008, p. 3)

It should be noted that Green is not the first to call for changes to a curriculum centered on folk song, literacy, and singing as the performance medium.9 Since the 1960s composition and small group work have been embedded in classroom practice in British and Australian primary schools, with established use of popular music in Scandinavian and Australian music education (see also Davis, ­chapter 13).

The Media, Technology, and Children’s Informal Music Learning In the United States, Campbell (2010) has described the wide range of experiences in which children aged 4–​11 engage with vernacular music delivered by mediated sources, in both solitary and communal forms of acquisition and performance. For many children worldwide, the media delivers a constant but changing source of repertoire to learn, as on the playground, by repeated listening, watching, and emulation of sources produced distantly but brought into close contact by television, streaming audio and video, DVD, and karaoke (Campbell, 2010; Lill, 2015; Lum, 2007, 2008; Marsh, 1999, 2008; McIntosh, 2006; Young, 2007, 2012). More recently, the internet has provided an even more accessible source of widely divergent musical performances for children to observe and learn alone or with friends, and to share with a widening circle of peers in each others’ homes, in the playground at school, or in other informal settings. Campbell (2010), Marsh (1999, 2008), and Lum (2008) have described ways that children carefully listen, watch, and reproduce music from mediated sources designed especially for children. In addition, video game spinoffs such as High School Musical and karaoke machines for the child market have provided children with opportunities to autonomously recreate and develop their musical selves within imagined scenarios (Young, 2007). Young notes that such activities are multimodal, employing aural and visual stimuli and inviting sonic and kinesthetic responses. However, children also appropriate mediated material that may be intended for a wider or adult market, often developing or reinforcing musical preferences and performance skills as a result. In doing so, they are learning from what may constitute “expert peers” or virtual teachers, and therefore are able to reach a level of performative achievement that is well beyond what conventional teachers might expect. For example, in Seattle, Marsh (2008) observed a lengthy performance, incorporating the complex idiomatic dance moves of Michael Jackson, by a nine-​ year-​old boy who described how his continued exposure to and practice of Jackson’s screen model enabled this kinesthetic prowess. Similarly, Bengali and Punjabi girls in a British school reproduced Bollywood movie song-​and-​dance sequences

112

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

learnt from videos at home with stylistic accuracy in both kinesthetic and musical domains (Marsh, 2008). As with traditional playground game practice, children’s appropriation of material derived from the media goes beyond passive reception and reproduction to creative manipulation (Burn & Richards, 2014). Thus, a Bollywood song transported to the British playground became the basis of a clapping game incorporating movements from the movie dance sequence, a similar strategy being used with a Korean dance-​techno song by girls in Busan. In another English playground, eight-​ year-​old girls created dance sequences to accompany songs learnt from video hits television programs, in order to produce a performance for assembly; and nine-​year-​ old girls in Seattle generated humorous song-​and-​dance acts by reworking song parodies downloaded from the internet (Marsh, 2006, 2008). In co-​constructing “disco” dances from global popular music and the fusion styles of Indonesian pop and Dangdut (disseminated by television), Balinese children combined dance movements derived from traditional Balinese dance and popular dance styles (both global and local) (McIntosh, 2006). McIntosh notes that, because of joint responsibility for choreography, members of a group of children who have created a disco dance “realize a level of interdependence and flexibility that they rarely, if ever, achieve in traditional dance” (p. 229). Global media assist children to explore new practices and even new musical languages, but they also allow children to maintain certain traditions in new and flexible ways. In her study of refugee children in an Australian primary school, Marsh (2013) reports that two girls, one Iranian, the other Iraqi, learned popular songs from both Western singers and singers from their homelands and surrounding countries from YouTube clips. Creating Australian Idol scenarios, they performed these songs for each other (in languages encompassing English, Arabic, Persian, and Turkish), each providing supportive performance tips. Interesting strategies were employed for making new songs, such as selecting different languages and dance movements from slips of paper put into a hat and creating songs and dances from the assembled characteristics. Other refugee children used satellite TV, the internet, and imported CDs to maintain connection with and learn current popular hits in their first language. Such access enables children to inhabit communities of practice despite geographical distance, micro communities within larger, virtual, global communities, as one form of identity maintenance. As previously stated, such communities of practice operate in relation to “traditional” playground play repertoire (see Harwood, 1998a) but may also focus on shared knowledge of particular popular music repertoire (Young, 2007). Such knowledge is often acquired by individual children but is then more widely shared with peers (and others) in social situations that include or exclude. For example, Young (2007, 2012) in the United Kingdom and Lum (2008) in Singapore report that young children’s engagement with karaoke in the home frequently involves friends and family members in extended forms of sociality. In a school in Vermont in the United States, Bickford (2014) describes how children shared popular repertoire by

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

113

means of single mp3 players with shared earbuds, “as tangible technologies for interaction and intimacy that traced out bonds and tethered friends together in joint activity”; and children’s membership of a community of fifth-​grade children in another American school was established on the basis of their knowledge of current popular hits disseminated through a particular local mainstream radio station (Minks, 1999). In an indictment of classroom music practices, Minks (1999) outlined the enthusiastic responses of the fifth-​grade children who were allowed to bring in their own recordings of popular music to which they listened, sang, and danced at the end of music lessons as a reward for good behavior in the planned lesson. With such a wealth of clearly enjoyable music to draw on, it is surprising that this repertoire remained external to the lesson. Like Green (2008), Campbell (2010) has made a plea for the inclusion of music that is meaningful to children, including mass-​ mediated popular music, in the school music curriculum, in consultation with the children themselves: Children’s musical preferences deserve to be acknowledged . . . as this is the repertoire in which they are already steeped; it is a part of their selfhood, their own identity. Their music may warrant our inclusion in a class session, lesson or program. As we plan for our lessons and learning experiences with them, we must understand something of children’s musical selves. We need to know them in order to teach them and to acknowledge and validate them through a recognition of who they musically are. (p. 264)

Bringing Out-​of-​S chool Learning into the School The discussion of playground learning traditions, popular music learning practices, and the impact of technological media on children’s musical learning choices shows the breadth and variety of contemporary children’s interactions with music. Several commonalities emerge from such studies. A  brief summary of informal music learning based on Green’s work (2008), and observations of children when left to learn apart from adult supervision or direct instruction, appears in table 8.2. Five issues prompt a call for reconsideration of traditions associated with in-​ school music learning:

• Recognition of social and musical values • Notions of difficulty • Students as agents of their own learning • Kinesthetic ways of learning • Aural-​oral, holistic, and multimodal learning as a legitimate form of musicianship

Table 8.2 Principles of informal music learning and school-​based instruction: a comparative summary Green (2008) Informal Learning 5 principles

Playground & Out-​of-​school Practice

In-​school Music Historical Practice

Learners initially choose own repertoire to meet personal goals.

Learners choose repertoire to acquire for social and personal goals.

Teacher chooses

Copying recordings by ear is primary means of learning; unlimited repetitions available within time assigned to popular music learning unit.

Close imitation of aural/​oral/​ visual models by more adept peers or multi-​media sources; multi-​modal learning; multiple repetitions available over multiple iterations and multi-​year time frame.

Teacher led, large group response. May include notation and aural/​oral learning. Time frame determined by allotted class time.

Movement is central to all music experience and learning; eye, ear and gestural coordination essential for some forms of play.

Historically visual representation of sound has had more attention than kinesthetic or embodied response.

Learning integrates theory, aural skills, performance and composition.

Includes communal improvisation and composition on occasion using accepted conventions: ‘composition in performance’.

Ear training, composition and performance often seen as separate areas of instruction.

Learning is holistic, idiosyncratic and haphazard. Individual and communal learning integrated.

Skills develop as required by repertoire chosen. Holistic repetition preferred to analysis or segmentation.

Learning sequence simple to complex is the model. Skills developed sequentially through isolated patterns and/​ or drill.

All learners required to perform within small group.

Repertoire allows for many levels of participation from onlooker to acknowledged song leader. Children participate or withdraw at will and learn at their own pace.

Goal is to have all learners become active independent performer/​ participants.

Learning takes place in friendship groups. Self and peer directed learning

Learning takes place in friendship or familial groups. Self and peer directed learning

Grouping by assigned grade and school classroom. Teacher directed learning.

repertoire for curricular goals.

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

115

Social and Musical Values Professional music teachers must of necessity become expert in the traditions and values represented by presentational music. The result of such disciplinary expertise has been the relative devaluing of participatory music experience as educative. “As compared with other musical fields, participatory music-​making/​dancing is the most democratic, the least formally competitive, and the least hierarchical” (Turino, 2008, p. 35). As such, it might be expected to hold a central place in the curriculum for children aged 5–​12, typically seen as the province of musical learning for all children, regardless of musical ability. Adopting a “participatory frame” of reference to school music would value engagement and participation of the most learners. Such a frame also has appeal for students, as the goal is the pleasure of making music together in the moment, rather than a “rehearsing frame,” where the goal is a distant presentation for others, or a “knowledge frame,” where children acquire knowledge without enjoyment and engagement. For teachers, it means finding repertoire within your school’s and cultures’ context that is participatory by nature and including such experiences as part of the curriculum. Examples could include drum circles, children’s playground songs and games from their own and other cultures, line and other dancing and associated singing, rapping, and popular and vernacular adult musics as appropriate. This may mean opening up pathways to teachers’ own learning as well that of their students, a sometimes unsettling but rewarding experience.

Notions of Difficulty Although children sometimes create and perform things that are more difficult before they perform “easier” things in their musical play, it is not because they have no notion of relative difficulty. In fact they have quite well-​developed ideas of levels of difficulty, and use these to assist younger or less able players. However, these do not necessarily correspond to adult notions of what is difficult, especially in the rhythmic domain. The level of musical and kinaesthetic complexity of what children achieve in their play is often very high, and much more difficult than adults assume it to be. Children should therefore be given some say in how things are structured for learning, as well as acknowledging their holistic approach to learning and the need for peer teaching in the classroom. Children also need to be given opportunities to work with much more complex material in the classroom, not just watered-​down “music for children.”

Students as Agents of Their Own Learning Successful learning on the playground and in other areas of children’s informal learning depends on learners choosing the repertoire and with whom they work

116

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

closely. Some suggestions to foster student agency include the following (see also Wiggins & Espeland, ­chapter 9).



• Provide learners with control over some repertoire to be learned (by inviting children to bring favorite musical material into the classroom, whole class vote, small group or individual choice projects). Children could contribute regularly to a shared source of musical examples, sung or recorded onto smartphones and stored in a digital repository on the class or music computer. This could be complemented by a book (or ­computer repository) of favorite song or game lyrics (with some documentation of movements if appropriate) as a prompt for peer or student-​led teaching. • Raise the level of expectation for individual creation and performance and provide regular opportunities for small groups and individuals to work independently from the teacher. • Include popular music and a wide range of musical repertoire, including that requested by students. Ensure that both repertoire and associated activities are musically and cognitively challenging. • Allow for children’s creative manipulation of repertoire over time—​multiple versions promote ownership and development of compositional and performative skill. • Allow students to choose friendship groups for group projects. • Provide opportunity for peers to coach other students.

Importance of the Kinesthetic In virtually all forms of self-​directed play, movement is inseparable from music. If movement is the instinctive response to music for children outside the classroom, it can be a powerful tool for music learning in the classroom, when channeled or guided by the teacher. Movement is already integral to a number of pedagogical approaches that have widespread use in classroom music education. A kinesthetic learning dimension within the classroom might:

• Encourage children to invent movements to accompany songs, listening repertoire, and their own compositions. • Provide teacher models of expressive movements to recorded music for children to imitate (Ferguson, 2004).

Aural-​Oral, Holistic, and Multimodal Learning While being a literate musician was once defined as the ability to “see what one hears and hear what one sees,”10 this is a narrow view, particularly in a global context. Reading the style, the vocal nuances, of a live or recorded performance and

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

117

reproducing them are as important as reproducing pitch and rhythm in terms of conveying a performance faithful to the original. The ability to improvise or extend the model is another form of musicianship that goes well beyond ability to decode or encode music in traditional notation. For children, learning by ear through many repetitions of a complete song is a familiar and effective means of acquiring new repertoire, including stylistic and expressive elements. Use of multimedia technologies also draws on multimodal (aural-​visual-​kinesthetic) forms of music acquisition. For teachers such learning can be achieved through a number of classroom strategies:



• Allow for many levels of initial participation. Repeat repertoire over months or years, and vary the different ways that it is presented and in which children can participate, such as through listening, movement, and improvisatory experiences. • Provide expert music models yourself. • Invite children to act as models for others. • Use audio and video recordings as models, again allowing children ongoing modes of access (computer, karaoake, or mp3 players) for individual, small group, or whole group learning.

We take it as a given that there is no value-​free pedagogy, following Jerome Bruner’s (1996, p. 63) admonition: “a choice of pedagogy inevitably communicates a conception of the learning process and the learner. Pedagogy is never innocent. It is a medium that carries its own message.” The attempt here is neither to vilify school music practices as unnaturally repressive nor to dismiss out-​of-​school learning experiences as simple enculturation but to note that different fields of music-​making will have a pedagogy that is suited to their social and musical goals and values. We do invite teachers to reconsider the place of informal music learning experiences in a complete school curriculum. We are fortunate as music teachers that children seek to learn our subject out of school; indeed they seek it out with a devotion and conviction we would love to see within our classroom walls. The learning they do informally is serious, committed, and important to them as individuals and communities. If we wish to create learning communities within our schools, then adopting some of the social and pedagogical values found in informal music-​making will serve our goals and those of our students.

Reflective Questions

1. What are the major characteristics of children’s informal music-​making? Discuss your own or family members’ childhood experiences of musical play and engagement with informal or participatory music learning, alone and with others. What values attach to this kind of musical endeavor?

118

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh 2. What do you think is the appropriate balance between informal and formal music instruction in a school curriculum for children ages 5–​12? 3. What reservations do you have regarding the inclusion of informal learning practices in music classrooms?

KEY SOURCES Burn, A. N., & Richards, C. O. (2014). Children’s games in the new media age:  Childlore, media, and the playground. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. Turino, T. (2008). Music as social life: The politics of participation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

NOTES 1. This game is equivalent to What’s the Time Mr Wolf, found in England and Australia. 2. For a discussion of a framework for the interpretation of musical play based on other disciplines, including cultural studies, gender studies, sociology, and anthropology, see Young (2007, 2012), also Burn and Richards (2014). 3. Turino also defines two other fields of music-​making: high fidelity music and studio art music. Each of the four embodies social and musical values, means of transmission, and attractions for participants and listeners. 4. Students typically enter a school of music by audition on a performing instrument or voice. Thus even those who seek a career in teaching must have first mastered presentational music at some level. However, this is not the case for generalist classroom teachers, who are often responsible for teaching music as part of the primary school curriculum—​for example, in the United Kingdom, many European countries, and much of Australia. (See Jeanneret & DeGraffenreid, ­chapter 12.) 5. Routines may also be known as stepping or cheers, described by Gaunt (2006) as “performances of percussive choreography—​based on a more polyrhythmic and multi-​ limbed sequence of handclapping gestures, thigh-​slapping, and foot-​stomping” (p. 76). 6. These games have varying names, such as Slide (U.S.), Ujeong Test (Korea), and Salamyukyuk (Australia), and consist of a number of clapped beats using varied hand positions, forming an initial pattern that is gradually extended during the course of the game as a test of memory and clapping skill (Marsh, 2008). 7. Such complexities include concurrent metrically contrasting cycles of text and movements, syncopation, asymmetrical meters, and additive meters.

Children’s Ways of Learning Inside and Outside the Classroom

119

8. Although Green’s research has been conducted in the secondary school context, the age group on which this research has focused to some extent falls under the jurisdiction of what is variously termed primary or elementary school and is therefore pertinent to this discussion. For example, in Australia children attend primary school until age 12 and in Norway until age 13. Two recent studies have examined informal learning in primary school classrooms in Australia and the United Kingdom (Benson, 2012; Lill, 2015). 9. See, for examples beginning in the 1970s, the work of Murray Schafer in Canada, John Paynter in the United Kingdom, the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project and the Contemporary Music Project for Creativity in Music Education (CMP) in the United States. 10. The quotation is attributed to Schumann by Zoltan Kodály in his talks to college students.

REFERENCES Benson, F. (2012). Thrown in the deep end: Informal learning in a primary music classroom (honors thesis, University of Sydney, Australia). Retrieved from http://​ses.library.usyd. edu.au/​handle/​2123/​8857. Bickford, T. (2014). Earbuds are good for sharing: Children’s sociable uses of headphones at a Vermont primary school. In J. Stanyek & S. Gopinath (eds.), Oxford handbook of mobile music studies (pp. 335–​355). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bishop, J. C., & Curtis, M. (2001). Play today in the primary school playground. Ballmoor, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Blacking, J. (1995). Venda children’s songs:  A study in ethnomusicological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1967.) Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burn, A. N., & Richards, C. O. (2014). Children’s games in the new media age:  Childlore, media, and the playground. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Campbell, P. S. (2001). Unsafe suppositions? Cutting across cultures on questions of music’s transmission. Music Education Research, 3(2), 215–​226. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Countryman, J. (2014). Flaws, missteps, and morphings in children’s musical play: Snapshots from school playgrounds. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(1), 3–​18. Countryman, J., Gabriel, M., & Thompson, K. (2016). Children’s spontaneous vocalizations during play: Aesthetic dimensions. Music Education Research, 18(1), 1–​19. Emberly, A. (2013). Venda children’s musical culture in Limpopo, South Africa. In P. S. Campbell & T. Wiggins (eds.), Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 77–​95). New York: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, L. (2004). I see them listening:  A teachers’ understanding of children’s expressive movements to music in the classroom (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois. Gaunt, K. D. (2006). The games black girls play: Learning the ropes from double-​Dutch to hip-​ hop. New York: New York University Press. Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

120

Eve Harwood and Kathryn Marsh

Harrop-​Allin, S. (2010). Recruiting learners’ musical games as resources for South African music education, using a Multiliteracies approach (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Harwood, E. (1987). The memorized song repertoire of children in grades four and five in Champaign, Illinois (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois. Harwood, E. (1998a). Music learning in context:  A playground tale. Research Studies in Music Education, 11, 52–​60. Harwood, E. (1998b). Go on girl! Improvisation in African-​American girls’ singing games. In B. Nettl & M. Russell (eds.), In the course of performance: Studies in the world of musical improvisation (pp. 113–​125). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lill, A. L. (2015). Informal learnings: Young people’s informal learning of music in Australian and British schools (unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://​hdl.handle.net/​2123/​13683. Lum, C. H. (2007). Musical networks of children: An ethnography of elementary school children in Singapore (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Lum, C. H. (2008). Home musical environment of children in Singapore: On globalization, technology, and media. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(2), 101–​117. Marsh, J., & Bishop, J. C. (2014). Changing play: Play, media, and commercial culture from 1950s to the present. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Marsh, K. (1999). Mediated orality: The role of popular music in the changing tradition of children’s musical play. Research Studies in Music Education, 13, 2–​12. Marsh, K. (2006). Cycles of appropriation in children’s musical play: Orality in the age of reproduction. The World of Music, 48(1), 8–​23. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K. (2013). Music in the lives of refugee and newly arrived immigrant children in Sydney, Australia. In P. Campbell & T. Wiggins (eds.), Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 491–​509). New York: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K., & Young, S. (2016). Musical play. In G. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 462–​484). Oxford: Oxford University Press. McIntosh, J. A. (2006). Moving through tradition:  Children’s practice and performance of dance, music and song in South-​Central Bali (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queen’s University, Belfast. Minks, A. (1999). Growing and grooving to a steady beat. Yearbook for Traditional Music, 31, 77–​101. Minks, A. (2013a). Miskitu children’s singing games on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua as intercultural play and performance. In P. Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 218–​231). New York: Oxford University Press. Minks, A. (2013b). Voices of play: Miskitu children’s speech and song on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Riddell, C. (1990). Traditional singing games of elementary school children in Los Angeles. (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles. Turino, T. (2008). Music as social life:  The politics of participation. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. Young, S. (2007). Digital technologies, young children, and music education practice. In K. Smithrim & R. Upitis (eds.), Listen to their voices: Research and practice in early childhood music (pp. 330–​343). Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators’ Association. Young, S. (2012). Theorizing musical childhoods with illustrations from a study of girls’ karaoke use at home. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 113–​127.

Chapter 9

CREATING IN MUSIC LEARNING CONTEXTS Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

Making music is a social process (DeNora, 2000; Turino, 2008) in that performing is often collaborative and shared, listening generally involves music created by others, and, while some creating of original music is collaborative, even solitary work often is done with an awareness of how the music might be received by others. Learning is also a social process (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998) in that we often learn from others, but even when we are learning independently, we are using processes, strategies, and information that we previously learned from others or products created by others. It is therefore important to honor the social nature of both music-​making and learning when planning and scaffolding music learning experiences. Making music is an individual process but also a cultural process (Nettl, 2005) in that both the product created and the processes involved in its creation are embedded in a particular cultural milieu, including the nature of the musical system involved and the sociocultural contexts within which it resides. Learning is an individual process but also a cultural process, in that the subject matter to be learned and the ways it is taught are socioculturally embedded (Rogoff, 2003). In planning music learning experiences, it is important to honor both the individual and the social nature of music-​making and learning. Making music is a creative process, whether participants are involved in performing, listening, or creating their own music through composing or improvising. We focus here on learners’ composing original music in classroom contexts because, in the past 50 years, classroom composing has become an important part of

122

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

music curricula (Glover, 2000; Hickey, 2003; Kaschub & Smith, 2009b, 2013; Viig, 2015; Wiggins, 1999, 2015). Although creative work often occurs in social contexts, creating is a highly personal process (Amabile, 1996). Therefore, in scaffolding creating experiences in music learning contexts, it is important to establish social and musical contexts that honor and support the creative processes of individual learners. In this chapter, we consider sociocultural and musical contexts that potentially foster and support music learners’ creative work in school settings. We begin by sharing some perspectives on the nature of music and the nature of learning and how they inform music teaching, then consider what researchers say about learners’ collaborative creative work in music classroom settings, and finally consider some instances of music learning in the context of collaborative composing in elementary and primary classroom settings.

Social Contexts for Learning The vision of music learning and teaching we share here is rooted in social constructivist theories of learning that characterize learning as a constructive process of the individual that takes place in a social context (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998; see also Davis, ­chapter 13). Our vision is also rooted in a phenomenological view of learning, which implies that educators need to be aware that all knowledge is grounded in first-​person experience and that the consciousness of the self and the body play an important part in any learning relationship (Bowman, 2004; Merleau-​Ponty, 2002). Individual learning processes are holistic and contextual, nurtured through interactions with others. Researchers across various fields view learning as a constructive process,1 meaning people learn through engaging in experience, formulating understanding of that experience through the lens of their prior experience, and forming new understandings from the intersection of the new and the previously known. In essence, people come to understand new ideas through the context of what they already know, understanding one thing in terms of another. Basic implications of these theories include that learning is experiential, interactive, cumulative, contextual, and holistic (Bruner, 1996; Dewey, 1938/​1998). Processes of constructing knowledge do not take place in a vacuum. More knowledgeable others invite us into their understanding of new ideas and operate in ways that support the development of our understanding of the ideas (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). Bruner (1966) characterized this support as scaffolding. The vision of scaffolding shared here is rooted in a broad definition that includes everything a teacher might do to support student learning, including framing and planning the learning experience, providing appropriate groundwork to foster and enable student success in the experience, and assessing student understanding throughout

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

123

the experience (Wiggins, 2011a, 2015). Most important, we envision scaffolding as characterizing the teacher’s role and way of being in the classroom, in that it encompasses all the decisions that inform and frame the relationship between teacher and learner and among learners—​and the nature of those decisions. We describe this vision of scaffolding as artful teacher scaffolding, in that it requires a high level of understanding of learning and teaching as well as, in arts education settings, a high level of understanding of the art form and art activity being taught. In this frame, successful music teaching requires extensive and insightful understanding of both musical and learning processes. Within this context, however, learning is a process of the individual. Artful teacher scaffolding can and should foster and enable individual learning. To learn something new, a learner must be willing to engage above his or her level of competence and comfort, which makes risk-​taking an essential element of any learning process (Rogoff, 1990). To be willing to take risks, learners need to have a certain level of personal agency (Bruner, 1996; Rogoff, 1990; also see Harwood & Marsh, ­chapter  8). A  healthy, productive learning environment, then, is one in which learners have ample opportunity to engage with what is to be learned (in this case, music) to figure things out for themselves, drawing on prior experience to formulate understanding of new experience, in the context of a socially interactive environment that promotes learners’ risk-​taking, and personal agency.

Musical Contexts for Learning Part of creating a healthy, productive music-​learning environment is framing musical experience in ways that make musical ideas most accessible to learners—​ that is, most authentically connected to the ways they experience and understand music. Historically, many curricular materials have been generated that frame music teaching through what have been viewed in Western music education as the elements of music. Researchers, philosophers, and educators (Kaschub & Smith, 2009a; Serafine, 1988; Swanwick, 1999) have suggested that this is not the only way we experience music and so, therefore, should not necessarily be the prominent frame through which we teach music. Perhaps we need to approach music teaching through a broader vision that embraces more holistic qualities of musical works and musical experience in addition to enabling us to understand the structural elements of music. Part of the issue may be the ways we have used the elements of music to frame music teaching. It is not that the elements themselves are not holistic; it is the variation in interpretation of their meaning and application that can lead to atomistic contexts or reductionist approaches (for example, a focus on identifying loud and soft sounds as opposed to focusing on how musicians might use dynamic change to interpret or create a particular effect).

124

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

Wiggins (2015) offers a broader vision from which one might frame and plan music learning experiences, rooted in the work of psycholinguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (2003), who present a compelling characterization of human thought and understanding as metaphorical in nature. They propose that the most complex human ideas like love and anger—​and, we would add, music—​are multi­ dimensional experiential gestalts.2 Lakoff and Johnson suggest that we formulate understanding of experiential gestalts by engaging with and coming to understand the various dimensions or “directly emergent concepts” that “emerge naturally from our experience” of the whole (p. 81). If music is a multidimensional experiential gestalt, then Lakoff and Johnson’s (2003) dimensions may offer a more useful metaphor for qualities of music than the metaphor of elements provides. The concept element can imply that assembling or reassembling constituent parts will create a whole. We would not be the first to suggest that the notion of gestalt—​a concept of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts—​is likely a better and more useful descriptor of musical experience. There are qualities of musical experience that are broader than constituent elements, and these qualities are also viable points of entry for music learning and teaching. One way to conceive a broader vision of Western music is to think of what are commonly known as elements as, instead, interactive dimensions of music (pitch, rhythm, melody, harmony, form, texture, dynamics, tempo, timbre, articulation) with the understanding that these dimensions interact to produce metadimensions (for example: style, genre, architecture, and affective qualities such as mood, tension/​release, climax/​denouement, unity/​variety, balance) that are reflective of sociocultural, historical, and personal contexts and are performed and understood with a sense of ensemble and simultaneity.3 Such broader metadimensions of music may provide better points of entry into musical experience for some music teaching. When engaging learners in composing or improvising, one might invite them to enter an experience through focusing on a particular dimension or metadimension. When parameters or guidelines stem from a broader dimension rather than from detail, student composers and improvisers have more freedom to invent original musical ideas. For example, using texture as a point of entry, one might invite learners to improvise a conversation between two characters or invite one student to establish an idea and others to join that idea by playing something that either fits with it or does not. Using architectural design as a point of entry, one might invite learners to create a work that slowly builds in intensity to a climax and then suddenly cuts off to silence. As learners enter these contexts and begin to articulate their own musical ideas, they will be making spontaneous decisions about and operating within most of the other dimensions and metadimensions. Filling broader parameters with one’s own ideas is much easier than working in a situation where the nature of those ideas has been specified or restricted (Amabile, 1996; Barrett, 2003). When music teaching is approached from a holistic, contextual frame, learners are better able to become musical thinkers and decision-​makers. Understanding the “bigger picture” enables them to have a basis for making decisions and conceiving

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

125

original ideas. With better understanding of what they are being asked to do in a classroom setting, learners are more apt to be willing to take risks and initiative in their learning and more capable of taking responsibility for their own learning in the context.

Students’ Collaborative Composing Teaching music through engaging learners in creating original music also requires understanding of learner’s processes and strategies when they are engaged in collaborative composing in classrooms. The work of researchers who have analyzed student work in such settings has shown the process to be cyclical and recursive, holistic and contextual, and situated in the students’ shared understanding of the intent, process, tools, social context, and musical context of the work in progress.4 Students composing together seem quite able to generate original musical ideas, expressed to peers through singing, rhythmic speech, gesture, and playing instruments. One benefit of inviting students to engage in collaborative creating is that engaging in the shared process requires them to make their musical ideas public in some way. This helps them become more musically articulate, in a sense more able to give sound to ideas they conceive. Literature on children’s generative creation of musical ideas describes the process as intentional, meaningful, and compelling expression, connected to and reflective of their life experiences (Glover, 2000; Marsh, 2008; Moorhead & Pond, 1978; Sundin, 1998). Analysis of literature on students’ composing also makes it clear that composers generate musical ideas in relation to and in the context of a) the nature and capabilities of the sound source that they are using, b) the intended musical role of the section under construction (for example, whether it is to be a transitional passage or an accompaniment), and c) the meaning of the text, if present (Wiggins, 2007). It seems evident that composing begins with generation or invention of musical thought that is then enacted in some way or, alternatively, a musical action that enters the student’s musical consciousness as a musical idea. In either case, the thought and action become part of meaningful creative process (Espeland, 2007). Studies of compositional process (Espeland, 2007; Folkestad, Hargreaves, & Lindström, 1998; Wiggins, 1994) contain consistent evidence that as musical ideas are generated and enacted, they are considered within the frame of the individual’s or group’s initial conception of the work as a whole. Learners’ (sometimes instantaneous) reflection on the potential contextualization of the ideas is most often what provides a basis for acceptance or rejection of ideas, whether by the individual or by the group. Reflection on the potential for contextualization also sparks development of ideas within the frame of the context, sometimes by the initiator, but often by collaborators who, through appropriation, begin to see the ideas as belonging to the group. Learners’ initial conception of an idea is also influenced by a preconceived

126

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

vision of what the whole might be, including potential mood, affective qualities, style, and so forth (Wiggins, 1994, 2007). All researchers who have observed the process over time note that once the product begins to take shape, it is performed or rehearsed repeatedly, spawning continual revision and refinement until the composers decide the work is finished (Faulkner, 2003). Sometimes the birth and development of a musical idea occurs in a setting where personal tensions and discussions among group members reflect not only the progress of the compositional process but also self-​oriented, relational, and personal actions. Studies of music learning through creating often have emphasized creative thinking rather than creative agency and actions (Espeland, 2007). In collaborative work, teachers need to be aware that learners often alternate between task-​related concerns and expressive or socioemotional concerns, with the creative and expressive/​socioemotional often occurring simultaneously (Espeland, 2007). When learners compose in groups, teachers need to deal with this duality in constructive ways to ensure that learners will feel safe to take creative risks and focus on their compositional actions (Green, 2008, Wiggins, 2011a). Composing, like all human experience, occurs in a sociocultural context within which capacity for personal agency impacts on the nature of the work (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Sociocultural influences are active whether a composer is working alone or engaged in collaborative work. These influences include musical knowledge, perceived expectations of adults and peers who may hear the music, and social issues arising among peers working together. Personal agency refers to an individual’s feelings of self-​determination in a particular context, that is, how much control an individual feels over his or her own circumstances and ability to act. When composing takes place in school or research settings, the extent of agency felt by the composers can be highly influential in the nature of their work and in the work they produce. In figure 9.1, we share a collaborative vision of students’ compositional processes when composing in classroom settings (attempting to portray the highly interactive nature and forward-​driven motion of composers’ actions and decisions), embedded in layers of sociocultural context and emphasizing the necessity of personal agency in enabling participation in the process.

Learner Agency in Creating By now, you may have noted the emergence of learner agency as a core issue in both learning and creating experiences. Learning requires risk-​taking, which only happens when learners feel confident in their ability to have some control over their own situation, feel competent enough to be willing to engage, and believe that their ideas and contributions will be valued and respected. Capacity

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

127

Figure 9.1  Students’ compositional processes; based on Wiggins (2007) and Espeland (2007).

to enter into and be productive in a creative experience also requires the same confidence, competence, and feelings that one has some say in or control over one’s situation, and belief that one’s ideas and contributions will be valued and respected. Further, learners’ capacity to initiate and develop ideas in both learning and creating is deeply rooted in their feelings of personal agency in the situation. Teachers need to be aware of the essential role of learner agency and carefully consider how the environment of their classrooms and their choices, decisions, and general ways of being may either positively or negatively affect their students’ feelings of agency.5

128

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

Scaffolding Learners’ Creating In school settings, creating often takes place in collaborative contexts, although creative process is, in some ways, a process of the individual, as previously discussed. Fostering successful creative work in classroom contexts requires attention to some critical issues. First, creating takes time. Learners need to have enough time to be able to conceive ideas, share them with peers, make decisions about how they will be merged into a collaborative work, and bring the work into some cohesive form that can be shared publicly, with learner confidence and competence. Sufficient time is needed for a multiplicity of ideas to be expressed and considered within the collaborative group and for consensus to be reached (Espeland, 2007; Wiggins, 2015). But before learners even begin to engage in creating, there are prerequisite components that need to have been in place. Wiggins (2015) characterizes these components as laying preliminary groundwork. For learners to know how to proceed in their creating, they need to fully understand the parameters within which they will be asked to work. Most often, this kind of groundwork is best laid through a series of performing and listening experiences that precede the creating time.6 Through such preparatory experiences, learners come to understand the metadimensional qualities within which they will be asked to generate new ideas. These preparatory experiences can be considered a form of scaffolding. Artful teacher scaffolding is an essential component for fostering learners’ creative work. Beyond engaging learners in preparatory experiences that precede the creating, teachers’ decisions, actions, and ways of being during the creating experience itself will often will be a determining influence in learners’ capacity to succeed and the extent of that success. Part of this involves laying appropriate groundwork and then getting out of learners’ way and providing them space to think and work.7 If the preparatory experiences were successful, the environment is conducive, and learners understand how to proceed, they will thrive, initiating ideas and considering ideas of peers throughout their creating. It is important to recognize, however, that teacher scaffolding also has the capacity to overstep its bounds (Wiggins, 2011a). Artful scaffolding is consistently mindful of learner perspective and needs. Collaborative work also provides ample opportunity for peer scaffolding, another essential component that supports learner success, since common experience and understandings among peers often enable them to translate for one another and support one another in ways that adults external to the situation may do less effectively. In planning learning experiences, it is important for teachers to create opportunity for and make time and space for peer interaction. Peer scaffolding can be both musical and social and occurs in many forms, from direct verbal instruction and demonstration to subtle and careful musical support (Espeland, 2007).

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

129

Creating in Music Learning Contexts Let us consider the social and musical contexts of some instances drawn from studies of learners creating collaboratively in school settings. In the first vignette, a music teacher artfully scaffolds a whole-​class song-​composing experience. In the second vignette, students use what they learned during prior teacher-​scaffolded experiences to compose in a peer-​ scaffolded, teacher-​ monitored small group setting. In the third vignette, students compose in a peer-​scaffolded small group setting, but in this case, the teacher moved from room to room and, during some time periods, was not present at all as students worked.

Artful Teacher Scaffolding of Musical Invention A class of seven-​year-​olds worked with Mrs. Clark, their music teacher, to brainstorm ideas for a song they would write together and, after much discussion, agreed on some lines of text to use as a starting point: Aliens, aliens are everywhere. Aliens, aliens are stuck in my hair. Star Wars Troopers blast them away ’Til the next holiday. Mrs. Clark suggested, “Let’s try these words and see what happens and go from there.” Many individual students were suggesting spoken and sung ideas, some to Mrs. Clark, some to their neighbors, some to themselves, under their breath. The room was humming—​literally. Mrs. Clark prompted, “Now, we’ve got to get some kind of music to go with this.” She wrote the first pair of lines on chart paper, intentionally taking her time because she could hear the children’s musical ideas percolating around the room as the classroom was filled with an en masse, simultaneous think-​aloud. After leaving a bit more space for their thinking, Mrs. Clark quietly played some chords on the keyboard over on the side of the room, trying out different timbres, saying, “We need something kind of spooky.” After a few more minutes of intentional space and time, she asked, “All right, how are we going to sing this? Do you want something like a march or do you want . . . ” The children continued to sing to themselves, trying out ideas. Mrs. Clark quietly suggested an accompaniment pattern:  “Does this seem like aliens are coming?” She was intentionally trying out accompaniment ideas in C minor, which was where most of the children seemed to be singing to themselves, probably because the chords she had played to sample some timbres suggested C minor. Meanwhile, the quiet generation and evaluation of melodic ideas continued in the background. One student, Cheryl, was chanting the four lines of text to herself in rhythm,

130

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

experimenting with changing the lyrics. As Mrs. Clark played a C minor chord, she sang ­example 9.1 to herself:

Mrs. Clark then played a few sound effects. The children were getting very excited. Over the productive din, she was saying, “Now that you know what the song will be like, you have to come up with the tune and then we have to come up with some more words for it.” Cheryl was singing ­example 9.2 to herself.

Mrs. Clark asked, “How are we going to sing?” and offered ­example 9.3.

Almost everyone in the room was now singing or speaking. So many ideas were coming at once. Among them, Rick sang ­example 9.4 to himself, perfectly in tune, and in a lovely ringing tone, especially the high G that rang as he sustained it.

Meanwhile, Cheryl was singing ­example 9.5 to herself, in the relative major key.

She then sang a variation of this melody, while Rick, sitting on the other side of the room, sang ­example 9.6.

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

131

Because there were audio recordings of the musical musings of Rick and Cheryl, we know more about their processes of invention and evaluation of musical ideas than we do about the ideas of their peers. However, as Mrs. Clark was aware, most, if not all, the students were engaged in similar processes throughout this period. Mrs. Clark intentionally stood over on the side of the room, near the chart paper and keyboard, literally working from the sidelines in this classroom—​making as much space as she possibly could for the students to think in sound and evaluate, vary, adapt, and transform their ideas until they were satisfied and ready to share them with others. The environment seemed safe and comfortable for all. Very few students spoke with one another. Most just sat singing to themselves, slightly under their breath, trying to figure out how to set the lyrics in a way that would reflect a mood appropriate to a song about aliens. Meanwhile, so subtly that it is likely that no one in the room even noticed except Mrs. Clark, she set forth quiet suggestions that established subtle musical parameters that helped bring the children’s wide-​ranging ideas into some form of productive unity. That she quietly played some chords in C minor caused many of the students to develop their thematic material in that key. That she quietly played a few timbres she thought might reflect the mood of the text caused some students to reflect the timbral qualities in their invented material. The whole incident lasted only about five minutes, but in that space, so many initial ideas were generated that once the students began sharing them publicly with the whole class, they did so with confidence, and the song took form in no time. And because she had subtly suggested a key and timbral quality for the accompaniment, the ideas that were shared had certain similarities that enabled the students to produce a cohesive, collaborative work quite easily. Within about 20 minutes, they had created and set all the lyrics and were beginning to brainstorm ideas for how the song would be arranged and interpreted, in terms of orchestration, sound effects, who would sing which part, whether some parts would be sung more softly than others to build intensity, and so forth.

Musical Invention Scaffolded by Prior Experience Ten-​year-​old students in an American general music class were engaged in a four-​ lesson unit on the blues. Through analytical listening and performing, they had come to understand the form, basic chord progression, style, and feel of blues. From singing and accompanying some traditional blues songs, they knew that the songs flowed over a 12-​bar progression, often consisting of three lines of text, the second line a repetition of the first. In this, the third lesson in the unit, they were asked to work in small groups to write their own stanza of a blues song. Students’ earlier work in this unit of study served to lay groundwork that prepared them to know how to approach this composing activity. The teacher explained the assignment: “All you have to do is think of two lines that rhyme. I can give you an example from yesterday—​a great one. A boy from another class wrote (speaking the lyrics), ‘I woke up this morning and I was waiting

132

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

for a cab. Broadway bound, I was running up a tab.’ And when he sang it, it went . . . ” She sang8 ­example 9.7, playing a “walking” bass line and block chords on the piano, similar to the material the students had been hearing and performing during the two classes prior.

As work began, five students who were friends outside class assembled in one corner of the classroom. Sandy prompted, “C’mon. Start thinking!” Wen-​Li countered, “We are thinking, Sandy, except for you,” and laughed. Encouraging focus, Lori said, “Okay. Let’s think.” (Laughter.) “We’re trying to think. Okay. Everyone think. Okay?” Lisa mused, “We could do one about school,” and without a moment’s hesitation, Lori sang ­example 9.8 with a heavy, bluesy vocal quality.

Wen-​Li responded, “No, I got one. I got one,” and sang ­example 9.9.

Lori interrupted, speaking quickly, “Well I  got an F minus on my test today. Well I got an F minus on my test today. I’m gonna go home . . . . and throw it away! And throw it away! Throw it away (laughs). All we have to do is two sentences.” Lisa said, “I know, but nothing like that!” Shenika added, “Come on! How about music!” Wen-​Li prompted, “Guys, we gotta sing. Okay?”

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

133

Lori repeated her recent idea (ex. 9.8) with a happier tone, still singing blue notes, but this time, snapping her fingers on the off-​beats. Lisa interrupted, “Wait. Not an F minus!” and sang a rhyme about underwear on a me, re, do pattern. Sandy objected, “No! C’mon. Let’s do something a little more mature.” Moving the underwear idea into a “more mature” context, Lori sang ­example 9.10.

A few more ideas were half-​suggested. Lori said softly, “You gotta think. You gotta think,” and then suddenly, “Wait! I like that one I had!” Shenika asked, “Why, what’d you have?” Lori sang ­example 9.11.

Correcting her, Wen-​Li insisted, “Two lines!” But Lori knew she was right. “I know, but you have to repeat the first one! Sandy pronounced, “I like it!” Lori sang the first line again in a growling blues voice and laughed. Wen-​Li took Lori’s idea and amended it with her own idea (ex. 9.12.)

134

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland This prompted Lori to experiment with the ending as well (ex. 9.13).

They continued to suggest alterations and edits until the ever-​evolving product became truly representative of their collective ideas, though initially based on the idea of one group member. Initially influenced by a model provided by the teacher, as the learners invented and developed their own ideas, they moved further and further from the model, guided by the flow and meaning of the lyrics they were developing. Evident in these interactions is the extent of the learners’ overall focus, concentration, and their capacity to work consistently toward completion, constantly defining the process for themselves (“We gotta sing!” “Two lines!”). Also evident is their willingness to take risks and operate from a sense of personal agency as they invent, enact, and collaboratively evaluate their musical ideas. Throughout their process, notice in particular how these learners had internalized the sound and feel of the blues, including many of its most representative qualities. They had developed this understanding in the context of their prior experience with the dimensions (elements) and metadimensional qualities of blues. It grew out of their direct participation in playing the blues progression (bass line and chords) and improvising melodically over the progression on resonator bells during prior class sessions. Their experience of hearing professional recordings in class and other informal life experiences with the style also informed their understanding of the nature of blues rhythm and stress, the use and feel of blue notes, and the broadest defining qualities of the genre in which they were working.

Musical Invention as Dialogic Activity among Peers In the interactions in this vignette, we see students working with no teacher present, building on strategies they learned through prior teacher-​scaffolded experiences (Espeland, 2007). In a Norwegian classroom, 12-​year-​old students Siri, Harriet, Iselin, and Martin were busy creating their own rhythm pieces in small groups using classroom instruments. As part of a unit on African music, they were asked to compose music that could be used for dancing. The holistic, open-​ended nature of this assignment provided a context within which learner ideas could flourish. In these interactions, we can see evidence of cooperation and dialogic activity among the group members, as one person starts something that another picks up, changes a little, and through this process, a new motif is born. Looking at Harriet, Siri asked, “Can we change beaters?” She crawled over to Harriet and tried two different beaters on Harriet’s metallophone and then on her own instrument. Meanwhile, Martin found a mallet and banged the cowbell quite close to Iselin’s ear.

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

135

Iselin exclaimed, “Don’t!” and laughed. Siri said, “Look!” and played a small motif on Harriet’s instrument (ex. 9.14).

Iselin became interested as well and paid attention. Siri played her motif again, keeping each note a little longer, and Harriet nodded her head. Siri walked over to her own alto xylophone. Iselin counted to four, and then Siri and Harriet played together. Siri repeated the notes in a special rhythm (ex. 9.15).

At the same time Harriet played the original idea with single notes on her metallophone. Martin laughed and began to sway. Siri considered, “We need to have a certain sequence . . . If we start with this and then this one . . . ” Harriet finished her thought, saying “ . . . and then this one,” pointing to Iselin’s instrument. Siri tried to play the motif with two beaters in thirds, saying, “We can have two notes at a time.” Harriet interrupted her: “We’d better start now, don’t you think?” The dialogic nature of musical invention is evident in this vignette, even physically. Siri moved over to Harriet’s instrument and found the first notes of the motif there. The first motif was born probably as a result of Siri trying out the sound of new mallets on Harriet’s instrument and Harriet, liking it, imitating it—​in actuality, appropriating Siri’s idea. Then Iselin helped create rhythmical shape to the motif by counting to four, and Siri varied and expanded the motif, making it into an accompanying rhythm. Harriet was now settled and wanted the others to join in. Martin’s role was different. He started by disturbing the two girls with his cowbell, but seemed to become fascinated by what the girls were inventing together, signaling this by swaying and laughing. Through a follow-​up group interview, the researcher learned that even the participants were not quite sure who had created the motif, except that it had all begun with Harriett’s experimentation with the sound of her instrument (Espeland, 2007). In all the instances of musical invention shared here, it is important to note that, although the children were working with relative independence as both musicians and learners, they were also learning quite a bit about music—​about how it “works” and how it expresses. It is also important to note that the particular musical ideas were almost always the ideas of individuals within the group, shared with the group, and then incorporated into the collaborative effort of the group. Engaging music learners in collaborative composing provides them with opportunity to formulate and contribute original ideas, see them valued, and see them blended with the ideas of others or, in some cases, setting the tone for the whole work. When the process honors the ideas of individuals, engaging in collaborative creating engenders in learners a sense of personal agency as musicians and composers, and—​in the

136

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

experience of many teachers who have worked with students in these kinds of settings—​empowers individuals to engage in independent composing, either inside or outside class. As such, these kinds of experiences c­ ontribute in important ways to the ongoing development of learners’ musical identity (Macdonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2002; Wenger, 1998).

Fostering and Supporting Creative Learning Processes In this chapter, we argue that meaningful creating in music learning contexts and meaningful learning in music creating contexts are best fostered and supported when the processes are grounded in a number of specific beliefs about and approaches to learning and teaching. In essence, these beliefs and approaches constitute an educational platform for creative music learning and teaching, on which many variations in setting, learning environment, and framework are possible. We base our platform on research across many disciplines, our experience as educators, and our own research into music learning through creating in school contexts. In summary, we believe that educational approaches to creating in learning contexts (and learning in creating contexts) should be based on (1) a social constructivist and phenomenological view of learning, (2) a strong belief in the creative abilities of young people and their capacity for musical and creative decision-​making, and (3) understanding that the educational approaches should be culturally embedded, holistic, and authentic in nature. In music education practice, this means that (1) learning and teaching should be rooted in a multidimensional vision of music (avoiding potentially atomistic approaches to music), (2)  teachers should be aware of how the social aspect of learning and teaching is inclusive and integrated in musical and creative learning, and (3) artful scaffolding of learning processes is an integral part of enabling students to develop sound, meaningful music learning processes. We do not believe that artful creating in music learning contexts is dependent on creating within specific musical genres or a specific timeline for the introduction of specific musical genres. Nor do we believe that music learning contexts should be planned around friendships among students or based solely on students’ own selection of musical examples and starting points for learning. A social constructivist and phenomenological view of learning implies that teaching is artful scaffolding of learners’ experiences as they engage in their search for realization of their creative abilities and their ability to seek out the best qualities in music as well as in their own lives. From our perspective, authenticity is a core issue in teaching music through engaging learners in creative experience. Authenticity is sometimes linked to learners’

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

137

freedom of choice or culturally appropriate embedding of musical material. In our view, authentic music learning and teaching contexts for student creating are rooted in (1) teaching in ways that are most authentically connected to the ways people learn, (2)  engaging with music in ways that are most authentic to the nature of music, and (3) engaging learners in ways that are most authentic to the ways they naturally create. Throughout creative processes, the teacher needs to connect consistently and meaningfully with learners’ perspectives (van Manen, 2015) to be able to provide scaffolding when needed, and to step back to make space for learners’ independ­ ence when it emerges. Most important, creative processes need to take place in an environment of mutual respect in which learners feel valued for their ideas and contributions and feel they have some control over their own processes and results—​ that is, that they have a sense of control over and ownership of their personal agency as musicians, as creators of music, and as architects of their own musical identities.

Reflective Questions



1. What are some ways that music teachers can scaffold music learning when students are engaged in creating music in classroom settings? 2. What are some ways that music teachers can empower learner agency? What kinds of teacher actions or ways of being might limit or infringe on learner agency? 3. In a classroom setting, making space for learners’ creative experience often means spending more time engaging in particularly meaningful experiences while “covering” less material. Is this problematic? What qualities do you think would make such experiences more or less meaningful to learners? 4. Can you think of situations in which your own musical growth was fostered and supported by a collaborative musical experience?

KEY SOURCES FOR FURTHER READING Barrett, M. (ed.). (2011). A cultural psychology for music education. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Wiggins, J. (2015). Teaching for musical understanding (3rd ed.). New  York:  Oxford University Press.

138

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

WEBSITE http://​www.oakland.edu/​carmu Center for Applied Research in Musical Understanding (CARMU).

NOTES 1. For example: biologists (Freeman, 2000; Zull, 2002), cognitive linguists (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), neuroscientists (Damasio, 1994), educational philosophers (Greene, 1995), and educational psychologists and sociologists who work from a sociocultural perspective (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998). 2 Barret and Veblin (­chapter 10) also discuss music as multidimensional. 3. By no means are we suggesting this as the only way one might conceive of music or think about music for teaching. We also are aware that others have explored these kinds of ideas with similar goals in mind. For example, Norwegian composer Lasse Thoresen combined what he called “a phenomenological perspective with a pragmatic use of particular structuralist techniques” (Thoresen, Hedman, & Thommesen, 2007), conceptualizing music as having time-​fields (the temporal segmentation of the musical discourse), layers (the synchronous segmentation of the musical discourse), dynamic form (time directions and energetic shape), thematic form (recurrence, variation, and contrast), and form-​building transformations (looser and firmer gestalts, transformations between them). Along a similar line, Kaschub and Smith (2009a) offer five principles as starting points for teaching composition: stability/​instability, sound/​ silence, unity/​variety, tension/​release, and motion/​stasis. 4 See Wiggins (2007) for a more extensive analysis of this literature. 5 For an extensive discussion of musical agency and its role in music learning, see Wiggins (2016). Also, Wiggins (2011b) offers insight into interactions between musical agency and musicians’ vulnerability. 6. In classroom curricula, performing and listening experiences that might precede creating experiences have other educational and musical value as well. We do not mean to imply otherwise; we are just making the point that these experiences are actually essential for effectively grounding meaningful creating experience. 7 Artful teacher scaffolding also can be described as professional improvisation in teaching (Holdhus et al., 2016), where the focus is not only on the teacher’s ability to act and respond meaningfully there and then, but also his or her preparedness for something unexpected to happen. 8. All eighth notes in these examples were sung in the uneven swing style appropriate to the blues.

REFERENCES Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview. Barrett, M. (2003). Freedoms and constraints. In M. Hickey (ed.), Why and how to teach music composition (pp. 3–​27). Reston, VA: MENC.

Creating in Music Learning Contexts

139

Bowman, W. (2004). Cognition and the body. In L. Bresler (ed.), Knowing bodies, moving minds (pp. 29–​50). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: Norton. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Damasio A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error. New York: HarperCollins. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi (originally published in 1938). Espeland, M. (2007). Compositional process as discourse and interaction: A study of small group music composition processes in a school context. Ph.D. diss., Danish University of Education, Copenhagen (2006). Published by Høgskolen Stord/​Haugesund (Stord/​ Haugesund University College). Faulkner, R. (2003). Group composing. Music Education Research, 5(2), 101–​124. doi: http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​146380032000085504. Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lindström, B. (1998). Compositional strategies in computer-​based music-​making. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 83–​97. doi: http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1017/​S0265051700003788. Freeman, W. J. (2000). How brains make up their minds. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Glover, J. (2000). Children composing 4–​14. London: Routledge Falmer. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Hickey, M. (ed.). (2003). How and why to teach music composition. Reston, VA: MENC. Holdhus, K., Høisæter, S., Mæland, K., Vangsnes, V., Engelsen, K. S., Espeland, M., & Espeland, Å. (2016). Improvisation in teaching and education—​roots and applications. Cogent Education, 3(1), 120–​142. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. P. (2009a). Principled approach to teaching music composition to children. Research and Issues in Music Education, 7(1). http://​www.stthomas.edu/​ rimeonline/​vol7/​kaschubSmith.htm [accessed October 27, 2010]. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (eds.). (2009b). Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical thinking. Reston, VA: MENC. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (eds.). (2013). Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. New York: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Macdonald, R., Hargreaves, D., & Miell, D. (eds.) (2002). Musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical Tact: Knowing What to Do when You Don’t Know What to Do (Phenomenology of Practice), 1st ed. New York: Taylor and Francis. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Merleau-​Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. New York, NY: Routledge. Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1978). Music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. (Originally published 1941, 1942, 1944, and 1951.) Nettl, B. (2005). The study of ethnomusicology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

140

Jackie Wiggins and Magne I. Espeland

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Serafine, M. L. (1988). Music as cognition. New York: Columbia University Press. Sundin, B. (1998). Musical creativity in the first six years. In B. Sundin, G. E. McPherson, & G. Folkestad (eds.), Children composing (pp. 35–​56). Malmö, Sweden: Lund University. Swanwick, K. (1999). Teaching music musically. London: Routledge. Thoresen, L., Hedman, A., & Thommesen, O. A. (2007). Form-​building transformations. Journal of Music and Meaning, 4(3). http://​www.musicandmeaning.net/​issues/​ showArticle.php?artID=4.3 [accessed October 27, 2010]. Turino, T. (2008). Music as social life. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Viig, T. G. (2015). Composition in music education: A literature review of 10 years of research articles published in music education journals. In E. Georgii-​Hemming, S. E. Holgersen, Ø. Varkøy, & L. Väkevä (eds.), Nordic research in music education, Yearbook (Vol. 16, 227–257). Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wiggins, J. (1994). Children’s strategies for solving compositional problems with peers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(3), 232–​252. doi: 10.2307/​3345702. Wiggins, J. (2007). Compositional process in music. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 451–​467). Amsterdam: Springer. Wiggins, J. (2011a). When the music is theirs:  Scaffolding young songwriters. In M. Barrett (ed.), A cultural psychology for music education (pp. 83–​113). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Wiggins, J. (2011b) Vulnerability and agency in being and becoming a musician. Music Education Research 13(4), 355–​367. doi: 10.1080/​14613808.2011.632153. Wiggins, J. (2015). Teaching for musical understanding (3rd ed.) New  York:  Oxford University Press. Wiggins, J. (2016). Musical agency. In G. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 102–​121). New York: Oxford University Press. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Chapter 10

MEANINGFUL CONNECTIONS IN A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE MUSIC CURRICULUM Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

Seeking Clarity About Curricular Connections A comprehensive music curriculum is characterized by breadth and depth of musical experience. Curricular breadth involves planning for students’ participation in a wide range of musical engagements (singing, playing, composing, improvising, listening, moving, evaluating); exposure to a broad repertoire of works, styles, and genres; and emphasis on the ways that music is organized and constructed through its distinctive elements and forms. Depth of musical understanding comes from pursuing a well-​chosen sample of these engagements, musics, and elements with regularity and intensity. Through a curriculum that offers both breadth and depth, students become aware of the vast possibilities for lifelong involvement that music affords, and gain the keen satisfaction of knowing some music well. In classrooms where teachers plan for breadth and depth of experience, students make personal connections to the music they have studied by viewing it as an integral part of their

142

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

lives, and explore how music is closely related to other interests and areas of study as well. It is this interpretation of a comprehensive curriculum that leads most readily to meaningful interdisciplinary connections. This chapter begins by addressing key concepts that support a principled foundation for interdisciplinary work in music. Next, we clarify distinctions among common terms used to refer to curricular schemes for organizing a connected curriculum. Principles that can be used to guide curricular decisions are provided. We then explore interdisciplinary work in music from perspectives of (1) the teacher, (2)  the learner, (3)  the overall curriculum, and (4)  approaches and models for generating and organizing interdisciplinary experiences. Whenever possible, we supplement our North American perspective (the U.S.  and Canada), with select examples that reflect a more international scope. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to education are sometimes viewed as incompatible. Proponents of disciplinary approaches argue that school subjects, or disciplines, are historically developed systems of ideas, theories, and ways of knowing that constitute key areas of human achievement. Accordingly, these subjects need to be studied as domains in their own right. With greater disciplinary specialization comes rigor. A common argument for integrated approaches maintains that schools partition knowledge into school subjects, and in so doing, make it difficult for students to understand complex, interrelated problems and to generate new solutions. Interdisciplinarity is viewed as the remedy for this disconnectedness, while perhaps sacrificing some disciplinary rigor for relevance. In this chapter, we hold these two perspectives in productive tension. Rigorous study of music as a subject is as essential as understanding how music influences, and is influenced by, other disciplines. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives are complementary; both are necessary to realize educational aims. Parsons aptly conveys this balance: “A good traditional curriculum aims at an understanding of disciplines, and a good integrated curriculum aims at an understanding of the lifeworld” (2004, p. 76). The music curriculum for elementary or primary education has traditionally emphasized performing music through singing and playing instruments. Skillful and expressive performance has held fast as the organizing center, with learning to read and write musical notation in a supporting role. Historically, this emphasis on performance and musical literacy was expanded to acknowledge that children learn music through listening, creating, and moving as well, what has been called the “fivefold curriculum.” In recent decades, the music curriculum has become more inclusive through greater emphasis on improvisation, composition, analysis, and evaluation, study of the historical and cultural roots of music, and imaginative bridges to other school subjects. A greater diversity of repertoire, access to diverse musics, inclusion of vernacular as well as classical traditions, and availability of technology have also prompted more variability in what is taught and learned. The move toward comprehensiveness is prompted by the belief that children can be musical in many different ways, and that the curriculum should offer them experiences to develop these interests and musical roles in varied capacities

Meaningful Connections

143

(Boardman, 1996; Reimer, 2003). This expansion implies that teaching music in relation to other subjects is not an auxiliary goal, but central to a broad education in music. As the music curriculum has become more comprehensive, it has necessarily become more interdisciplinary as well. Teaching for connections, and doing it well, depends on the formation of meaningful, rather than superficial, relationships between music and other subjects, and learning to identify these in mutually illuminating ways. Relational thinking, then, is fostered in a sound and well-​designed interdisciplinary curriculum through teachers’ efforts to promote:

• Connections within an arts discipline, so that students will understand how the processes, works, styles, and ways of thinking within an arts domain are related • Connections across the arts, so that students understand how the expressive and aesthetic experiences of the arts share commonalities and inspiration, as well as distinctive qualities • Connections across the arts to subjects outside the arts, which lead students to realize how the arts influence, and are influenced by, these subjects • Connections that transcend disciplinary boundaries altogether, allowing students to see the world, including the arts, more clearly and to situate themselves within that world (Barrett, 2008, p. 4)

Coming to Terms A central question guiding the design and organization of school experiences is “How should the curriculum be interrelated?” The quest for coherence within arts education has taken shape through many approaches and initiatives, known by a wide variety of labels, such as the interdisciplinary curriculum, integrated curriculum, arts integration, interrelated arts, and arts-​infused curriculum, among ­others. Most typical, perhaps, is the broad term integrated curriculum, which, when applied to the arts, is usually described as arts integration. Common definitions of arts integration include

• “Integrating one of more of the arts into the academic curriculum” (Seidel, Tishman, Winner, Hetland, & Palmer, 2009, p. 53) • “The effort to build a set of relationships between learning in the arts and learning in the other skills and subjects of the curriculum” (Deasey, 2003, p. 3) • “The use of two or more disciplines in ways that are mutually reinforcing, often demonstrating an underlying unity” (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994, p. 13)

Teachers must employ clearheaded thinking when designing and evaluating integrated models to determine what they imply for those who teach the arts (curricular specialists, generalists, teaching artists), the constellation of subjects

144

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

to be studied (arts to arts, or arts to subjects “outside”), and the aims and intentions of bringing subjects together (Russell & Zembylas, 2007). The term arts integration, for example, can connote a balanced and reciprocal study of two or more subjects, in which learning in one area is enhanced by well-​planned experiences in the other. It can also lead to instrumentality if the arts are taught primarily for the purpose of enhancing or supporting learning in other areas of the curriculum rather than for their own sake, a “subservient” approach (Bresler, 2002). If integrating the arts implies a loss of their distinctive expressive qualities and consequently, a loss of their vitality and importance in school settings, little is gained. Nonetheless, the term arts integration is widespread, requiring thoughtful evaluation to determine the extent, degree, and purposes for arts learning. Taggart, Whitby, and Sharp (2004) report on a UK-​initiated international study of arts curricula. In eight of the twenty-​one countries surveyed, the arts are integrated into a single curriculum area. This study found that “the majority of ‘integrated’ arts systems use themes to group artistic knowledge and skills across the arts disciplines” (p. 13). In other educational systems, they may be taught as separate entities, each art with its own traditions, skills, and processes. Another curricular approach fosters study within and across arts disciplines, sometimes called the related arts or integrated arts. Such initiatives focus on the design of arts-​rich experiences that place two or more art forms together to highlight the commonalities and distinctive qualities of each. Integrated arts programs invite the imaginative exploration of two or more arts in tandem, such as music and art, music and dance, music and theater, or multiple arts. The lack of common language across approaches has challenged curriculum scholars and designers to distinguish educationally sound programs from more superficial attempts by focusing on validity and integrity. For example, Marshall calls for true integrated art education that is substantive when it “explores and explicates connections between areas on a conceptual and structural level” (2006, p. 18). As Bresler notes, “because integration, like all concepts, is a construction, it can mean different things to different people in terms of contents, resources, structures, and pedagogies; yet the multiplicity of meanings is not always explicit in the ways we use the term” (2002, p. 20). In this chapter, we have adopted the inclusive term interdisciplinary to refer to curricular approaches involving music and other disciplines that lead to students’ understanding of meaningful connections among topics, subjects, works, and experiences, or put another way, toward the development of relational thinking. We hold that the primary goal of an interdisciplinary curriculum in the arts is to promote relational understanding between and among disciplines, to intensify the expressive meanings that the arts provide, and to foster lifelong engagement and participation in the arts. The crux of interdisciplinarity stems from music educators’ goals to teach music broadly, and to lead students toward understanding its varied meanings, influences, sources of inspiration, uses, and significance to their lived experience.

Meaningful Connections

145

Key Principles for Promoting Meaningful Connections Curricular expansion has intensified the number of decisions that music teachers must make in planning educational experiences. As the curriculum has broadened to encompass many forms of music-​making, study, and types/​genres of music, curricular choices have also become more complex and varied, stimulating a need for principles to guide the design of valuable musical experiences for children. Interdisciplinary initiatives add further opportunities and challenges to the mix. In searching for substantive ideas, teachers rely on key principles to guide thoughtful planning, teaching, and assessment. Music is influenced by, and in turn influences, other realms of human ­experience—​the principle of permeability. Detels (1999) writes about “soft boundaries” between areas of study that are “continually open to redefinition and change as additional experience is received and examined” (p.  28). Evidence for this evolving transfer of ideas can be found in historical and contemporary work in music, art, theater, dance, and other expressive forms as artists are often inspired “across” subjects or domains, borrowing across art forms to create new works that redefine and challenge our experience of the arts. This fluidity across art disciplines serves as a strong rationale for interdisciplinary work as teachers and students explore the permeable boundaries between school subjects. Another central concept is multidimensionality, the notion that a musical work can be experienced in many different ways. Music is based in sound, and students can examine the varied ways that music moves through time. Some musical works have “extramusical meanings,” particularly through text or programmatic associations. Personal associations and responses to music are also part of its expressive power. Music is also influenced by the time and place in which it is created, performed, and experienced; these social and cultural meanings convey nuances of understanding. Any educational encounter with music may foster multiple responses to these multiple dimensions. In turn, a multidimensional view offers more points of connection with other musics and ideas outside the work itself. As students experience musical works and related ideas from multiple perspectives and through multiple media, their capacities for forming strong connections are deepened. Encountering art works while taking on varied roles as creators, performers, and perceivers is a promising antidote to superficial exposure. Interdisciplinary projects, initiatives, or programs make educational sense when the principle of complementarity is held in mind. Teachers strive to highlight reciprocal relationships between or among disciplines as students examine and understand how one discipline illuminates aspects of the other. Attention to complementary relationships makes it more likely that music will not be forced into a subservient position to other disciplines or subjects, and that consequently, connections from music to other subjects will reflect and respect the ways of thinking in the related discipline as well. In this regard, understanding is a “two-​ way street.” Closely related is the notion of hybridity, which acknowledges that some realms of artistic expression mix or combine multiple art forms (opera or film, for

146

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

example); studying how characteristic qualities of various arts fuse into a larger whole is a compelling and sensible avenue for interdisciplinary study. Meaningful connections arise through juxtaposition, which is exercised when teachers place key ideas, works, and disciplines in close proximity to one another to invite relational thinking. The artistry of teachers is revealed in the way disciplines, works, or themes are arranged within the curriculum, inviting creative interplay, investigation, and invention. When teachers and students collaborate in evaluating how well ideas complement one another, they evaluate their goodness of fit. The strength of connections between and among disciplines, works, and themes varies. Evaluating interdisciplinary approaches depends on judging the extent, depth, type, and substance of connections, the principle of integrity. For many teachers with experience and expertise in interdisciplinary curriculum, this principle is especially important in gauging the quality of the students’ experience and its lasting impact.

The Music Teacher as Interdisciplinarian In North America, most music teachers are educated as disciplinary specialists, immersing themselves in the study and performance of music in order to attain high levels of accomplishment and understanding. Teacher education and professional development programs are organized tightly and sequentially in ways that promote musical expertise. Disciplinary depth is the goal. Designing a substantive interdisciplinary curriculum and teaching for meaningful relationships requires, however, that music specialists branch out from this strong core of musical preparation, drawing on or acquiring a more eclectic knowledge base. Here, breadth is desired. Music teachers who strive to become interdisciplinarians take this challenge seriously, seeking life experiences, educational offerings, curricular openings, and personal interests as venues for new learning. As interdisciplinarians, music teachers become skilled at drawing on musical expertise while also developing lateral knowledge, or an interdisciplinary knowl­ edge base across disciplines, domains, and life experiences (Barrett, 2007b, 2008, 2016). Teachers’ intellectual curiosity, artistic playfulness, willingness to stretch through new experiences, and capacities for inquiry and reflection enable this move into new realms of curricular territory. School context plays an important role as well, as professional learning opportunities, continuing education, and access to cultural resources support teachers’ lateral moves. Upitis, Smithrim, and Soren (1999) studied how participation in arts experiences enabled teachers to deepen their artistic sensibilities and beliefs about the values of the arts, promoting significant transformation of their practices. Teachers in two distinct professional development programs developed curriculum projects for their classrooms but, most importantly, experienced personal growth that changed their artistic worldviews.

Meaningful Connections

147

The transformation of teachers’ thinking is often enabled by collaboration with other teachers, guest artists, and experts in other fields. Collaboration, writes Bresler, has not always been valued in school settings. It depends on “a shift of perception regarding the relationship of the individual to the society, from the individual constrained by the community, to a framework where the individual becomes enhanced by interactions with others” (2002, p. 18). Collaboration allows for shared expertise, for joint work on behalf of students and school communities, and for more coherence in the overall curriculum. Many interdisciplinary initiatives imply that collaboration is a necessary condition for integration, but individual teachers can adopt an interdisciplinary mindset as “singletons” in their own school settings, particularly when conditions make collaborative work difficult or unlikely. Understanding collaborative processes is especially vital for interdisciplinarians working across programs, specialties, personalities, and classrooms on behalf of a more connected school curriculum.

Meaningful Connections from the Student’s Point of View Parsons situates students’ understanding at the center of any interdisciplinary moment in classrooms: “Integration occurs when students make sense for themselves of their varied learning and experiences, when they pull these together to make one view of their world and their place in it. It takes place in their minds or not at all” (2004, p. 776). The sense-​making impulse is also the cornerstone of constructivist views of education, which hold that meaning is constructed rather than transmitted, and view the curriculum as a medium through which meaning can be formed (Eisner, 2002). Astute observers of very young children know how they convey genuine enthusiasm for seeing the world as meaningful through the spontaneous and often charming associations they make. They exhibit an early form of relational thinking that Gardner and his colleagues call predisciplinary thinking, involving common-​ sense perceptions (Gardner & Boix Mansilla, 1994). Many curricular materials designed for young children exemplify this premise by centering instruction around some topical theme, such as animals, the seasons, or the senses. As grade levels progress, schooling socializes the child to view the world in more categorical and disciplinary terms, not surprisingly since the curriculum (and often the child’s day) is organized through subject matter. The primary school curriculum takes on more differentiated shape as the child progresses from early years through intermediate levels. As children progress, they learn the structure of the discipline through sequentially planned experiences. Framers of the music curriculum have considered the sequential nature of the curriculum essential to build children’s understanding

148

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

from simple to complex levels. Models of curricular planning at the middle school level often highlight interdisciplinary relationships for the purpose of exposing students to a wide range of ideas, topics, and subjects before they supposedly specialize further in secondary school and college. Thus, the structure of the formal curriculum often makes opportunities for relational thinking more or less likely, depending on predominant ends and goals. Yet the drive to seek relationships and to find how one seemingly disparate idea might be relevant to another idea animates the purpose for interdisciplinary studies across the curriculum. Regardless of the carefully planned integrative lessons or units within the formal curriculum, students seek coherence and correlation in their own views of the world. Boix Mansilla, Miller, and Gardner offer this metaphorical rationale from students’ vantage points:  “interdisciplinarity becomes a prism through which students can interpret the natural, social, and cultural worlds in which they live and operate in them in informed ways” (2000, p. 31). This point of view acknowledges students’ sense-​making tendencies, and the way that musical connections open up new vistas of interest and enthusiasm.

Meaningful Connections from a Curricular Perspective Music teachers with an interdisciplinary mindset organize educative experiences that will foster meaningful connections both within the music curriculum and across corridors and classrooms within the school. An excellent way to develop these capacities is to start with intradisciplinary relationships, which involve studying musical works, styles, and artists in tandem and in juxtaposition. Fostering such intradisciplinary work engages students in finding connections within music, and seeing how musicians have built on and acknowledged other musical ideas. Although sometimes this kind of thinking is not seen as integrated, the meanings students create within music are as valid as the meanings they find across disciplines. Interarts or related arts study involves music and the “other” arts, which most typically include visual art, dance, and drama but also embrace the literary arts of poetry and fiction, as well as film, photography, architecture, and ever-​evolving new media. Arts-​to-​arts approaches have been heralded as pathways for foregrounding the role of imagination, expression, and creative interplay in school settings (Eisner, 2002; Greene, 1995). Particularly valuable are instances where the study of two of more arts enhances students’ understanding of the similarities and distinctive ways of perceiving, responding, and creating among the arts, while opening up multiple means of expression. Across the arts, greater attention to historical and cultural underpinnings and influences leads organically to substantive study related to the social studies. Just as music’s roots are intertwined with the time and place in which the music is created and experienced, so is this true with related arts. An emphasis

Meaningful Connections

149

on the origin, transmission, and reception of artistic ideas demonstrates how the arts transform individuals and societies. Finding strong and meaningful relationships between music and subjects outside of the arts requires thoughtful examination and careful judgment. For example, music and science are integrally and meaningfully related when sound itself serves as the bridge, through the study of sound production (acoustics) paired with sound in musical contexts (timbre). In mathematics, fundamental relationships of pattern, sequence, and structure may be found in the rhythmic directions, phrases, and overall forms of music. The search for complementary parallels—​each informing the other—​is key. Ultimately, the significance of the interdisciplinary curriculum resides in the way that students construct more coherent, intersecting, and illuminating understanding of music as it relates to their personal experience and identity. When students employ musical understanding as a way of making sense of new concepts and ideas in other fields, this broad goal is realized. When they bring insights from other studies that in turn enrich their expressive responses to music, the curriculum becomes integrated into their ways of thinking, feeling, creating, judging, and valuing music as a site for knowing themselves and their worlds.

Approaches and Models The following section surveys common interdisciplinary approaches organized by type. These categorical distinctions influence where teachers start when planning for interdisciplinary experiences, how the educational experiences are structured, and to some extent, what students learn from them. Because these are planning structures for teachers’ benefit, such models only come to life when they are taken off the page and put into action with students. There have been attempts to develop typologies that group interdisciplinary approaches in helpful and illuminating ways. Some typologies are all-​purpose schemas (Brown & Nolan, 1989; Fogarty, 1991; Jacobs, 1989). Jacobs’s (1989) seminal continuum of options for content design includes six levels:  (1) discipline-​based, (2)  parallel disciplines, (3)  multidisciplinary, (4)  interdisciplinary units/​courses, (5) integrated day, and (6) complete program. Fogarty (1991) proposes 10 levels of integration (fragmented, connected, nested, sequenced, shared, webbed, threaded, integrated, immersed, and networked), while Brown and Nolan (1989) describe evolutionary stages in integration (correlation between subjects, thematic or topic approach, problem-​solving and practical resolution of issues, student-​centered inquiry). Krug and Cohen-​Evron (2000) offer four approaches to arts curriculum: “1) using the arts as resources for other disciplines; 2)  enlarging organizing centers through the arts; 3)  interpreting subjects, ideas, or themes through the arts; and 4) understanding life-​centered issues through meaningful educational experiences”

150

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

(p. 260). Although each typology offers insights, the music educator may infer that substantive analyses break down into three overarching categories: (1) topical, thematic, and generative organizers; (2)  process-​based approaches; and (3)  works-​ based curricular strategies.

Topical, Thematic, and Generative Organizers Topical, thematic, and generative organizers for interdisciplinary projects use an overarching theme, central topic, or essential questions as focal points. Most approaches in this category are created on the premise that a “big idea” will unify the curriculum and allow for exploration of that idea from many vantage points and disciplinary perspectives. Classroom teachers are well acquainted with this method of structuring activities, although it is used less commonly in music and arts classes. Burnaford (2009) found “big ideas” and “big understandings” were the major tool for arts integration in a case study of six schools: “Big ideas in the world of arts integration often work from the concept level; when curriculum is organized around concepts, there is room for multiple inquiry questions, multiple approaches to teaching, and multiple products in terms of student work in various disciplines and media” (p. 19). To qualify as a “big idea,” Burnaford cited Erickson’s definition of a concept as a “mental construct that is timeless, universal and abstract” (Erickson, 2008, p. 30). Central themes allow teachers to collaborate on short-​or long-​term projects, to link curricular fields, to share expertise, to plan over the course of a year or years, and even to unify entire school philosophies. This use of a central or underlying theme may appeal to music and arts educators if it helps them understand how disparate subjects relate and cognitively connect to the structure of the curriculum. One ongoing research group that has investigated and catalyzed learning, thinking, and creativity in the arts is based at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Founded in 1967, Project Zero continues to provide leadership in arts thinking through the work of Howard Gardner, David Perkins, Lyle Davidson, Lawrence Scripp, and others. Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory has been used as the rationale for many interdisciplinary programs. Likewise, a number of projects carried out through Project Zero experiment with themed models for integration. Perkins, in particular, emphasizes the generative approach to works of art, calling for a pedagogy of understanding. He notes: “Since understanding something involves building relational webs . . . education in the arts and elsewhere might explicitly highlight such relations and webs built of them. . . . Moreover, ­discourse of this sort would promote two other characteristics of understanding:  generativity and open-​endedness” (1988, pp. 128–​129). Perkins sets forth standards for good generative themes. He advises that fertile topics are distinguished by: (1) centrality to a subject or curriculum; (2) accessibility

Meaningful Connections

151

(to allow wider understanding); and (3) richness (so that the topics encourage many and different connections) (1992, p. 93). Erickson (2008) advocates that teachers plan with essential questions, unifying the curriculum through an inquiry focus. Snyder (2001) finds themes as a useful organizing center for interdisciplinary design, recommending that music teachers be involved directly in choosing the theme. “The danger in having others determine themes,” she cautions, “is that sometimes the selected themes are unsuitable for teaching music” (p. 37). Russell-​Bowie (2009) terms her thematic organizer a Syntegration Model (see fig. 10.1), illustrated through the Community Harmony Project. During the course of the project, a core group of 18 children selected from a primary school in Australia worked with facilitators to create artwork reflecting and promoting peaceful relationships within their community. Activities culminated in an exhibition (including a rap, a Readers’ Theatre presentation, a multimedia presentation, and a shadow puppet play) where the core group presented and taught music, art, and drama activities to some 300 participating children (pp. 13–​14). Many interdisciplinary projects employ theme-​based models and serve as useful examples for examination. Chen-​Haftek’s Sounds of Silk project combines study of Chinese music and culture with three schools, six teachers and 250 fifth and sixth grade teachers in New York City (2007). The overarching curricular focus allowed for collaboration among arts specialists and classroom teachers. Ferrabee-​ Sharman and Stathopoulos (2006) document the Montreal FACE project, the evolution of an inner-​city public school’s curriculum through a thematically integrated arts curriculum. Chrysostomou (2004) describes how Greek curriculum Generic Skills

Arts

Maths

English Theme, idea, concept, focus, question Science and Technology

Social Studies Physical Education

Figure 10.1  Russell-​Bowie Syntegration Model. Reprinted with permission from International Journal of Education and the Arts (Russell-​Bowie, 2009,).

152

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

uses Flexible Zone, or blocks of time deliberately allocated throughout the school week, to facilitate interdisciplinary projects. She cites the ongoing Melina project in selected Greek elementary schools that integrated music, arts, and culture as a specific example. Kosky and Curtis (2008) investigate a social studies and arts integration project in Pennsylvania at a sixth grade level. Wilkinson (2000) describes the Toronto-​based Community Arts and Education Partnership (CAEP) that combined arts and literacy in a theme-​based, sequential, integrated curriculum for over 500 students from diverse heritages at all grade levels at four sites over five years.

Process-​Based Approaches These approaches operate from the notion that characteristic ways of thinking, or cognitive skills, will unify the curriculum; students engage in these processes using various subject matters as the content to be connected via the skills involved. In these approaches, students engage in “higher order” procedures that allow them to find relationships across disciplines. Powerful advocates for the process-​based approach include progressive educational thinkers such as Dewey. In Art as Experience (1934), Dewey advocated that isolated disciplines should be integrated and that students need to engage in concrete and enjoyable experiences to understand how subjects are interrelated. Reacting to Kilpatrick’s (1918) projects-​based curricula, Dewey favored interdisciplinary studies where “the interdependence of knowledge and the relationship between knowledge and human purpose would be made clear” (Kliebard, 1995, p. 153). Dewey’s insights galvanized curricular planners of the day and served as a foundation for later influential thinkers such as Beane (1997). Such process-​based approaches may be what Fogarty (1991) refers to as a threaded metacurricular approach, where teachers incorporate strategies such as self reflection and inquiry into the overall curriculum. The threaded approach, according to Fogarty, “supersedes all subject matter content.” Using this approach, “interdepartmental teams can target a set of thinking skills to infuse into existing content priorities” (p. 64). Strand (2006) documents how two third grade classes and a team of teachers collaborated with a theatre company to tell the story of Gilgamesh, the story serving as the basis for a year-​long curriculum. She compares collaborations in the elementary experience to a related summer program for gifted high school students, in which integrated arts courses were developed and team-​taught by arts and humanities teachers. Strand proposes a model of relationships between themes in collaborative curriculum development that extend the topics-​based model into process and thinking dimensions. The field of language arts/​literacy offers additional opportunities for integrating arts through process according to Burnaford et al. (2007). Particularly when citing

Meaningful Connections

153

common practices of using children’s picture books as the starting place for curricular units, Burnaford notes: While much of this work is not titled explicitly as “arts integration,” authors suggest ways for classroom teachers to help students notice the pictures, draw meaning, and at the same time learn about the visual representation, artist and illustrator choices, and media. The correlation between subjects is apparent in the instructional materials themselves. (p. 24)

The Ontario Arts Curriculum takes a process-​based approach to literacy by grouping artistic knowledge and skills across the four areas of dance, drama, music, and visual arts. Process targets for this integrated arts system are:  (1) creating and presenting/​performing, (2)  reflecting, responding, and analyzing, and (3)  exploring forms and cultural contexts (Ministry of Education, 2009, pp. 13–​14).

Works-​Based Approaches These approaches take their impetus directly from the artistic nature of creative inspiration with the underlying assumption that when composers, poets, painters, choreographers, novelists, filmmakers, and others work, they draw on their substantial knowledge of separate disciplines as they make creative moves across several fields. Although few models have been developed, these approaches attempt to bridge the gap between artistic realms and school study. The facets model developed by Barrett, McCoy, and Veblen (1997; see figure 10.2) is based on a metaphor that a work of art is like a gem with many Who created it? When and where was it created?

What does it sound or look like?

What kind of structure or form does it have?

What techniques did its creator use to help us understand what is being expressed?

The Work

Why and for whom was it created?

What is its subject? What is being expressed?

Figure 10.2  Facets model (Barrett, McCoy, & Veblen, 1997). Reprinted by permission of the authors.

154

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

facets. In order to move beyond superficial acquaintance to deeper levels of understanding of a particular musical work (or a painting, poem, or sculpture as well), individuals must study and experience multiple dimensions of that work. Teachers and students who use the model are led to consider the time and place in which the work was created, the characteristic elements of the work and how these relate to one another, and the range of expressive meanings that the work conveys and evokes. The model becomes particularly useful to guide interdisciplinary planning when this multifaceted examination leads to closely related subject areas, such as the historical and cultural context in which the work was created, or related forms of expression in other arts. If the curriculum incorporates several works, and especially works from several different art forms, the connections between and among the works become more apparent once teachers and students have pursued possible answers posed by the model for each work. The juxtaposition of multiple art works leads to the realization of substantive, meaningful connections. Morin (2003) evokes categories for activities in a web and brainstorming approach. She uses West African music as the springboard, but her model could be transferred to other musical genres. Morin’s model (fig. 10.3), bears some resemblance to a topics-​centered approach in that music lies at the center with strategies radiating outward. However, the focal musical example shares an indivisible bond with the culture and time of that specific music. Morin’s model is also clearly not static or fixed since it moves from a piece of music to relevant and complementary topics. Teachers who use this for planning and students who explore music through suggested activities will benefit from a broader perspective of how the music and culture are interwoven. Other approaches include full curricular models centered on specific pieces of music, artwork, poetry, related disciplines, and instructional strategies. Younge (1998) generated, implemented, and researched a middle-​school curriculum focused on African music, specifically on Boboobo (the most social music and dance of the central and northern Ewe peoples of Ghana). History, geography, science, economics, anthropology, movement, arts, storytelling, instrument playing, drumming, and singing are woven through all lessons. Pyne (2006) worked with teachers and students from two New  York high schools to generate and implement a curriculum based on the blues; lessons included historical and sociological contexts, related arts, and writing with music as the central focus. Russell (2016) investigated the Brazilian arts collective Grupo Mundaréu; community-​ based groups such as this one reach intergenerational audiences in both formal and informal contexts. She ponders the feasibility of using community-​based arts models for integration of music in school curricula, the level of expertise required for successful arts projects, and the place of cultural and sacred traditions, as well as matters of funding. Whether originating in themes, topics, inquiry questions, processes, or works, many of the models surveyed trace the evolution of simpler to more involved

Meaningful Connections

155 Notation invented nonconventional conventional

Instrument Making Field Trips zoo greenhouse cultural center museum store library

Creating/ Re-creating Timbre natural environmental human musical

Listening/ Viewing

Media audio/video recordings live performers Internet CD-ROMs

Guides maps analysis tools reviews charts

Composing soundscapes melodies songs speech rhythm vocal accompaniments movements

Genres novelty folk popular

West African Culture

Research print human nonprint electronic

Singing

Exploration Improvisation Technique/Skill Development

MUSIC

Moving

Genres lullabies folk songs game songs work songs festive songs

Literature Connections poems legends folk tales multi-arts

Cultural Bridges spirituals gospel ragtime blues jazz thematic

Pitched marimba mbira flute/recorder

Nonpitched Playing Percussion hand clapping drumming rattles Homemade bells Analysis identify compare contrast function

Style

Musical Features rhythm melody harmony form timbre expression

Figure 10.3  Morin’s Web and Brainstorm model. Reprinted with permission from Music Educators Journal (Morin, 2003, p. 29).

structures. To some extent, all of these approaches are theme-​based and, to some extent, all rely on process. Exemplars, by their very nature, are limited in capturing the energetic, creative, and complex exchanges that occur during the course of an actual interdisciplinary endeavor. Such models, however, are also extremely useful to help facilitate organizing, planning, and collaborating.

156

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

Deepening the Impact of Interdisciplinarity in the Music Curriculum Music educators who seek to practice interdisciplinarity in their work continually strive for integrity and validity of classroom experiences (Barrett, McCoy, & Veblen, 1997). They thoughtfully construct an instructional environment in which students will be more likely to make meaningful connections that move beyond superficial associations between music and other subjects, creating an interpretive zone (Bresler, 2002) for forming and reforming connections. As disciplinary specialists, teachers may see themselves as stewards of subject matter, working to uphold their values about the nature of music and its inherent satisfactions. Accordingly, some integrated proposals may be viewed as compromising music study rather than enhancing it. Various approaches may not fit particular school contexts and communities, requiring adaptation and modification if they are to be implemented and sustained with any great effect. A crucial area in need of professional attention is the development of instructional strategies and appropriate models for assessing the strength of connections students form (Barrett, 2007a). Assessment is a great clarifier in that it crystallizes expectations and efforts to articulate what we envision for school experience as compared to the realities of what actually transpires. Eisner reminds us that “students learn both more and less than they are taught” (2002, p. 70). In the interdisciplinary curriculum, this is particularly true, requiring flexibility of educational aims as well as clarity of intentions. In order for students to exhibit and convey relational thinking, we need to develop imaginative vehicles and lively spaces for them to do so, and to foster integrative and synthetic thinking throughout schools. Within the interdisciplinary curriculum, music generously offers rich possibilities for students’ engagement in meaningful work. Taking an interdisciplinary approach invites teachers to stretch their curricular imagination and to branch out in fruitful and complementary directions that augment goals for music learning. When students’ capacities and inclinations toward relational thinking are encouraged, they are even more likely to incorporate music into their school experience and to seek lifelong involvement, meaning, satisfaction, and understanding by pursuing music beyond school. The following questions invite readers to consider the ways that a comprehensive music education fosters meaningful connections and enriches the curriculum.

Reflective Questions

1. Why should music educators take both disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches into account? What might a combined approach look like?

Meaningful Connections

157

2. What makes students’ connections between music and other subjects meaningful? How do you facilitate valid interdisciplinary experiences? 3. The chapter offers several models for use in planning interdisciplinary activities for students. Which are most useful for your teaching context and why?

KEY SOURCES Barrett, J. R. (2016). Adopting an interdisciplinary approach to general music. In C. Abril & B. Gault (eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 168–​182). New York: Oxford University Press. Bresler, L. (2002). Out of the trenches: The joys (and risks) of cross-​disciplinary collaborations. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 17–​39. Burnaford, G., Brown, S., Doherty, J., & McLaughlin, J. (2007). Arts integration frameworks, research and practice: A literature review. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Russell, J., & Zembylas, M. (2007). Arts integration in the curriculum: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 287–​302). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

REFERENCES Barrett, J. R. (2007a). Assessing the strength of interdisciplinary connections in the music curriculum. In T. S. Brophy (ed.), Integrating curriculum, theory, and practice: Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on Assessment in Music Education (pp. 103–​113). Chicago: GIA. Barrett, J. R. (2007b). Music teachers’ lateral knowledge. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 147, 7–​23. Barrett, J. R. (2008). The curricular imagination. Paper presented at the Southeast Center for Education and the Arts in Education Forum: The Role of Professional Development in Facilitating the Practice of Arts Education. http://​www.utc.edu/​Outreach/​SCEA/​ Curricular-​Imagination.pdf [accessed August 4, 2010]. Barrett, J. R. (2016). Adopting an interdisciplinary approach to general music. In C. Abril & B. Gault (eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 168–​182). New York: Oxford University Press. Barrett, J. R., McCoy, C. W., & Veblen, K. K. (1997). Sound ways of knowing: Music in the interdisciplinary curriculum. New York: Schirmer Books. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration:  Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press. Boardman, E. (1996). Fifty years of elementary general music: One person’s perspective. Paper presented at the Music Educators National Conference, Kansas City, MO. Boix-​Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 17–​38). New York: Teachers College Press.

158

Janet R. Barrett and Kari K. Veblen

Bresler, L. (2002). Out of the trenches: The joys (and risks) of cross-​disciplinary collaborations. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 17–​39. Brown, M. T., & Nolan, C. J. P. (1989). Getting it together: Explorations in curriculum integration, out of class activities and computer applications. Palmerston North, NZ: Massey University. Burnaford, G. (2009). A study of professional development for arts teachers: Building curriculum, community, and leadership in elementary schools. Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 5(1). http://​www.escholarship.org/​uc/​item/​18h4q9fg [accessed October 27, 2010]. Burnaford, G., Brown, S., Doherty, J., & McLaughlin, J. (2007). Arts integration frameworks, research and practice: A literature review. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. 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. Chrysostomou, S. (2004). Interdisciplinary approaches in the new curriculum in Greece: A focus on music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(5), 23–​29. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Deasey, R. (ed.) (2003). Creating quality integrated and interdisciplinary arts programs: A report of the Arts Education National Forum. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Detels, C. (1999). Soft boundaries: Re-​visioning the arts and aesthetics in American education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch and Company. Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Erickson, H. L. (2008). Stirring the head, heart and soul: Redefining curriculum, instruction, and concept-​based learning (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ferrabee-​Sharman, L., & Stathopoulos, T. (2006). FACE:  Implementation, manifestation and evolution of an integrated arts curriculum for an inner city school. Submitted to the UNESCO Planning Committee for the World Congress on Arts Education, Lisbon, Portugal. http://​portal.unesco.org/​culture/​en/​files/​29734/​11376627711statho_​sharman. pdf/​statho_​sharman.pdf [accessed August 4, 2010]. Fogarty, R. (1991). How to integrate the curricula: The mindful school. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishers. Gardner, H., & Boix Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96, 198–​218. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Jacobs, H. H. (ed.) (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum:  Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–​335. Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–​1958 (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Kosky, C., & Curtis, R. (2008). An action research exploration integrating student choice and arts activities in a sixth grade social studies classroom. Journal of Social Studies Research, 32, 11–​27. Krug, D. H., & Cohen-​Evron, N. (2000). Curriculum integration positions and practices in arts education. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 258–​275. Marshall, J. (2006). Substantive art integration = Exemplary art education. Art Education, 59(6), 17–​24.

Meaningful Connections

159

Ministry of Education. (2009). Ontario Arts Curriculum 1–​8. Toronto, Canada:  Author. http://​www.edu.gov.on.ca [accessed August 4, 2010]. Morin, F. (2003). Learning across disciplines: An approach to West African music. Music Educators Journal, 89(4), 27–​34. Parsons, M. (2004). Art and integrated curriculum. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 775–​794). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Perkins, D. N. (1988). Art as understanding. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1), 111–​131. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools:  From training memories to educating minds. New York: Free Press. Pyne, R. (2006). The blues: An interdisciplinary curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. UMI 3269107. Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Russell, J. (2016). Performance and education in a Brazilian arts community of practice. In M. Cslovjecsek & M. Zulauf (eds.), Integrated music education: Challenges for teaching and teacher training. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Russell, J., & Zembylas, M. (2007). Arts integration in the curriculum: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 287–​302). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Russell-​Bowie, D. (2009). Syntegration or disintegration? Models of integrating the arts across the primary curriculum. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 10(28). http://​www.ijea.org/​v10n28/​ [accessed August 4, 2010]. Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in arts education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Snyder, S. (2001). Connection, correlation, and integration. Music Educators Journal, 87(5): 32–​39, 70. Strand, K. (2006). The heart and the journey:  Case studies of collaboration for arts integrated curricula. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(1), 29–​40. Taggart, G., Whitby, K., & Sharp, C. (2004). International review of curriculum and assessment frameworks curriculum and progression in the arts: An international study. UK:  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) & National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). Upitis, R., Smithrim, K., & Soren, B. J. (1999). When teachers become musicians and artists: Teacher transformation and professional development. Music Education Research, 1(1), 23–​35. Wilkinson, J. (2000). Literacy, education and arts partnership:  A community-​ system programme integrating the arts across the curriculum. Research in Drama Education, 5(2), 175–​197. Younge, P. Y. (1998). Enhancing global understanding through traditional African music and dance: A multicultural African music curriculum for American middle schools. Morgantown, VA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Chapter 11

MULTIPLE WORLDS OF CHILDHOOD: CULTURE AND THE CLASSROOM Chee-​Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

The Growing Multiplicity in Children’s Musical Lives For school-​aged children, the social institutions of home and school feature prominently in their daily lives and are the primary sources from which they grow and learn. Beyond family members, school teachers and peers who feature in these institutions, a significant other—​globalization fueled by technology and media—​is fast gaining ground, with far-​reaching networks that continue to have an extensive impact on children’s learning and development. In order for us to understand children’s experiences and perspectives so as to inform pedagogy and practice, there is a need for researchers and educators to be cognizant of the multiple musical dimensions and meanings that surround children. An understanding of how and why children participate in particular social settings and how others contribute to children’s interactions will allow children’s voices to be understood within their complex frames of culture and environment (Fleer & Quinones, 2009). In this chapter, issues of culture are explored with reference to their relevance to classroom pedagogy.

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

161

Defining “Culture” and Cultures of Children The term “culture” has been defined in many ways, partly because, as Lull (2000) notes, it is a multifaceted concept. While Lull defines culture as “shared values, assumptions, rules, and social practices that make up and contribute to personal and collective identity and security” (p. 284), Alan Merriam’s (1964) offering of culture as “learned behavior,” of each culture shaping “the learning process to accord with its own ideals and values” (p. 145), denotes culture as a fluid and malleable entity. This definition provides relevance to our children’s current worlds in light of their rapid change. In musical terms, any musical sound must be judged in relation to its acceptability to a particular society, and a musical culture is framed within processes of music-​making that are dynamic and ever changing. As Davis (2005) has pointed out, “a culture does not simply determine and seamlessly transmit its music to its members, generation upon generation. Music is dialogically involved in the creation and renewal of culture” (p. 57). An examination of an individual’s or group’s musical culture is really comprised of the interaction and complexities of multiple cultures,1 as determined by three overlapping spheres of cultural activity: choice, affinity, and belonging (Slobin, 1993).2 Thus, to speak of a musical culture of children is in essence to refer to a confluence of cultures that shape their musical lives. Enculturation, as coined by Herskovits (1948), also comes into play. This refers specifically to cultural learning as the process by which individuals acquire understandings of their culture in a manner that continues throughout the life span. We should be reminded, as Rogoff (1995) points out, that children’s enculturation is “a process of becoming, rather than acquisition” (p. 142). Subsumed under enculturation are processes of socialization, broader education, and schooling (Herskovits, 1948). Children’s musical enculturation would thus encompass the varied musical experiences they encounter as they develop within families, neighborhoods, schools, and various constituent communities (Campbell, 1998). It is important for music educators and researchers to give focus to these learning cultures of children as they speak to the development of the musical child, which is “anchored in . . . institutional practices and the general everyday living conditions of children and their families” (Hedegaard, 2008, p.  12). However, these “everyday living conditions” have been increasingly affected not only by local changes, but by processes of globalization.

The Effect of Globalization: Migration and Media In the second half of the twentieth century, a technological explosion, particularly in transportation and information, caused dramatic societal changes that affected people

162

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

living in urban and eventually even rural and remote localities. Increasingly, people’s everyday lives are becoming contingent on globally extensive social processes such as social networking, using virtual communities in the pursuit of mutual interests and goals. Globalization today can be seen as a shift in spatial-​temporal processes that “rapidly cut across national boundaries, drawing more of the world into webs of interconnection, integrating and stretching cultures and communities across time and space, and compressing our spatial and temporal horizons. It points to a world in motion, to an interconnected world, to a shrinking world” (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002, p. 9). There are of course criticisms of globalization, the most common being that it leads to cultural homogeneity. This argument holds that the propagation of ideas and practices, particularly of popular consumer culture of the economically dominant West,3 through technology and media, starts to narrow difference, leading to a devaluing and overtaking of local tradition and culture. As Tomlinson (1999) suggests, various cultural attributes, including “styles of dress, eating habits, architectural and musical form . . . a cultural experience dominated by the mass media, a set of philosophical ideas, and a range of cultural values and attitudes” (p. 89), are transformed by cultural diffusion brought about by globalization. However, there are equally compelling arguments that globally imported cultural elements may be adapted, hybridized, and indigenized in new locations (Lull, 2000). The sociocultural anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1990) has proposed a framework of five “-​scapes” in conceptualizing the relationship of cultural flow across the globe: ethno-​, media-​, techno-​, finance-​and ideo-​scapes. The five “-​scapes” are in essence “the surrounds” that influence the folkways, values, and viewpoints of both adults and children. Appadurai has employed the five “-​scapes” to emphasize different streams of flow by which cultural material is seen to move across national boundaries. It is of significance to note that while immigrants today are more mobile than in the past, they also may move more frequently and maintain closer ties to their homelands, indigenous cultures, and ethnic diasporas. . . . Thus, many try to maintain some semblance of cultural purity in order to culturally “reproduce” within the family rather than culturally mix with the others in their current, often temporary, locales. (Appadurai, 1990, pp. 18–​19)

As an example, Lum (2007, 2008) has noted from his study of recently arrived immigrant families in Singapore that technology was used as a conduit for diasporic families of Filipino and South Indian ascription to carry across musical information from their home to the host nation. There is evidence of an active seeking out of musical information to form a distinct musical ethnoscape that defined these families to create an imagined community. Internalizing the musical repertoire that pervades their daily lives through technology and the media, the rhythmic play and melodic utterances of the children in these families were observed to be unique. In the melodic, rhythmic, and linguistic structures of their musicking, each child expressed distinct sociocultural characteristics that identified them as Filipino and South Indian, while existent within the geographical context of Singapore.

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

163

Globalization is a continuing phenomenon, and any study of childhood must acknowledge its central significance in contemporary life (Cannella & Kincheloe, 2002). For instance, children learn much from popular culture’s “cultural pedagogy,” a direct product of globalization that is indebted to the proliferation of technology. Cultural pedagogy refers to “the idea that education takes place in a variety of social sites, including but not limited to schooling. Pedagogical sites are those places where power is organized and deployed, including libraries, television, movies, newspapers, magazines, toys, advertisements, websites, video games, virtual realities, books, sports” (Kincheloe, 2002, p. 84). There is a need for educators to examine both in-​school and outside-​school cultural pedagogy if they are to make sense of the educational processes that can evolve in the first part of the twenty-​first century (Kincheloe, 2002). As Marsh and Young (2016) have pointed out, “a burgeoning mass media industry and large-​scale patterns of migration have brought major changes to children’s auditory environments. . . . The performance of popular music for many years has also included both aural and visual elements that are avidly absorbed and emulated by children in their play” (p. 475). In other words, it is useful to study the effects of television, Internet, video games, music CDs, videos, and other productions as the vocation of children (Campbell, 2010; Ilari & Young, 2016) and be cognizant of the musical learning processes of children within an MTV or YouTube environment, where aural, visual, and bodily kinesthetic processes are often holistically intertwined. In her discussion of children’s play with digital music toys, including karaoke machines, Young (2007) examines the multimodality of these experiences, which demand children’s “kaleidoscopic attention” (p. 335) to multiple concurrent aural and visual stimuli (see fig. 11.1). Young also notes the self-​regulatory nature of play and learning with digital sources. (For further examples of such practices, see Harwood & Marsh, ­chapter 8.) Mobile devices such as smartphones have become useful tools for personal musical agency as they allow listeners to shift instantly from one musical node to another, depending on which music best meets their needs at the time (Jones, 2007). For teachers and curriculum designers, an awareness not only of children’s preferred media and technology devices but also the impact of globalization is essential for understanding their acquired knowledge and their further needs in their developing years. The plethora of choices made available by technology for music listening, playing, and creating might surprise music educators if they have not kept up with the fast growing and increasingly popular technologies used by children, which ensure that “music is more pervasive than at any other time in history” (MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2002, p. v). Thus, children may have recourse to music of widely varying styles, genres, and cultural provenance from digital sources such as iTunes and YouTube, which proliferate music and dance originally generated in multiple locations worldwide, for both local and global use. Such sources enable children to listen to and perform music from a broad range of cultures and subcultures, both to expand

164

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

Figure 11.1  Children performing with a home karaoke machine in Singapore.

musical horizons and to support the maintenance of culturally based musical identities (Karlsen, 2013). For example, Marsh (2013) has described how young Assyrian refugees in a Sydney primary school downloaded Arabic popular songs from the internet to retain musical currency, at the same time listening to popular music by U.S.  performers favored by their Australian peers. While knowledge of music considered to be “mainstream” enabled integration with school peers in the host culture, popular music derived from the home culture supported the maintenance of musical identities that were reinforced by participation in traditional music of the home culture performed at parties, weddings, and Assyrian church. For many children, such experiences promote fluidly operating forms of bimusicality.4 These experiences form part of their digitally enhanced, mediated world, and immigrant children, in being able to import music that is already a mixture of the global and local, may be better equipped to cope with the new, also globally influenced musics in the process of resettlement in a new country (Marsh, 2012, 2016). Children who were born into the nation in which they continue to live may be equally affected by globalization, with digital technologies enabling the musical bridging of time and place. For children and their teachers, a readily available range of musical sounds and images can be easily accessed for private and classroom-​ based listening, watching, recreation, and learning in both informal and formal

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

165

ways. However, how these musical materials are used, their cultural contextualization (or lack thereof), and approaches to their learning and teaching are issues for further consideration, as notions of authenticity and developed understanding abound.

Diversity in Repertoire and Teaching Approaches How, then, do music educators make sense of an ever-​expanding diversity in repertoire to validate its inclusion within the music education curriculum? In focusing on sound and its social and experiential corollaries, Bull and Back (2004, p. 4) invite a mode of apprehension they refer to as deep listening, for which four modes of experience are deemed consequent:

1. Sound makes us rethink the meaning, nature and significance of our social experience. 2. Sound makes us rethink our relation to community. 3. Sound makes us rethink our relational experiences, how we relate to others, ourselves, and the spaces and places we inhabit. 4. Sound makes us rethink our relationship to power.

This model suggests an interaction with musical communities. However, this creates yet more choices as to how teachers might begin with an exploration of sound/​music amid the diversity of musical practices and repertoire in diverse communities. Perhaps music educators can begin to make decisions regarding their choice of repertoire and teaching approaches in the classroom, sharing musical practices with children in terms of Bull and Back’s (2004) suggestions of deep listening, which would necessarily include a close examination of living traditions in their context(s), tradition(s), versatility, identity, “authenticity,” and structural characteristics. Approaching music education with this multiple yet colorful lens, teachers would strive to avoid the attitude formation of “a musical caste system where Western musicians are free to experiment, grow, and appropriate” the musics of the “other,” while musicians performing, learning, and teaching in “other” contexts are expected to remain “authentic” (Jones, 2007, p. 8). A well-​meaning but misguided emphasis on “authenticity” may, contrarily, “result in our students maintaining a similar hegemonic role in dictating what the ‘other’ is allowed to be” (p. 8) rather than allowing musicians and their music to thrive and change in ways that are self-​ and culturally determined. The notion of what is “authentic” is a concern for music educators who are intent on inclusion of culturally diverse musics within a classroom context. Klinger

166

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

(1996) notes that “the word ‘authentic’ has been used to describe music that is considered to best represent the culture from which it is derived” (p. 22). Given the multifaceted nature of culture and its propensity for change, it must be conceded that musical “authenticity” is frequently contested, and may be viewed differently by different members of a culture within the same or different contexts, with individual performances and interpretations also subject to change. Burton (2002) suggests that there is a continuum of what might be considered “acceptably authentic” (p. 164) from narrowly defined forms of performance practice through to “broad definitions encompassing any musics created or performed by any member of the culture regardless of style, form, and genre” (p. 164). Both Burton and Klinger (2002) offer the term trustworthiness as enabling a more realistic approach to the evaluation of culturally diverse musical sources for classroom use. As O’Flynn (2005) points out, “critical here is the inclusion of music(s), musical practices and ways of thinking about music that are closest to the culture in question (and to subcultures within the society concerned)” (p. 197). The goal is holistic understanding: of knowing the context and culture from which each musical tradition is built and operates; of respecting the multiple identities found within each musical culture; and of developing heightened aural perception that will enable an engagement with sometimes unfamiliar sonic aspects of the music in all their complexity (Lundquist, 1998). In this age of globalization, there is also a need to realize and acknowledge intercultural contact, and to recognize continuity and change (Nettl, 1998), as “an intercultural view allows us to interpret the ways that individuals and groups negotiate the diversity of their musical worlds” (O’Flynn, 2005, p. 196). Several authors have discussed ways this negotiation may take place through direct engagement with individuals (or groups) who are deemed to be culture bearers. In the context of this discussion, culture bearers are members of a culture who possess particular musical knowledge derived from that culture. They may include professional musicians or be drawn from the families and friends of members of the school community. Burton (2002) indicates that such interactions are important for music teachers or developers of curriculum resources to ensure trustworthiness of music and contextual material used within classroom music programs. In determining whether culture bearers provide a trustworthy source of musical material, Burton indicates that their performances must be “considered acceptable by a reasonably representative element within the culture,” be “representative of an identifiable segment of the culture’s musical mosaic” (p. 164), and hold a niche within past, present, or developing cultural traditions. He also advocates the invitation of culture bearers into classrooms to enliven music programs. Such a practice is seen by Klinger (1996) and Schippers (2010) to have a greater or lesser degree of success, depending on the communicative and pedagogical expertise of the culture bearer. However, Campbell (2001), Robinson (2005), Marsh (2000, 2007), and Bartleet, Sunderland, and Carfoot (2016) have explored the experiential, dialogic, and participatory ways of coming to know people making music that are offered by fieldwork experiences with culture bearers both in the context

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

167

of their own music-​making (Bartleet et al., 2016; Marsh, 2007; Robinson, 2005) and through the observation of a performer in residence program in a primary (elementary) school (Marsh, 2000). While these experiences have assisted in the elimination of stereotypical views of the performers and their music, they have also enabled teachers and teacher education students to develop more nuanced understandings of pedagogy and its cultural appropriateness and relativity. Such concepts have been the focus of discussions of “culturally congruent teaching process” (Lundquist, 1998, p. 43) by Lundquist, Campbell (2004, 2006), Hamill (2005), Schippers (2010), and Dunbar-​Hall (2000, 2009).

Diversity in Teaching and Learning Styles of Musicians Dunbar-​Hall (2006, 2009)  further develops a view of the learning and teaching of music as culturally contextualized. In outlining the tenets of what he terms “ethnopedagogy,” Dunbar-​Hall (2009) states that in the same way that music differs from culture to culture, and reflects different applications of musical roles, values, meanings and significances, ways of learning and ways of teaching also differ from location to location, and . . . these ways of learning and teaching are also culturally loaded and influenced. (p. 62)

Utilizing a case study of performance-​based learning of Balinese gamelan by Australian students, Dunbar-​Hall (2009) demonstrates that kinesthetic and aural rote learning, memorization, and the hierarchy and interdependence of sonic and performance roles form part of a larger embodied understanding of social and cultural beliefs and aesthetics that are found within the performance practice. He calls for a “rethinking of the fit between pedagogy and music” and a “wider understanding of potential ethnomusicological dimensions of music education” (p. 76). Such an approach is seen to assist in developing an understanding of particular music, “deepen understanding of the culture surrounding the music,” and “teach about the music aesthetics of a culture” (p. 76) while having the added benefit of broadening teachers’ musicianship and pedagogical strategies. In describing an ideal for music education Jorgensen (2008) sees the musician-​ teacher as “an exemplar who embodies a contextualized understanding of music, literacy, orality, performance practice, creative musical expressions, and scholarship” (p.  110). It could be argued that to fulfill such aspirations, music educators need to strive to be at least bimusical, if not more, to recognize and appropriately represent the diversity in teaching and learning styles of musicians. In understanding and experiencing musical genres and changing traditions amid diverse domestic musical practices, the musician-​teacher needs to take note of the structure of learning, which can include processes of oral and aural transmission through

168

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

detailed and precise imitation, the learning of memory devices like mnemonics and notation, and the fashioning of improvisation through these processes. Respecting these pedagogical styles of music transmission in instruction and transferring these into the music classroom is vital to the teaching of any music. This sentiment has been strongly emphasized by ethnomusicologists (Nettl, 1998) and music educators (Campbell, 2004; Lundquist, 1998) alike. Such practices can be further developed to encompass what O’Flynn (2005) terms “intermusicality,” in which musicians and music educators import aspects of particular musical styles into other styles or performance contexts. The developed musicality of the musician-​teacher can then “be regarded as the bridge through which differentiated cultural experiences are integrated. This allows for both the relative autonomy of musical practices and the individual agency of musicians and others in the maintenance and negotiation of musical cultures” (p. 198). Only through the development of music educators as proficient and open-​ minded musicians in the broadest sense of the word can we hope to encourage “students’ musicianship for personal musical agency in a multitude of musicianly roles and genres in order to reclaim music as a form of human praxis and help students negotiate a diverse and increasingly mediated musical ecology by raising their expectations of musical products, widening their musical horizons, and equipping them with the ability to express their own thoughts and feelings and interact musically with others using their own musical voices” (Jones, 2007, p. 6). In addition to the promotion of agency, these practices invite notions of musical equity and democracy within school communities. Teachers can create direct connections with members of the community, encouraging cultural exchange, cultural renewal and development, and respect for pedagogical traditions and emergent pedagogies. The benefits of this approach for students are extolled by Wemyss in her examination of the cultural embedding of music programs in a Torres Strait Island primary school:5 By fostering partnerships within and outside the school, students experience connectedness to community, connectedness to each other, connectedness to content learning areas and connectedness to culture, all of which provide meaningful learning opportunities and a sense of security in which to explore music and the performing arts. (Wemyss, 2005, p. 228)

Contextual Learning: Beyond the “Universal Elements” Approach It would seem meaningless if music education merely focused on enabling children to learn and hone a discrete set of musical skills and knowledge prescribed by the music teacher and/​or educational policy without any connection to their real-​life encounters and contexts. Furthermore, there are real-​life encounters with music

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

169

aplenty in the multiple worlds of children, particularly in this age of technology and mass media. Perhaps, as Jones (2007) suggests, “it is the development of musicianship for personal musical agency in genres students can and will choose to use in lifewide and lifelong settings that is the primary raison d’etre of music education, not the introduction of or knowledge about particular genres for its own sake” (p. 16). Culture and what happens in the teaching of music in the classroom should be intricately intertwined and should never be seen as distinct and separate entities. By living within their culture, children learn the role of music within their society . . . and the musical grammar they develop is a result of what sounds come into their ears. As they grow, children are developing a sense of their musical heritage, for it is apt to be their own soundscape of live and mediated expressions. Their inventions of a musical nature derive from this musical sound-​surround. (Campbell, 2006, p. 433)

Thus, music educators need to recognize and approach both cross-​cultural and culture-​specific facets of music teaching and learning (Campbell, 2004; Campbell & Wiggins, 2013) and “strive to maintain a musical-​artistic focus in the design of curricula, with due regard for the ways in which musical activities and ways of thinking about music relate to the wider beliefs and values of the societies concerned” (O’Flynn, 2005, p. 195). Music curriculum can and should also be linked to “the practices of performers in that society, that is to say, to living traditions of music, as opposed to curricula that are exclusively framed on developmental stages and/​or ‘universal’ concepts of music” (p. 198). The “universal” concepts or elements approach is one that has held primacy in many primary and elementary school curricula since its inception in the 1970s. In this approach, sonic and structural characteristics of music (such as pitch, rhythm, and form) are identified on the basis of having “universal” applicability to all music. Although the rationale for this approach was originally based on an endeavor to broaden children’s understanding of music beyond the Western classical canon, it can result in the atomistic exploration of musical concepts or elements, without generating a real understanding of the music as a whole. The imposition of these Western elements as a way of conceptualizing all musics may also provide a misrepresentation of music, as music is conceptualized in different ways within different cultures (Dunbar-​Hall, 2000; Nzewi, 1999). Campbell (2004) has provided suggestions for gradually moving from an approach based on understanding of “universal” musical elements or concepts in world musics to more culturally based comprehension. The outcome of these progressive strategies is an understanding of Music-​as-​Music, Music-​as-​Culture, and Music in Context (pp. 215–​217). Not surprisingly, the focus in the Music-​as-​Music approach is solely on the sonic properties of music and on developing student performance, listening and analytical competencies in relation to these sonic properties. However, because music is inseparable from culture, Campbell advocates going beyond studying the sound of music to the study of Music-​as-​Culture. In this approach, musical study “is both an end and a means through which cultural understanding may result. Furthermore, knowledge of music’s role and meaning within culture can

170

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

lead to enhanced understanding of the musical sound” (p. 216). Such understanding can be further developed by the study of Music in Context, where knowledge of “music’s context helps to further humanize it, personalize it, and associate it with students’ interests, and to provide for them an understanding of its cultural, historical and social meanings. . . . Context adds substance to the musical experience, and enriches it for students who deserve to know its connections to the lives of its makers” (pp. 217–​218). Campbell further offers a Cultural Prism Model as a means through which students can investigate Musical Beginnings (focusing on the creation and/​ or origins of a piece of music), Musical Continuities (focusing on current practices relating to performance of a piece of music), and Musical Meanings (linked to social meanings and functions of a piece of music for particular groups or subgroups within society) (pp. 218–​219). (See also Barrett & Veblen, ­chapter 10.) Another model for approaching the teaching of a broad range of musics has been provided by Schippers (2010), who aims “to gain greater understanding of past, present and future processes of learning and teaching music in culturally diverse environments” (p. 136) such as are found in the real and digital worlds of students’ and teachers’ experience. Schippers’s framework examines “issues of context,” “modes of transmission,” “dimensions of interaction,” and “approach to cultural diversity” (p. 124). Under each of these headings are a series of continua along which teachers can place their pedagogical practice. For example, under “issues of context” are continua stretching from “static tradition” to “constant flux”; from “reconstructed authenticity” to “new identity authenticity”; and from “original context” to “recontextualization” (p. 124). This model acknowledges that the contexts of music learning vary widely and that approaches to learning and teaching must also vary as a result.

Suggestions for Classroom Practice It is not always possible to make assumptions about music that is culturally appropriate for students from a particular cultural background because culture is so multifaceted. Musical traditions have integrity and continuity, but they are also subject to change. The aesthetics of music performance and transmission are varied within and between cultures and subcultures by purpose and context and are additionally affected by individual meanings. Nor is it always possible to predict what is musically more or less familiar to students, what is already known and accepted, what will appeal in terms of either familiarity or novelty (Karlsen, 2013; Marsh, 2012; Saether, 2008). The opening up of so many pathways to receive and appreciate a broad range of musics provides challenges for music educators but also supports new forms of transmission that may be enacted in the classroom, as they are in the informal settings that students inhabit in their many hours outside the classroom. We suggest that just as there is no single aesthetic pertaining to musical creation and performance in any form, so there can be no single approach to musical learning

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

171

and teaching of music transplanted to new settings. While respecting approaches to teaching emanating from original cultures, what is necessary for educators is an awareness of traditions and forms of transmission within these traditions, but also a willingness to negotiate these, free from what may be stereotypical views of culturally based aesthetics. In a world where new technologies are being utilized, for example, to preserve and transmit endangered musical-­​­cultural forms, views about singular forms of transmission are questionable. Hybrid teaching and learning practices may provide solutions to dilemmas of cultural appropriateness for musics transplanted into the classroom, just as they do in places of origin. The following suggestions are offered to teachers of school children aged 5–​12 to enhance and broaden their learning experiences in relation to the broad range of musics that form part of their complex musical worlds. These utilize human and material resources available within real or virtual communities, in addition to the technological skills of the students themselves. They encourage links with communities and student agency.

Intercultural and Personal Exchange Within and Between Groups of Students Through examining music in their own lives and their own cultural heritage and sharing this with classmates, students can gain a greater degree of understanding of the music that has importance in their own and others’ lives, in addition to intercultural understanding. In many school communities, children of culturally diverse backgrounds engage outside the school in music learning experiences related to music that is culturally significant to them. These may occur as formal learning experiences in community settings (for example, the learning of songs and dances in ethnoculturally specific classes or instruments from an expert teacher in the tradition) or as informal learning experiences (for example, the learning of popular music in first languages from karaoke or internet sources). Children can be invited to share their own music with classmates as part of an extended project examining music in their own lives. Such a project is as important to children within monocultural classes as it is to children in multiethnic classrooms. It also enables teachers to better understand the musical lives of their students and to develop more nuanced music programs that meet the needs of students.

Invited Culture Bearers The knowledge and expertise of members of school communities may provide a vital resource for broadening the musical knowledge of children in primary or elementary classrooms. Family members, members of staff, and others living within

172

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

the community can share musical and cultural knowledge with children in the classroom. Particular inspiration can be found by creating partnerships with older people in the community, who can relate stories of meaningful experiences in their earlier lives for children to contrast and identify with their own musical lives (Seeger, 2002). In addition, arts organizations, ethnomusicological organizations, and other community bodies are providing more varied cultural experiences as part of their offerings, introducing the expertise of professional musicians from diverse backgrounds to children in schools.

Bimusical Performance Experiences Within and Beyond the Classroom Children in elementary or primary classes may engage in more extended interactions with teachers of particular musical genres or traditions. Such learning experiences may be the result of partnerships with community groups or university departments. For example, the Sydney Conservatorium of Music offers workshops in Balinese gamelan to schools, as a single experience to be further explored in the classroom within a larger curricular topic or as a more extended development of students’ skills over a longer term. Hennessy (2005) notes that there are many gamelan ensembles based in schools, educational music services, universities, and concert venues in the United Kingdom and, as a result, learning experiences and planned units of work relating to gamelan are frequently found in UK primary and secondary schools. Hennessy also indicates that the preponderance of samba schools and bands within British communities has provided resources for curriculum development in this musical genre and for the development of extracurricular samba activities in schools. Musical initiatives in diverse musical practices may also be supported by project funding from educational authorities, arts organizations, or other bodies, as in the case of the development of a project to teach taiko (Japanese drumming) in schools in southwest England (Hennessy, 2005).

Fieldwork-​Based Investigative and Learning Experiences In addition to working with culture bearers invited into the classroom setting, both teachers and children can enhance their knowledge of musical traditions by fieldwork-​based experiences. Such encounters can provide valuable experience of traditions within their naturally occurring (or transplanted) settings. Children can interview and record songs or other material from parents, grandparents, or other people in their immediate community on an individual basis and share their findings with the class. A whole class may visit performers within the community

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

173

and, with permission, can interview and record performances for later discussion and as the basis of further research into a musical tradition or genre. Field-​based learning experiences are increasingly being utilized in both preservice and in-​ service teacher training programs to increase teachers’ knowledge of and cultural sensitivity to musical traditions (Bartleet et al., 2016; Campbell, 2001; Marsh, 2000, 2007; Robinson, 2005; Westerlund, Partti, & Karlsen, 2015). Teachers may enroll in such programs or, more informally, explore musical traditions represented in their own communities through creating more extended links with culture bearers.

Web-​Based Cultural Interactions Current technologies enable children to engage in exchanges with children in other parts of the world, sharing musical preferences and teaching and learning songs and other musical forms, using Skype, email, blogs, and postings on YouTube. A cultural exchange can be established between school classes in different parts of the country or in different nations, once again enhancing intercultural understanding through personal engagement.

Web-​Based Information; Performances on DVD, CD, Streamed Video, and Streamed Audio The internet has opened up extraordinary access to musical information and performance. Teachers and students alike can download information on global musical traditions, styles, and genres in an instant. Similarly, examples of music of diverse kinds can be downloaded from iTunes, YouTube, and other web-​based sources to increase understanding and enliven music learning experiences for children. Such information can provide the basis for individual or small group student learning projects or for whole class exploration. In recent years, organizations and publishers have provided web-​based access to musical materials and associated teaching programs (see, for example, Smithsonian Folkways Tools for Teaching and Oxford University Press Global Music Series teaching activities). Such sources can be used to complement published materials in traditional written or recorded format (such as books, CDs, and DVDs). Such resources help to free teachers from assumptions regarding the ascendancy of Western ideologies of teaching, creativity, and performance and to recognize what children, school communities, and a widening web of individuals and communities, present and virtual, can bring to the classroom. In the words of ethnomusicologist Anthony Seeger: “Everyone’s musical experience is a journey—​for some it is longer and richer than for others, but these fascinating journeys can begin in our schools, allowing our students to travel in directions we can only imagine” (2002, p. 115).

174

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

Reflective Questions

1. To what degree can children’s technological skills be utilized to benefit their music learning in the classroom? 2. Consider the level of cultural diversity in your school community. In what ways could you begin to create partnerships with members of your school community to further children’s musical experiences at school?

KEY SOURCES Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally:  Experiencing music, expressing culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S., & Wiggins, T. (eds.). (2013). Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.

WEBSITES http://​www.folkways.si.edu/​tools-​for-​teaching/​smithsonian http://​global.oup.com/​us/​companion.websites/​umbrella/​globalmusic/​

NOTES 1. Slobin (1993) refers to musical cultures as supercultures, intercultures, and subcultures of music. 2. Slobin (1993) explains the essential interplay of choice, affinity, and belonging. A choice can be made of just about anything by way of expressive culture. Affinity is essential to understanding choice, which is necessary for affiliation. Thus, choices are not random, and choices made follow up an affinity to demonstrate or reinforce a state of belonging (p. 55). 3. This process is commonly called McDonaldization (Ritzer, 1995). 4. Bimusicality (or bi-​musicality) is a term first used by the ethnomusicologist Mantle Hood (1960), who pioneered the immersive learning of non-​Western musics through extensive performance training, thus developing skills and conceptual and aesthetic knowledge in more than one musical tradition, similar to the way a bilingual person acquires communicative competence in two languages. 5. The Torres Strait Islands are located between the northern tip of the Australian mainland and Papua New Guinea. The Torres Strait Islanders represent one of the two Indigenous peoples of Australia (the other being Australian Aborigines).

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

175

REFERENCES Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2(2), 1–​24. Bartleet, B-​L., Sunderland, N., & Carfoot, G. (2016). Enhancing intercultural engagement through service learning and music making with Indigenous communities in Australia. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(2), 173–​191. Bull, M., & Back, L. (eds.). (2004). The auditory culture reader. New York: Berg Publishing. Burton, B. (2002). Weaving the tapestry of world musics. In B. Reimer (ed.), World musics and music education: Facing the issues (pp. 161–​185). Reston, VA: MENC. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads. Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (1998). The musical cultures of children. Research Studies in Music Education, 11, 42–​51. Campbell, P. S. (2001). Lessons from the Yakama. Mountain Lake Reader. Cincinnati: Division of Music Education, College-​Conservatory of Music, University of Cincinnati. Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally:  Experiencing music, expressing culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2006). Global practices. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 415–​437). New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S., & Wiggins, T. (eds.). (2013). Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. Cannella, G. S., & Kincheloe, J. L. (eds.) (2002). Kidworld:  Childhood studies, global perspectives, and education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Davis, R. (2005). Music education and cultural identity. In D. K. Lines (ed.), Music education for the new millennium: Theory and practice futures for music teaching and learning (pp. 47–​64). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Dunbar-​Hall, P. (2000). Concept or context? Teaching and learning Balinese gamelan and the universalist-​pluralist debate. Music Education Research, 2(2), 127–​139. Dunbar-​Hall, P. (2006). An investigation of strategies developed by music learners in a cross-​cultural setting. Research Studies in Music Education, 26, 63–​70. Dunbar-​Hall, P. (2009). Ethnopedagogy: Culturally contextualized learning and teaching as an agent of change. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 8(2), 61–​78. Fleer, M., & Quinones, G. (2009). A cultural-​historical reading of “children as researchers.” In M. Fleer, M. Hedegaard, & J. Tudge (eds.), Childhood studies and the impact of globalization: Policies and practices at global and local levels (pp. 86–​107). New York: Taylor & Francis. Hamill, C. (2005). Indian classical music as taught in the west: The reshaping of tradition. In P. S. Campbell, J. Drummond, P. Dunbar-​Hall, K. Howard, H. Schippers, & T. Wiggins (eds.), Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st century (pp. 143–​149). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press. Hedegaard, M. (2008). A cultural-​ historical theory of children’s development. In M. Hedegaard & M. Fleer (eds.), Studying children: A cultural-​historical approach (pp. 10–​29). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Hennessy, S. (2005). “Taiko SouthWest”: Developing a “new” musical tradition in English schools. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 217–​226. Herskovits, M. J. (1948). Man and his works. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Hood, M. (1960). The challenge of bi-​musicality. Ethnomusicology, 4(2), 55–​59.

176

Chee-Hoo Lum and Kathryn Marsh

Ilari, B., & Young, S. (eds.). (2016). Children’s home musical experiences across the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Inda, J. X., & Rosaldo, R. (eds.) (2002). The anthropology of globalization: A reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Jones, P. M. (2007). Music education for society’s sake: Music education in an era of global neo-​imperial/​neo-​medieval market-​driven paradigms and structures. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 6(1), 2–​28. Jorgensen, E. R. (2008). The art of teaching music. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Karlsen, S. (2013). Immigrant students and the “Homeland Music”: Meanings, negotiations, and implications. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(2), 161–​177. Kincheloe, J. L. (2002). The complex politics of McDonald’s and the new childhood: Colonizing kidworld. In G. S. Cannella & J. L. Kincheloe (eds.), Kidworld: Childhood studies, global perspectives, and education (pp. 75–​121). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Klinger, R. (1996). Matters of Compromise: An ethnographic study of culture-​bearers in elementary music education (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Klinger, R. (2002). A materials girl in search of the genuine article. In B. Reimer (ed.), World musics and music education: Facing the issues (pp. 205–​217). Reston, VA: MENC. Lull, J. (2000). Media, communication, culture: A global approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Lum, C. H. (2007). Musical networks of children: An ethnography of elementary school children in Singapore (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), University of Washington, Seattle. Lum, C. H. (2008). Home musical environment of children in Singapore: On globalization, technology and media. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(2), 101–​117. Lundquist, B. (1998). A music education perspective. In B. Lundquist & C. K. Szego (eds.), Musics of the world’s cultures:  A source book for music educators (pp. 38–​46). Perth, Australia: Callaway International Research Centre for Music Education. Marsh, K. (2000). Making connections: A case study of pre-​service music education students’ attitudinal change to indigenous music. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 58–​67. Marsh, K. (2007). Here, alive and accessible: The role of an inquiry-​based fieldwork project in changing student attitudes to cultural diversity in music education. In A. Brew & J. Sachs (eds.), Transforming a university: The scholarship of teaching and learning in practice (pp. 47–​55). Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Marsh, K. (2012). “The beat will make you be courage”:  The role of a secondary school music program in supporting young refugees and newly arrived immigrants in Australia. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 93–​111. Marsh, K. (2013). Music in the lives of refugee and newly arrived immigrant children in Sydney, Australia. In P. Campbell & T. Wiggins (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Children’s Musical Cultures (pp. 491–​509). New York: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K. (2016). Creating bridges:  Music, play, and wellbeing in the lives of refugee and immigrant children and young people. Music Education Research. doi:  10.1080/​ 14613808.2016.1189525. Marsh, K., & Young, S. (2016). Musical play. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 462–​484). New York: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, R., Hargreaves, D., & Miell, D. (2002). Musical Identities. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Multiple Worlds of Childhood

177

Nettl, B. (1998). An ethnomusicological perspective. In B. Lundquist & C. K. Szego (eds.), Musics of the world’s cultures:  A source book for music educators (pp. 23–​28). Perth, Australia: Callaway International Research Centre for Music Education. Nzewi, M. (1999). Strategies for music education in Africa: Towards a meaningful progression from tradition to modern. International Journal of Music Education, 33, 72–​87. O’Flynn, J. (2005). Re-​appraising ideas of musicality in intercultural contexts of music education. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 191–​203. Ritzer, G. (1995). The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Robinson, K. (2005). Professional development in the diamond field of South Africa: Musical and personal transformations. In P. S. Campbell, J. Drummond, P. Dunbar-​Hall, K. Howard, H. Schippers, & T. Wiggins (eds.), Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st century (pp. 171–​180). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–​164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Saether, E. (2008). When minorities are the majority: Voices from a teacher/​researcher proj­ ect in a multicultural school in Sweden. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 25–​42. Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Seeger, A. (2002). Catching up with the rest of the world:  Music education and musical experience. In B. Reimer (ed.), World musics and music education: Facing the issues (pp. 103–​116). Reston, VA: MENC. Slobin, M. (1993). Subcultural sounds: Micromusics of the West. London: Wesleyan University Press. Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wemyss, K. (2005). Thursday Island State School:  Cultural continuity, connectedness and inclusivity through community-​based, project-​oriented learning. In R. Pascoe, S. Leong, J. MacCallum, E. Mackinlay, K. Marsh, B. Smith, T. Church, & A. Winterton, National Review of School Music Education:  Augmenting the diminished (pp. 224–​228). Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training. Westerlund, H., Partti, H., & Karlsen, S. (2015). Teaching as improvisational experience:  Student music teachers’ reflections on learning during an intercultural project. Research Studies in Music Education, 37(1), 55–​75. Young, S. (2007). Digital technologies, young children, and music education practice. In K. Smithrim & R. Upitis (eds.), Listen to their voices: Research and practice in early childhood music (pp. 330–​343). Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

Chapter 12

MUSIC EDUCATION IN THE GENERALIST CLASSROOM Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

This chapter examines music in the generalist classroom, both its advantages and its challenges. The term “generalist” in this context refers to those teachers who have responsibility for all content areas of the primary/​elementary curriculum. The chapter also addresses how best practices in music education can be embodied in generalist teachers’ classrooms.

The Generalist and Music Education The role of the generalist teacher in music education has been the focus of debate and research for many decades. In some countries, music education professionals, as well as generalist classroom teachers, typically express their preference for music specialists in primary classrooms because of the particular nature of music as a subject for study (DeGraffenreid, Kretchmer, Jeanneret, & Morita, 2004). Both groups express concern about the lack of adequate music preparation that generalist teachers may bring to the classroom. There is a belief that university music methods courses for prospective primary teachers, who may have had little personal music study, are insufficient preparation for the expectations placed on generalist teachers

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

179

to handle the complex subject of music with a similar expertise to that expected in the other subjects they teach. Uneven curricular expectations for music study between countries and even within national boundaries confound efforts to ensure that all children have an education in music. The reality is that school policies and practices do not always accommodate a choice between having a generalist or a specialist delivering music instruction. The provision for music education takes a variety of forms from country to country and even within countries. In some countries such as the United States, where local control of schools and curricula is the norm, the approach to the delivery of music education can even vary among school districts within a state or area. While schools have the option of employing specialists in certain local, state, or national educational systems, the reality is that in large numbers of education systems the generalist classroom teacher is responsible, in whole or in part, for teaching the arts in primary classrooms. The 2007–​8 Eurydice study that examined arts education in schools across 33 European countries reported the arts being taught predominantly by generalists at the primary level, and shows an interesting breakdown of generalist versus specialist teachers (Eurydice, 2009, p. 66). Involving generalist teachers directly in the musical education of children is advantageous in several respects, even where music instruction is principally the responsibility of specialists. Positive learning experiences in the early years of children’s lives are known to shape not only their attitudes about learning in gen­ eral but also their willingness to learn specific subjects. Likewise, childhood music experiences have a powerful impact on adult attitudes toward music and can be predictive of musical involvement in later life. The primary teacher plays an important role in providing young children with these experiences and has the potential to affect children’s future opinions about and participation in music. Myers (2005) suggests that “engaging children in independent and authentic music-​making that is consistent with their developmental capacities . . . [means that engagement] will grow with them into and through adulthood” (p. 14). Classroom teachers’ knowl­ edge of their students and their interests that arise from daily interaction within the class can allow the teachers to catch and capitalize on children’s spontaneous and ongoing musical play throughout the day. Generalists’ broader awareness of children’s developmental needs, family backgrounds, and individual characteristics may translate into musical experiences that most closely fit their growing abilities and understandings. This can strengthen the children’s musical skills and knowl­ edge and connect those musical understandings to other subjects in meaningful ways. The generalists also have the capacity to include many more music lessons within a week, and there is evidence to suggest that this is significant in improving the level of student achievement (Runfola & Rutkowski, 1992). Research has shown that the willingness and capacity of generalists to teach music is varied and frequently dependent on their own musical experiences in and outside school. Two common problems identified across the five countries in Russell-​B owie’s (2009) study were the teacher’s lack of personal music experiences and the lack of priority for music in primary schools. Another common concern

180

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

expressed by music education professionals and generalist teachers is that the time spent on music during teacher preparation programs is inadequate, regardless of the quality of the instruction (Hallam et al., 2009; DeGraffenreid, Kretchmer, Jeanneret, & Morita, 2004). In a study involving 21 countries, Sharp and Le Métais (2000) reported concern among the participants about the lack of confidence of the primary generalist, which has been an ongoing issue for many years (for example, Bresler, 1994; Jeanneret, 1997; Mills, 1989; Collins, 2014). There is also an assumption that the acquisition of musical expertise will automatically ensure the teaching of music in the classroom. This assumption, present in much of the literature, fails to acknowledge that nonmusical teacher traits, competencies, and confidence may have a significant influence, as well as systems factors such as resources and time allocation. For example, Greenberg (1972) found that despite a limited musical background, some teachers taught music to very young children as competently as those with considerable music experience. It might be speculated that teacher traits such as willingness to take initiative, determination, and industry have more effect on children’s improvement than the teacher’s musical background. Wiggins and Wiggins (2008) examined music instruction in a country where music is primarily taught by specialists and made the interesting observation that some generalist teachers adopted a different pedagogic style when teaching music. Time and time again, we saw teachers whose classrooms had a marvelously democratic feel during the teaching and learning of other disciplines who, as soon as they began to teach music, adopted the stern air of a “prima donna” music teacher. We saw them completely change their demeanor with the children, drilling them in discrete activities, chastising those who made mistakes. (p. 14)

It was also observed that the generalists who were excellent practitioners often taught music more effectively than their studio-​trained counterparts. It is apparent that some teachers change their pedagogy to suit what they think is more appropriate for music, possibly stemming from their own experiences of learning in a one-​to-​one or small group studio music setting. For them, music education is more about teaching children to read standard notation. It is the foundation required of students before they are allowed to engage in any actual music-​making. This traditional emphasis on notational literacy within music education is also a rather ethnocentric view not held by all communities. A survey of opinions about music education by Smith (1993) across several Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, for example, indicated a recurring concern with the “mainstream’s preoccupation with musical literacy” (p. 8) and the assumption that every student should be prepared for a musically literate adulthood. He also notes that among his informants from a strongly aural/​oral tradition, there was great concern about their children being tutored in an exclusively literate instruction system. In spite of the ongoing problems identified above, we must remember, as noted, there are advantages to generalists teaching music.

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

181

Classroom Pedagogy and Best Practice At this point it is worth considering pedagogy in general and, more specifically, Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde’s (2005) model of best practice (fig. 12.1). The model arose, in part, from the researchers sifting through more than 45 national curriculum reports published between 1989 and 2005 covering such diverse areas as mathematics, science, arts, reading, social studies, health, and teaching standards. Regardless of this diversity, there was a remarkable consensus in the recommendations. All the reports supported the conclusion that classrooms should be student-​centered, experiential, reflective, authentic, holistic, social, collaborative, democratic, cognitive, developmental, constructivist, and challenging. There is nothing particularly new in this model, but it is an interesting consolidation of ideas that include references to the work of Bruner, Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, and others. Many of the ideas have also been promoted by seminal music educators such as John Paynter (Mills & Paynter, 2008), Keith Swanwick (1998), and more recently, Jackie Wiggins and Magne Espeland (see c­ hapter 9). What is outlined as best practice applies across disciplines and is somewhat at odds with features of traditional studio teaching that are often the basis for perceptions and beliefs about what should take place in the music classroom. The components of this model also accommodate many of the ideas that have been discussed in earlier chapters of this part of the volume and threads running throughout other parts.

ti c

al

ho

ss

re

er

n ti

li s

ive

enta

l

COGNITIVE

ex p

ex p

ie

cons tru

pm

ch all

STUDENT CENTERED

ive ct

st ivi ct

aut he

ic nt

g gin en

refl e

PRINCIPLES OF BEST PRACTICE

d ev

el

o

ocr dem atic

SOCIAL co

ll a b o ra ti v

e

Figure 12.1  Principles of best practice (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, p. 12).

182

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

The following sections of this chapter draw on a wealth of sources and author experiences. The intention is to present commonly held opinions from the music education literature about various approaches to music learning experiences that can be meaningfully provided in the generalist classroom. Rather than a “how to” list of activities or curricular sequences, the information is presented conceptually. It is intended to allow for the empowerment of generalist teachers to engage as music learners and music facilitators at the level and to the degree that they feel comfortable. It is an invitation to music, as much as an affirmation of what we know generalist teachers are capable of achieving, as music teachers. The information is also provided as a means to clarify how music specialists can assist generalist teachers to enhance educational music experiences for all children regardless of the means and modes of instruction. The thread throughout this section is the acknowledgment of the principles of best practice shown in figure 12.1. It also acknowledges the responsibility of teacher preparation programs to provide generalist teachers with the instruction and experiences that will most empower them to utilize their musical skills in the classroom with confidence (Kretchmer & DeGraffenreid, 2006). The suggestions that follow are all grounded in the notion that music learning should first be student-​centered and build on the experiences that students bring to the classroom. However, appropriate music curricula should utilize practices that will develop those cognitive skills necessary to ensure the musical growth of students over time.

Learning and Teaching Repertoire A variety of repertoire is useful to develop skills and understandings in relation to a range of musical elements, styles, and genres, using the practices of performing, creating, listening, and responding. As children experience a range of repertoire, they develop particular and necessary aspects of music-​making and appraising that will form the foundation for more advanced musical attainment. For example, songs can enable students to use their voices in many musical activities—​in singing, as a response to listening experiences, and in creating music. Students may analyze the use of particular elements within a known song or create new verses to songs to reflect their personal situation or reflect a particular social context. Children also gain musical insights by choosing some of their own repertoire for study. As noted in c­ hapter 8 (Harwood & Marsh), motivation is inherent in students learning what they want to learn. Teachers who are mindful of providing opportunities for student-​generated repertoire to emerge, through creative activities with flexible parameters, can energize student learning in the classroom.

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

183

Students who are exposed and respond to a range of instrumental and vocal music can relate this to their own music-​making. By listening to music of others that uses instruments and techniques that students have experienced through their own play, they develop connections between the performances and compositions of others and their own classroom music. Recordings or professional performances of instrumental music expand students’ experience of instruments not available in the classroom. Less familiar instruments and styles enhance students’ awareness of the use of elements such as tone color and the influence of cultural traditions on instrument use. Ongoing instrumental programs such as percussion ensembles, concert bands, or school orchestras are possible extension experiences that arise out of, rather than replace, classroom music programs for all students (see Davis, ­chapter 13). Musical traditions are dynamic, changing with time and place. The similarities and differences between different musical styles can be explored through listening, performing, and composing activities. For example, the similarities and differences in function and musical characteristics of different forms of popular music familiar to students can be discussed and used as a basis for creative classroom activities and performance. Students’ musical experiences at home and in the community may also provide a starting point for musical experiences at school. The musical environment provided by audiovisual media (including information and communication technology) means that students are often exposed to a wide variety of very sophisticated musical sounds outside the classroom, as explored in ­chapter 11 (Lum & Marsh). Taking account of these issues, the musical repertoire for classroom experiences may draw on varied musical styles. Selecting repertoire that reflects a broad range of genres to include Indigenous traditional and popular music, art music from various traditions and eras, folk music from various traditions, contemporary popular music, world music (incorporating multicultural and popular characteristics), and music by and for children (e.g., nursery rhymes, children’s playground games, and songs composed for children) is the hallmark of the contemporary classroom.

Listening While children’s preferences and tastes in music are acknowledged and incorporated into the music curriculum, they can be helped to understand a wider range of music through active involvement in listening (Mills, 2009). Attitude and preference development is a very complex field, but research in the area (Droe, 2006; Iusca, 2016) has shown that in spite of what their encultured tastes might be, humans are drawn to complexity, tend to value what is familiar, feel uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, can learn to focus their perception on subtle changes, and can change their attitudes through learning. With this knowledge, children are presented with music that is more complex and intriguing than most of the music children are exposed to

184

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

in their daily environments, and allowed to listen to various pieces of music enough times so that those works become familiar and no longer seem exotic. Children gain conceptual tools for discussing and analyzing music through regularly being helped to perceive and respond to musical events in an increasingly refined fashion. Children who are encouraged to discuss their preferences (a choice between two different events) and/​or attitudes (a more generalized network of beliefs, values, and feelings) without being told their choices or feelings are incorrect learn to explore the unfamiliar and connect it to their own experiences and previous learning (Hash, 2002).

Creating There seems to be a tendency for activities in the primary or elementary classroom to be whole-​group and teacher-​centered. It is essential that children are given the opportunity to explore and experiment with sound and make their own music (Jeanneret, 2009). Students possess a natural curiosity and imagination that lead them to explore sounds and sound sources in their environment through listening and experimentation (Glover, 2000). By investigating sounds, students have the opportunity to develop musical understandings and skills, and confidence in making their own music. Creating in music goes beyond composing and improvising. Creative opportunities include all aspects of musical activities. For example, when performing (either singing, playing, or moving), children can be asked to suggest and experiment with different interpretations through changing dynamics, tempo, instruments, vocal tone color, gestures, and actions. The range of creative activities used with students depends on the particular students involved and their stages of development. Similarly, the responses of individual students or groups of students within a class to creative experiences will be quite varied. Students provided with opportunities to create cooperatively in small groups and individually become more confident music-​makers than is possible only through whole class activities (Glover, 2000; Wiggins, 2003). Students derive considerable satisfaction and enjoyment from creating something that they feel is their own, and it has already been suggested that children enjoy the opportunity to rework and invent songs (see Harwood & Marsh, ­chapter 8, and Wiggins & Espeland, ­chapter  9). Continuing developments in technology are providing new ways for students to explore, while assisting the generalist teacher through providing reliable processes on which to build creative expression. Bamberger’s Impromptu software, developed in 2000, is an example of the ever-​expanding universe of musically creative tools available for use in the classroom (www.tuneblocks.com). When students are involved in composing and arranging, they learn best when the teacher is an adviser and facilitator rather than the originator of ideas. Teachers may often best assist their students by posing questions designed to help them reflect on their creative efforts (Major & Cottle, 2010), regarding, for

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

185

example, reasons for choosing particular instruments; ways they created a particular mood; or how one group’s music is different from or similar to another group’s.

Moving There are many positive findings about the use of movement and learning in music. For example, movement appears to aid the development of schematic templates by helping the listener assimilate and accommodate long streams of ideas (Ferguson, 2005). Children respond naturally to music through movement and can learn to use movement in controlled and expressive ways. The skills of movement are directly related to attentive listening. Movement can demonstrate the extent to which children are focused on various elements of music. For example, movement may reflect the rising and falling contours of melody, phrasing, or rhythmic durations and patterns. Children’s ability to move in different ways relates to their physical development and coordination and is an important part of active learning that can assist the formation of neurological connections (Flohr, 2010). The movement component of a music program is most effective when not treated in isolation from activities in listening, creating, singing and playing, and developing knowledge of the dimensions of music. A  child’s awareness of movement depends not only on age and development level, but on previous experiences in movement activities.

Singing Singing appears to be the most favored activity in generalist classrooms in certain locales, whether the teacher accompanies the students or they sing with a recorded accompaniment. Generalist teachers appear to be more comfortable with singing and listening than with composing, playing, and improvising (DeGraffenreid, Kretchmer, Jeanneret, & Morita, 2004). The singing is often preparation for some performance at a school concert or event. Turino’s (2008) notion of participatory versus presentational music, outlined in ­chapter 8 (Harwood & Marsh), is an important distinction for the generalist teacher. As Harwood and Marsh note, a complete and balanced in-​school music curriculum could include opportunities for both presentational and participatory music-​making. The generalist can certainly provide participatory performance activities in the classroom to supply the well-​ rounded music education that children need. When considering the suitability of songs for a particular class, it is important to think about whether the words or theme of the song will appeal to the children’s interest and whether a music concept can be isolated in the song for the children to discover, understand, or relate to another music activity. The length and complexity

186

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

of the song will differ according to the experience and age of the children, and thought should be given to the suitability of the pitch range. Links might also be made to another of the arts or learning disciplines.

Playing A wide variety of environmental sources can be used to make sounds, and exploration need not be confined to traditional instruments. The use of found sounds from the environment that children encounter is an excellent starting place for the generalist to teach concepts of pitch and timbre. For example, sound sources might include classroom objects, materials found in the playground or brought from home, or instruments the children have constructed. In many classrooms the teacher may draw on individual children’s instrumental expertise gained through extracurricular activities. Rather than being intimidated by the child with musical expertise on an instrument, the classroom teacher can provide opportunities and experiences rarely incorporated into the traditional model of instrumental instruction. The classroom can offer an environment in which these children can explore the tonal and creative capabilities of their instrument and creative potential in the context of a small group composition where this instrument is just another potential sound source to be included in the mix. Increasingly classrooms have access to music technology such as computers, synthesizers, electronic keyboards, and the internet. Electronically generated sound sources (which can also be downloaded from the internet) can provide another starting point for musical activities.

Learning Centers The use of learning centers in the classroom seems to have declined somewhat, but they provide a particularly valuable resource for a child-​centered music education. Learning centers enable students to work independently and take an active role in their learning. In the case of music, a learning center provides an opportunity for students to explore music at their own pace and according to their own needs, interests, and developmental level. It is often assumed that children’s attention to music is short, but there could be issues other than attention span coming into play. Sims (2004) suggests that individual children have different attention spans, and given the opportunity to listen to music on their own rather than as a whole group, some children will spend significant time listening. In a group of kindergarteners, some children would spend close to 30 minutes at any one time listening to music with headphones. With preschool children, Sims and her colleagues found that

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

187

young children were eager to use the listening center that had been set up in the corner of a room for free-​choice periods: “We didn’t anticipate that at many times throughout the week, all four sets of listening equipment would be in use with several children on a waiting list” (p. 10). How a center is set up depends on the role of the teacher and the intention of the center. For younger children, learning centers can be made up very simply of found sound sources from the playground and local environment (such as seed pods, a large rock, dried leaves, and other sound makers) and the teacher can encourage the children to explore the different kinds of sounds they can make with the materials. There are many online resources that would work as part of a learning center, such as Morton Subotnik’s Creating Music website (http://​www.creatingmusic.com/​), which allows young children to compose music and play pitch games. A number of organizations, for example, the San Francisco Symphony and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, also have interactive music education sites. There are a number of useful resources related to developing learning centers in music (e.g., Barrett, 1996).

Arts Partnerships Providing opportunities for developing the music education knowledge and skills of generalist teachers through collaboration with a specialist within the school, or a network of experienced teachers of music in neighboring schools, is an important recommendation from many studies (e.g., Hallam et al., 2009; Jeanneret & Stevens-​ Ballenger, 2013). The most logical connections with “knowledgeable others” bring generalist teachers into supportive relationships with music teachers and the various music teacher professional organizations in their area. Generalists can broaden their own music teaching expertise through continuing education available from certain professional music education organizations that have workshops at conferences, and specialized instruction in various methodological approaches. These professional development relationships likewise provide music specialists and local music teachers with greater insights into what each brings to the musical learning of students. Music specialists learn how to support the music teaching of generalist teachers, but also learn to value the richness of the generalists’ classroom experiences and knowledge that can inform music specialists’ pedagogical practices. Another valuable source of support for generalist teachers can come from collaboration with arts organizations, artists, and the community. Bamford (2006) states:  “Quality arts education tends to be characterized by a strong partnership between the schools and outside arts and community organizations” that not only includes partnerships between schools and arts organizations but between teachers,

188

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

artists, and community (p.  141). There have been a number of studies that have outlined the benefits of arts partnerships with schools, which can vary from the long-​term artist-​in-​residence program to the single performance experience. Every European country in the Eurydice study noted earlier has specific recommendations for encouraging partnerships between professional artists and/​or arts organizations (Eurydice, 2009). Much of the focus of recent studies has been the impact of these programs on nonarts objectives such as improving literacy and numeracy, learner engagement, and social and well-​being outcomes (e.g., Dallas Arts Partners, 2004; Caldwell & Vaughan, 2012; Galton, 2008), as well as the development of arts-​related knowledge. School/​arts sector partnerships are not a new phenomenon; museums, arts galleries, performing arts centers, performing arts companies, and a range of other arts organizations around the globe have been providing special programs for school students for many decades. In the face of the problems outlined at the beginning of the chapter, these agencies are an increasingly important resource for primary schools. One of the criticisms leveled at some of these programs relates to the “parachute effect”—​that the one-​off performance in a school has limited impact—​but we would argue that it can have a powerful effect on some children. Watching and hearing adults and older students making quality music in live concert situations can be a great motivator to young music-​makers. Exposure to “live” music-​making typically inspires students to go on into adulthood with a continuing musical avocation, or even vocation. The problem arises when one-​off music experiences are seen as providing the primary source of music education in the school rather than supplementing the quality sequential instruction in music that we believe all students deserve. Organizations involved in the kind of partnership that provide the generalist with professional development and teacher support materials for use in the classroom are preferred. This type of preparation gives the classroom teacher the tools needed to make these experiences educationally more meaningful. These are positive and align with the conceptual goal of partnerships by linking what happens in the classroom with what happens in the music learning experiences provided to children.

Vignette: Children at the Center The following vignette demonstrates the embodiment of much of what has been previously outlined and is supported by other chapters in this part of the book. The setting is a state public school in Melbourne, Australia, where children in a Year 2 class (six-​to seven-​year-​olds) are engaged in creating a soundscape to represent a picture of space they have selected.

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

189

The Year 2 students gather on the floor in front of the seated teacher. She shows them a selection of books with many pictures of planets, space, black holes, and the like and describes the task they are about to undertake. In small groups they are to select a picture and create a soundscape using GarageBand to represent the image. The teacher splits them into groups and they move to the five Macintosh laptops on the floor around the room. With the laptops there is an iPod with a microphone attached. The children are absorbed in selecting a picture and are quite democratic about everyone liking the picture. In one group that is having trouble agreeing on a picture, a girl takes charge. She methodically works through pictures asking who likes it and who does not. When a child does not like a picture, she moves onto another. When she reaches the fourth picture, many in the group are particularly taken by the fact there is a black hole represented in the image. She has consensus and punches the air with a loud “Yes”!”. “Now we can get on with it,” she says. They turn their attention to creating a soundscape, opening GarageBand, and attaching the microphone to the iPod. The children work cooperatively and collaboratively in their groups, but this process is not new to them:  they have been working like this since kindergarten. While some children start looking for “space” loops, others experiment with their voices, recording a variety of vocal sounds on the iPods. They quickly attach the iPod to the computer and import their vocalizations into GarageBand. There is laughter and giggling as they manipulate the recording, but they are all focused, engaged, and working together very efficiently with comments like “That’s good.” or “Let’s try this.” The teacher is very much the facilitator, and once the children are organized, she moves around the groups, assisting when asked. The children use technology with ease and confidence, only occasionally asking for assistance when they want to try something new but are not sure how to proceed. Some only need a reminder about a step they have omitted before they are back on track. The children spend about 40 minutes on the task before they pack up and move on to the next lesson. In the next music lesson, they complete their compositions and create a Powerpoint presentation with their scanned images and their soundtrack, which they present to the class. As a final task, they all upload their creations onto a wiki established by the teacher so they not only have a record of what they have done but also something to share with their family and friends. This task is clearly student-​centered. It is holistic and authentic, with rich ideas and problems that are challenging; the children are working with a brief to create a soundtrack for images of space. While the teacher has chosen space as a theme, the children are able to choose the images they prefer as a group. The task is obviously experiential, with very little teacher talk or passivity on the part of the students. The higher-​order thinking and self-​regulation involved shows a clear connection to proven strategies focused on developing cognitive growth. This is an impressive example of quite young children working collaboratively and independently with technology. In one way, the laptops and iPods have provided the basis of a learning center for small group work.

190

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

Conclusion For effective music education in the generalist classroom, musical knowledge is not enough, and neither is confidence. Knowledge and confidence must be part of an integrated whole with a best practice pedagogy that is learner-​centered and mindful of the multiple ways children learn and what each child brings to the classroom. There is also a need for generalist teachers to contextualize the knowl­edge of their students’ development with regard to music learning, as they do with mathematics, language, or social studies. Appropriate musical expectations that focus more on cooperative learning processes than on comparative musical results may positively influence teachers’ willingness to engage with their students around music, more than has been previously examined. The quantity of experience and knowledge necessary for generalist teachers to accomplish all of this highlights the need for those in teacher preparation programs to reexamine their goals for music methods courses, which should model the concept of learner-​centered instruction and build on what the prospective teachers bring to the course, rather than relying on a prescriptive set of skills and knowledge development goals. What the generalist teacher brings to the methods course should also be valued by teacher preparation faculty as much as teachers value what youngsters bring to the classroom. Music methods courses also need to foster a willingness in both prospective generalist teachers and prospective music specialists to engage with music and one another beyond the methods courses. The Australian government commissioned a study in 2004 to report on music teaching quality and to provide examples of best practice both within Australia and abroad. Table 12.1, taken from the resultant National Review of School Music Education (Pascoe et al., 2005), differentiates between what the generalist and specialist bring to the music classroom, while emphasizing that the ideal is the collaboration between the two. Music education professionals have a considerable responsibility to value the role of the generalist teacher. Supporting and encouraging generalists to both engage in music with their students and to reinforce musical concepts whenever and however they can should be a key objective of the music specialist who is fortunate to be in a school setting with willing generalist teachers. For generalist teachers who have sole responsibility for delivering music instruction to their students without help from a music specialist in the school, support from the music education profession is likely an even greater need.

Table 12.1 Guidelines for teachers in specific phases of schooling (NRSME Report, DEST, 2005, p. 106) Phase

Role of All Teachers

Role of Specialist Music Teachers

Key Questions for All Phases

Early childhood

Provide opportunities for a number of different modes of expression in the arts in general and music in particular. Each child has the opportunity to sing, play, move, create and think as a musician

Introduce students to basic musical concepts

Is my teaching of music age/​development specific?

Ensure that this music learning is engaging and meaningful for students

Does my teaching include a range of approaches?

Build on the musical experiences that students bring with them to school while extending and developing the repertoire of music that students experience and come to know and understand Value music as a form of expression and communication Work collaboratively with other teachers, community members and other providers of music learning for students

Work collaboratively with other teachers and providers of music learning for students

Is my teaching of music inclusive? Do I include a range of music styles, forms, genres, periods and sources including those of students’ home cultures? Does my music teaching challenge students? Do I show and share my values about music with students? Do I respect the learning needs of each student? Do I work collaboratively, effectively and efficiently to teach music? Does my work with students recognise the value of music education in assisting and supporting learning in all other areas of the curriculum? Do I recognise the role music can play in the whole learning program of all students especially those who may not be specifically studying music at school? (Continued)

Table 12.1 Continued Phase

Role of All Teachers

Role of Specialist Music Teachers

Middle childhood

Provide a range of music opportunities that build on their learning in early childhood including

Provide relevant musical experiences to enable students to engage with key musical concepts

• Singing

Provide performance opportunities for students as performers and audience to engage practically with musical concepts

• Playing music; and • Creating/​ composing music Provide music opportunities that continue to challenge each student to explore and experiment with music ideas, extend their musical skills and understanding of musical processes Provide music opportunities that encourage students to make connections, to become aware of music and the other arts in the world around them Work collaboratively with teachers with specialist knowledge and experience in music, parents and community partners who can provide relevant music experiences Build in each child an understanding of music as an arts language Work collaboratively with other teachers and providers of music learning for students

Ensure that this music learning is engaging and meaningful for students Work collaboratively with other teachers and providers of music learning for students

Key Questions for All Phases

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

193

Reflective Questions



1. Reflect on your own and others’ pedagogical practices in music and consider how they embody the principles of best practice suggested by Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde. 2. What opportunities for arts partnerships are possible with your local and extended community? 3. List the professional organizations that support music education in your country and/​or province. Find their websites and social media pages. How might these organizations support you teaching music in your classroom? 4. What online curricular resources can you identify that would either strengthen your own pedagogical knowledge or enrich the music content that is currently provided to students in your classroom? Would any of these be useful in a music learning center? 5. Can you identify fellow educators, either music specialists or classroom teachers in your own school or one nearby, with whom you can develop collaborative relationships that enrich and improve music instruction for students in your area?

Acknowledgments Our thanks to Rachel Corben and the children of Auburn South Primary School, Melbourne, Australia.

KEY SOURCES Burnard, P., & Murphy, R. (eds.). (2017). Teaching music creatively. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Glover, S., & Ward, S. (2004). Teaching music in the primary school. London, UK: Continuum. Glover, S., & Young, S. (1999). Primary music: Later years. London, UK: Falmer Press. Mills, J. (2009). Music in the primary school (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

WEBSITES meNet:  Music Education Network—​ a network devoted to collecting, compiling, and disseminating knowledge about music education in schools and music teacher training in Europe, funded by the European Commission’s Programme SOKRATES-​COMENIUS. The network involves 26 institutions from 11 countries working as active partners, and

194

Neryl Jeanneret and George M. DeGraffenreid

about 90 institutions from 23 countries as associated partners of the network:  http://​ menet.mdw.ac.at/​bin/​view. See also https://​easwebsite.files.wordpress.com/​2015/​07/​learning-​outcomes-​generalists-​ specialists1.pdf. Teaching resources for educators working with 7–​ 11  year olds:  http://​www.bbc.co.uk/​ programmes/​ a rticles/​ 3 xWSYQhHfM9dZYfmRmTwVqN/​ t eaching-​ r esources​for-​educators-​working-​with-​7-​11-​year-​olds. Musical Futures Resources https://​www.musicalfutures.org/​resources. Morton Subotnik’s Creating Music: http://​www.creatingmusic.com/​. Impromptu: www.tuneblocks.com.

REFERENCES Bamberger, J. (2000). Developing musical intuitions. New York: Oxford. Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag. Barrett, M. (1996). Learning centres in music education. Launceston, Australia: Uniprint. Bresler, L. (1994). Music in a double-​bind:  Instruction by nonspecialists in elementary school. Arts Education Policy Review, 95(3), 30–​37. Caldwell, B., & Vaughan, T. (2012). Transforming education through the arts. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Collins, A. (2014). Neuroscience, music education and the pre-​service primary (elementary) generalist teacher. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 15 (5), 1–​20. Dallas Arts Partners. (2004). Arts and cultural learning: Changing achievement and expectation. Dallas: Dallas Arts Partners. DeGraffenreid, G. M., Kretchmer, D. L., Jeanneret, N., & Morita, K. (2004). Prepared to teach music: Perceptions of elementary classroom teachers from Australia, Japan and the United States. In P. Martin Shand (ed.), Music education entering the 21st century: History of the ISME music in schools and teacher education commission and papers and workshop descriptions from MISTEC 2000 and 2002 seminars (pp. 103–​112). Perth: University of Western Australia. Droe, K. (2006). Music preference and music education:  A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24, 23–​32. Eurydice. (2009). Arts and cultural education at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: EACEA/​ Eurydice. Ferguson, L. (2005). The role of movement in elementary music education: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(2), 23–​33. Flohr, J. W. (2010). Best practices for young children’s music education: Guidance from brain research. General Music Today, 23, 13–​19. Galton, M. (2008). Creative practitioners in schools and classrooms. Final report of the proj­ ect: The Pedagogy of Creative Practitioners in Schools. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education. Retrieved from https://​www.creativitycultureeducation.org/​data/​files/​ exploring-​pedagogy-​of-​creative-​partnerships-​march-​2008–​101.pdf Glover, J. (2000). Children Composing 4–​14. London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Greenberg, M. (1972). A preliminary report of the effectiveness of a pre-​school music curriculum with pre-​school Head Start children. Council for Research in Music Education Bulletin, 29, 13–​16. Hallam, S., Burnard, P., Robertson, A., Saleh, C., Davies, V., Rogers, L., & Kokatsaki, D. (2009). Trainee primary-​school teachers’ perceptions of their effectiveness in teaching music. Music Education Research, 11(2), 221–​240.

Music Education in the Generalist Classroom

195

Hash, P. (2002). Introducing unfamiliar genres: Recommendations based on music preference research. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21, 12–​23. Iusca, D. (2016). Enhancing music listening in educational context. Review of Artistic Education, 11–​12, 109–​114. Jeanneret, N. (1997). Developing confidence to teach music: A model for preservice teaching. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 37–​44. Jeanneret, N. (2009). Music introduction. In C. Sinclair, N. Jeanneret, & J. O’Toole (eds.), Education and the arts:  Teaching and learning in the contemporary curriculum (p. 102). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Jeanneret, N., & Stevens-​Ballenger, J. (2013). The generalist and the specialist: Serendipity in preservice education. Australian Journal of Music Education. 2, 64–​75. Kretchmer, D. L., & DeGraffenreid, G. M. (2006). Using observation, analysis and reflection to develop elementary classroom teacher self-​confidence to teach music. In M. Moore & B. W. Leung (eds.), School music and teacher education: A global perspective in the new century (pp. 184–​199). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education and International Society for Music Education. Major, A. E., & Cottle, M. (2010). Learning and teaching through talk: Music composing in the classroom with children aged six to seven years. British Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 289–​304. Mills, J. (1989). The generalist primary teacher of music: A problem of confidence. British Journal of Music Education, 6(2), 125. Mills, J. (2009). Music in the primary school. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mills, J., & Paynter, J. (eds.) (2008). Thinking and making: Selections from the writings of John Paynter on music in education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers, D. E. (2005). Freeing music education from schooling: Toward a lifespan perspective on music learning and teaching. International Journal of Community Music. Retrieved from: http://​www.intljcm.com/​articles/​Volume%204/​Myers%20Files/​Myers.pdf. Pascoe, R., Leong, S., MacCallum, J., . . ., Winterton, A. (2005). National review of school music education. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training. Runfola, M., & Rutkowski, J. (1992). General music curriculum. In R. Colwell (ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 697–​709). New York: Schirmer. Russell-​Bowie, D. (2009). What me? Teach music to my primary class? Challenges to teaching music in primary schools in five countries. Music Education Research, 11(1), 23–​36. Sharp, C., & Le Métais, J. (2000). The arts, creativity and cultural education: An international perspective. (International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Project). London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Sims, W. (2004). What I’ve learned about research from young children. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(1), 4–​13. Smith, R. G. (1993). Advancing music, fair? Sounds Australian, 39, 7–​9. Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, and education. London: Routledge. Turino, T. (2008). Music as social life: The politics of participation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wiggins, J. (2003). A frame for understanding children’s compositional processes. In M. Hickey (ed.), Why and how to teach music composition (pp. 141–​165). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Wiggins, R. A., & Wiggins, J. (2008). Primary music education in the absence of specialists. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 9(12). Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Chapter 13

INSTRUMENTAL ENSEMBLE LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE IN PRIMARY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Sharon G. Davis

Children around the globe are involved in multiple ways of making music both inside and outside the classroom. Children identify playing musical instruments as one of their most enjoyable activities (Lamont et al., 2003; Temmerman, 2000), and it is not surprising that a variety of instrumental programs are found worldwide in both formal and informal learning settings. Recent research into informal learning approaches employed outside the formal school setting provides a broader way of thinking about instrumental music learning in schools. Barrett (2007) suggests that traditional formal music curricula “have limited what is learned and taught by narrowly defining musical engagement and musical knowledge” (p.  149). Folkestad (2006) contends that formal and informal ways of learning, to a certain degree, exist in most learning situations and “should not be regarded as a dichotomy, but rather as the two poles of a continuum” (p. 143). While traditional instrumental ensemble models in schools have provided a meaningful and enjoyable music education for some, to serve our students well, we need to expand our conception of instrumental music education beyond prevalent musical models, ensembles, and literature and begin to embrace and value students’ informal learning strategies and approaches as well. In the context of a Western band model, this chapter considers whether the

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

197

ways instrumental music learners engage with music outside the formal settings of schools can inform and transform our understanding of how to teach in formal settings.

Formal Group Instrumental Instruction Many schools around the world offer opportunities for students to study instrumental performance in both curricular and extracurricular settings. Students often participate in general music classes, sometimes taught by music specialists but in many cases taught by generalist teachers as part of the classroom curriculum (Wiggins & Wiggins, 2008; see also Jeanneret & DeGraffenreid, ­chapter 12). In many settings, music is compulsory, and instrumental learning with classroom instruments such as Orff-​Schulwerk xylophones, “world” percussion and descant recorder is often part of those curricula. In North American, Australian, and Japanese schools, in addition to general or classroom music, traditional performing ensembles occupy a prominent position in the curriculum or in extracurricular settings (Green & Vogan, 1991; Morrison, 2008; Murao & Wilkins, 2001). Students in these settings usually begin instrumental study in primary school or middle school, often in a beginning band situation where the entire ensemble is learning to play a band instrument simultaneously within the context of the whole ensemble experience. Japanese school bands, initiated in the early 1930s, have a superior reputation. By the time Japanese school band students reach secondary school, they participate in rigorous daily rehearsals that may last up to two hours (Wilson, 1986). The rehearsal structure differs from Western band models in that peer tutoring in sectional rehearsals forms the core of music learning, where responsibility for learning rests on the section leader, who acts as a mentor to the other members (Hebert, 2005). Schools in the United Kingdom offer extracurricular, tuition-​based, small-​ group instrumental lessons taught by peripatetic teachers. Full ensembles are offered as extracurricular clubs that meet during lunchtime or after school. The Wider Opportunities music program, a government initiative in the United Kingdom, strives to offer free whole-​class instrumental and vocal instruction to prepare students aged 7–​11 to make informed choices about future group lessons. Outside school, in many communities, formal programs such as private and group lessons, externally graded performance examinations, and community and summer arts programs exist to provide an array of musical experiences for children and foster and support instrumental music learning in the schools. In Venezuela, a program called El Sistema (The System) provides free instrumental lessons for impoverished children. Children begin lessons in the early years and are taught by trained musicians and older peers. Lessons continue to take place every day after

198

Sharon G. Davis

school and, following a few years of study, students may play in orchestras of young people. The program, begun over 32 years ago by Dr. José Antonio Abreu, has become a vehicle for social change in Venezuela with its underlying philosophical goal of both musical and social improvement. The success of El Sistema has inspired other countries to incorporate similar programs, exemplifying the transformative potential of musical ensemble participation.

The Western Band Model In the early twentieth century instrumental music was ushered into the school curriculum in the United States as a result of social change and educational reform (Humphreys, 1995). These early school instrumental programs reflected the performance models prevalent in society at the time; for example, one function of amateur and professional instrumental groups was to facilitate social needs at athletic and other community events. This model continues today, often institutionalizing instrumental learning with traditional curricula, literature, and pedagogical strategies drawn from Western art music systems and patterned after conservatory models. The conductor-​teacher plans and organizes the repertoire and, for beginning players, provides instrumental instruction. Method books are prominent features in the curriculum, usually organized around rhythm, beginning with whole notes and progressing through sequentially subdivided rhythmic values (Schleuter, 1997). Isolated exercises and drills may appear before any complete musical repertoire is introduced, reflecting an emphasis on technique rather than aural skills, with little attention given to personal expression through improvisation, composition, or arranging. More recent method books, while still sequential in nature, have evolved to include more melodies and attempts at incorporating improvisation and aural skill development (for example, Froseth, 2000; Lautzenheiser et al., 1999). Pedagogical strategies that revolve around the teacher as sole musical decision-​maker offer “minimal opportunities for students to become aware of their own roles in the music learning process” (Tait, 1992, p. 532). Current thinking, reflecting social-​constructivist learning theories (Brooks & Brooks, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978), favors a wider lens to enhance musical understanding with a shift in perspective from teacher-​centered practice to student-​ centered learning. This can occur in the context of formal instruction, as noted in Hebert’s (2005) characterization of peer tutoring in Japanese school bands as promoting the “empowerment of students to take ownership of the ensemble . . . actively training each other and practicing together” as “an important key to successful performance” (pp.  418–​419). This shift in perspective requires understanding that learners’ meaning making is rooted in their experience and sense of personal agency within that experience. Constructivist pedagogical strategies include collaborative learning experiences that value the multiple perspectives of

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

199

learners, and experiences that involve both group and individual knowledge construction. These qualities suggest a dialogical classroom where teachers probe student understanding and invite negotiation. Contemporary researchers and educators are challenging music teachers to broaden their conceptual view of instrumental learning to encompass learners in a variety of musical experiences, including creating, group composing, and improvising (Allsup & Benedict, 2008; Campbell, Connell, & Beegle, 2007; Shively, 2004; see Wiggins & Espeland, ­chapter  9). Researchers who have studied young people making music in nonschool settings note that collaborative work is a valued and necessary aspect of the creative experience (Allsup, 2003; Barrett & Smigiel, 2007; Campbell, 1995; Davis, 2005, 2013; Green, 2002, 2008; Westerlund, 2006). Opportunities for learners to collaborate, invest of themselves, and become brokers for their musical understanding foster learner agency.

The Role of Agency in Learning to Play an Instrument Learning to play a musical instrument in a school or studio setting involves a web of interconnected processes and activities that are systemic in nature (Creech & Hallam, 2003). Parents, teachers, peers, and the sociocultural context, converging to influence the beginning learner, affect learner agency. The power to control and carry out a desired activity requires “skill or know-​how” (Bruner, 1996, p. 36). Skill acquisition is a process of moving from knowing about to knowing how, and the understanding required for skill execution “comes under direct and more intimate control by goals” (Sloboda, 1985, p. 216). Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988) “flow model” suggests that the best experiences are a result of a balance between “challenge and skills, clear goals and immediate feedback” (p. 32). Children are “goal-​oriented,” and playing a musical instrument will be important to children if it aligns with their goals and if they can envision themselves as competent players (McPherson & Davidson, 2006, p.  335). Learner agency is affected by a sense of self-​efficacy (Bandura, 1997), and achievement, failure, confidence, and competence coalesce to produce a sense of efficacy with which individuals assess their capabilities to carry out courses of action. Central to learning is the mediational role of the teacher (or more knowledgeable peer) in providing scaffolding (Bruner, 1966)  to assist and support the learner in moving from what she knows to a higher level of understanding and competence. In addition, collaborative learning provides further opportunity for peer and teacher mediation. Since social interaction with peers and teacher plays such a central role in knowledge construction, it is critical for teachers to provide ­opportunities for students to work in large and small group settings as well as on their own (Wiggins, 2015).

200

Sharon G. Davis

Wenger (1998) suggests that “knowing involves primarily active participation in social communities” (p. 10). For Wenger, this is not just interacting in the classroom but is a more “encompassing process of being active participants in the practices of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these communities” (p.  4). It would seem that for more effective ensemble learning in school, students must see themselves as musicians with the power to make musical choices and decisions. The nature of the learning environment should therefore include opportunities for students to collaborate and draw on the musical expertise of peers and teacher. The role of the teacher is to ensure that the learning environment includes the experiences of the student, in order to foster efficacy and also invite challenge through personal goal setting. Further, customizing lessons to the interests and needs of learners entails crafting lessons that engage students in learning that provides them with opportunities to actively develop their own creative projects and compositions in an ensemble context. Within the school instrumental setting, integrating the informal strategies children so naturally bring to the learning environment creates a conduit between teacher and learner and a channel within which a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) can flourish.

Informal Learning and Children’s Natural Learning Approaches Informal learning is sometimes considered incidental learning or knowledge acquired by people through social engagement with friends, family, or peers, as a result of everyday life experiences. In music, informal learning often involves learning and playing music by ear. Oral/​aural learning traditions exist in many cultures around the world (Blacking, 1973; Campbell, 1991; Cope, 2002; Downey, 2009; Lilliestam, 1996; Rice, 1996) and are common approaches in jazz and popular music-​making (Berliner, 1994; Green, 2002; Moore, 2001; see also Harwood & Marsh, c­ hapter 8). Those who have studied informal learning processes (Cope, 2002; Downey, 2009; Green, 2002) note the importance of the social context and the value that many musicians place on enjoyment and friendship within that context. The social constructs that generate informal learning are fertile ground for formal teaching, given the intrinsically social nature of music-​making both in and out of school settings.

The Social Nature of Music Culture creates and shapes our thinking (Bruner, 1996), and enculturation ushers children into the norms and traditions of their society primarily through informal

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

201

processes. Making music is a social phenomenon that begins informally between infant and parent from the earliest days of life (Trevarthen, 1999–​2000). The lyrical communication between parent and child, known as motherese, exists in all cultures and is one of the earliest musical experiences (Trevarthen, 1999–​2000). Children’s musical interactions begin with family but grow with social interaction and engagement with media such as television, CDs, mp3s, iTunes, iPods, music and video games, and interaction with social networking sites (see Harwood & Marsh, ­chapter  8, and Lum & Marsh, ­chapter  11). The musical repertoire heard in the home reflects the centrality of technology as a source of musical culture, and while traditional children’s music is present, there is increasing awareness of the staple role that popular music plays through multimedia access (Lum, 2008; Roberts & Christenson, 2001). Informal learning also occurs as children interact on the playground and engage in meaningful play through handclapping, chants, and other rhythmical games. The chief processes through which these games are learned are observation, listening, copying, active participation, and peer-​directed learning (see Harwood & Marsh, ­chapter  8). The oral and physical nature of learning playground songs evokes the strategies born through repetition and mnemonic devices learned in holistic ways (Marsh, 1995; see also Harwood & Marsh, ­chapter 8). In these contexts, the musical sophistication with which children create and engage in these and other informal activities becomes clear (Campbell, 1998; Harwood, 1998; Marsh, 1995). As these researchers have noted, informal music learning processes provide insight into strategies in which children naturally engage—​processes that seem to be in direct contrast to the reductive methods often employed in classroom pedagogy. Children’s exposure to music in the media and the sophistication with which they incorporate it into their lives call for ways of reconceptualizing school practice, content, and process.

Informal Pedagogy in Music Education The past decade has brought a resurgence of interest in the value of informal learning and its application to the classroom. The Musical Futures project that began in 2003 in the United Kingdom is based on Green’s (2002) study of how popular musicians learn. Features of the approach include choice and enjoyment; copying recordings by ear; individual and collaborative learning; skills and knowl­ edge obtained through authentic music learned in haphazard and holistic ways (as opposed to sequential learning); and a deep integration of music processes (listening, performing, improvising, and composing) throughout the learning process (Green, 2008, p.  10). The main goal of the project was to utilize these principles within the formal classroom and to evaluate the practicality of the approach. This successful project continues in the United Kingdom and has been introduced more

202

Sharon G. Davis

recently into some schools and teacher training programs in Australia, Canada, and Singapore. The Musical Futures project began with a focus on secondary school age students, but has since expanded the pedagogical approach to include primary school age learners. Researchers are encouraging educators to consider a broader view of informal learning as inhabiting a spectrum with and interacting with formal learning (Folkestad, 2006; Mans, 2009). As Folkestad (2006) contends, formal learning does not occur exclusively in “institutional settings,” nor does informal learning occur solely outside institutional settings. Folkestad suggests that the distinction between the two learning styles can be simplified by understanding whether the individual’s aim is toward “making music” or “learning about music” and whether or not “someone has taken on the role of the teacher” (p. 142). Therefore, educators should adopt a “dynamic view” that recognizes that formal and informal learning styles are aspects of the “phenomenon of learning” and should both be used when appropriate, regardless of setting (p. 142). Consideration should also be given to whose music forms the basis for learning: the teachers’, the students’, or a blend of both.

Choice and Collaboration Green (2008) asserts “informal learning always starts with music which the learners choose for themselves. Therefore, it tends to be music which they already know and understand, like, enjoy and identify with” (p. 10). Mans (2009) suggests that formal education lacks an understanding of “the importance of learners’ making their own choices in music and in method, and taking responsibility for the outcomes” (p. 90). Music education in Sweden has seen a shift from “ ’School Music’ to ‘Music in School’ ” (Georgii-​Hemming & Westvall, 2010, p. 22), reflecting Swedish educators’ inclusion of students’ musical choices as a source of study and motivation. The principles of informal learning are prevalent in Swedish secondary schools as students choose the music they wish to play and form cooperative groups to make the music. In these instances music is learned through listening and copying by ear, rather than through musical notation. The role of the teacher is to facilitate and coordinate the planning and execution of the music learning. In McGillen’s (2007) study of a Year 8 (aged 13–​14) band class, Australian students engaged in a “cooperative workshop model” that was a complete departure from the more traditional band class model in instrumentation, literature, and format. The instrumentation was a blend of traditional band instruments (woodwind, brass, and percussion) along with contemporary rock instruments (bass, guitar, and vocals). The “text” consisted entirely of original compositions created and arranged by the students in the class. The teacher introduced various compositional forms and structures and taught any new material aurally through call and response. The organizational structure consisted of an introduction of daily goals followed by small group work, whole class negotiation, and discussion, ultimately leading to public performances and recordings of the compositions. The role of the

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

203

teacher in this model was to introduce compositional form and then to act in the role of advisor and facilitator. This student-​centered format was a “complex mix of individual and group processing, and social interplay, reflecting the diversity within the class and the fluid nature of the cooperative process” (p.  24). In addition, all instrumentalists received regular timetabled instruction in small groups during the course of the week. McGillen suggests that this approach facilitated a balance between literacy and creative musical expression and placed the “creative element on an equal footing with the technical and aesthetic, reinforcing the need for a well-​ rounded education that values the creative development of students” (p. 25). As with the Musical Futures project, these strategies are applicable in primary and elementary school settings, although the approaches have been typically trialed with young adolescents. Studies of informal learning practices have focused mainly on secondary-​aged students working in collaborative situations such as garage bands, while the studies of children in collaborative situations have focused on composing and improvising in general music and classroom settings (Burnard, 2000; Miell & MacDonald, 2000; Stauffer, 2001; Wiggins, 1994). However, young children also are forming their own bands and creating music outside the formal experiences. Jaffurs (2004) discovered that students in one of her elementary music classes had formed their own garage band and were playing and composing music informally at home. Her ethnographic study of these young musicians revealed that they used a blend of formal and informal strategies. In their collaborative work the students discussed musical concepts learned in school and transferred songs learned in formal ensembles to their rock band instruments learned at home. Their informal strategies related to transmission skills, issues of simultaneity, their own processes of analysis, and evaluation throughout the creating and rehearsal process. Jaffurs (2004) remarked that in her first encounter with the group, she “felt like an outsider” and realized that some of her students might have felt the same way (p. 198) in the music class setting. This produced a pedagogical shift for Jaffurs, and instead of looking for “a set of skills and achievements” (p. 198) that she could use to further her students’ musicianship in the classroom, she transformed her teaching to a more student-​directed approach, embracing learning alongside her students. Integrating a dynamic view of teaching would suggest more opportunities for learner choice and collaborative work in the ensemble experience. Teachers in primary or elementary ensembles can draw on and continue to foster the aural abilities and musical knowledge to which beginners have been exposed through the home, school, and wider community. Shively (1995) posits that “learners should build on what they know, not build on the knowledge the teacher transmits, knowledge that reflects the personal understanding of the teacher. Even though we call it beginning band, it is almost certainly not beginning music” (p. 97). Unless children have had private lessons before participating in an instrumental ensemble, it is unlikely that they will be able to fluently read staff notation. It is more likely that they will have relatively good aural skills and, when learning new repertoire, often will gravitate to ear playing first rather than to reading notation (Davis, 2010).

204

Sharon G. Davis

Learning “fundamentals” is paramount to success on any instrument; however, if children are more conversant in informal learning processes through the activities already discussed, it would seem logical that informal processes could play an important role in connecting to learners’ existing strategies, enabling them to build bridges to new knowledge. The ways informal processes may operate in a beginning instrumental ensemble and the issues the teacher must consider are discussed in the following section.

Informal Strategies in a Formal Setting Musical choice is a key area in integrating informal learning strategies in the formal ensemble. As students become proficient on their instruments, providing them with opportunities to copy a song of their choosing can foster community and promote unforeseen musical growth and development. Beginning instrumentalists are capable of copying popular songs that they enjoy and with which they are familiar, but the process requires more teacher support and scaffolding than may be necessary with older students. Reproducing songs of students’ choosing may require that the teacher also engage in learning these songs by ear. If the teacher has been trained in the Western classical tradition, playing music by ear may not be a skill that is regularly practiced, but if informal processes are employed in school settings, playing by ear will need to be a regular part of the curriculum and within the comfort level of the teacher. For example, with the inclusion of popular music and traditional Irish music (learned in the oral/​aural tradition) in the curriculum, music teachers in secondary Irish schools have had to adjust their teaching practices to support and teach their students in these and other genres (Downey, 2009). Similar requirements have been made of Swedish music teachers as they design the curriculum around students’ popularly based “leisure music” (Georgii-​Hemming &Westvall, 2010, p. 23). Davis (2008) has described the strategies used by members of an American beginning instrumental ensemble in their efforts to copy a popular song of their choosing. Initially, the students wanted the teacher to transcribe the song into standard notation. The song was in standard verse/​chorus form, and while the chorus was repetitive, it was fraught with rhythmic complexities that once notated would elude beginning players. Mills and McPherson (2006) point out that for young instrumentalists, one of the reasons that reading rhythm may be more difficult than pitch is that reproducing rhythm requires the ability to hear and decipher. Learning a familiar song by ear, with students mentally hearing and singing the melody, not only provides enjoyment and motivation to perform the song but also facilitates pertinent, contextual pedagogical strategies that will foster musical thinking and musicianship. Singing is fundamental to developing musical expertise (Kendall, 1990) and important for learning songs by ear. The initial teacher strategies used by Davis (2008) included whole group listening, singing, and discussion of the song to determine the basic topography and concert key. Once these basic strategies were achieved the teacher designed a problem-​solving lesson in which the students worked collaboratively in like instrumental groups to work out the song by ear in preparation

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

205

for playing the song together as a band. Peer observation and copying of both sound and fingerings played a significant role in children’s learning strategies in this setting. Working in like instrumental groups facilitated students’ engagement in these processes and supported students’ understanding of the necessary instrumental transpositions. Operating in peer groups requires a combination of both individual and group time to work with the instrument, and teachers must provide time for students to “fiddle” (Davis, 2008) with sound in order to capture the melodic line. In utilizing an aural model, students often attack a whole piece of music as best they can but not necessarily in a sequential fashion (Green, 2002) and therefore fiddling, or the opportunity for trial and error, is essential. In Davis’s study (2008), student strategies to secure the melody included playing through scale-​wise passages until locating the correct note, singing, humming, and using a fingering chart to figure out tones they could hear but did not know how to play. One of the most important pedagogical strategies that teachers can use is to draw on initial student success. It is very motivating for students to hear their peers play even short passages that they have learned. This also provides opportunities to engage students in a discussion about the strategies they used to figure out the passage, which in turn assists them to develop metacognitive thinking skills. Part of the role of the teacher is to cultivate these thinking skills with pertinent questions that enable the students to consider the processes they used and to evaluate the relative success of strategies (McPherson, 2005). Davis (2008) noted that the process that evolved in an elementary beginner band learning songs by ear entailed a cycle of informal and formal processes. The cycle consisted of small group work followed by whole group analysis and performance application through listening, singing, student performance of the work in progress, and short discussions of student strategies for attaining the notes with a return to small group work. In this way students were drawing on the competence of the group as they negotiated their individual development. The informal/​ formal learning cycle (see fig. 13.1) that emerged as a result of this project was initially generated through students’ informal processes but hinged on the competence of group members through initial student success. This enabled informed teacher scaffolding and assisted in fostering students’ ability to draw on their shared competence to create further strategies. Power was distributed between the students and teacher as they worked together as a community of practice, which became apparent when competence and expertise were allowed to flow and develop. By aurally learning a song that was initially too complex for them to read, the students were naturally drawn into the mechanics of informal learning through copying, fiddling, singing, humming, and observing their peers. This scenario occurred in a formal band setting, guided by a teacher. However, the students’ intention was to be able to play the music together and notate the song in standard notation. The aural process for learning the song occurred over several lessons and was successful for most students, but a natural by-​product of this informal learning approach was the discovery of musical concepts (such as instrumental

Sharon G. Davis

fid dlin g

is o f l e a r ning mance a

pe rfo r

g

i c a ti o n

in

cts

p pl

se

ld

n

ys

esses

fa

i

r vatio

al

Students’Informal Proc

ar t

c o py i n g

ng mi um h / g in

an

cacoph on sin y g

206

ob

performanc e

dem on str a

Informed teach er s c a Informal/Formal Learning Cycle dialogue

ffo

n tio

ini

ti a

ls

uc

ne

ss

g

ot

i a te

an

d

on group ild bu

ce ten pe m co

ce

Figure 13.1  The informal/​formal learning cycle.

transposition) that emerged in context and about which the students became curious. The combination of informal learning approaches guided by emergent formal teaching resulted in a fusion of learning formats and pedagogical strategies (Folkestad, 2006). Drawing on informal learning approaches within the context of the formal settings requires pedagogical finesse and care. Green (2010) cautions, however, that informality arising from a pedagogy that is vague, directionless and devoid of any teacher input is of course not the same thing as informality arising from a pedagogy that is thoughtfully derived from, and carefully structured upon the real-​world learning practices of musicians in the informal realm (p. 91).

Informal learning is not sequential, and teachers will have to respond to emergent situations that arise. Teachers should be sensitive to and aware of the music that students are interested in learning and provide opportunities to authentically learn this music in formal ensembles. Informal practices can not only assist in fostering the aural process that children naturally bring from their experience but can also broaden students’ social development.

Developing Social Consciousness Through Peer-​Directed Learning Wenger’s (1998) social theory of learning through communities of practice provides a conceptual framework for incorporating informal strategies in formal settings. A  community of practice incorporates a domain of interest in which members utilize their shared competence and abilities, drawing on “what we do and what we know, as well as on our ability to connect meaningfully to what we

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

207

don’t do and what we don’t know—​that is, to the contributions and knowledge of others” (p. 76). The sociocultural context within which informal learning occurs in popular music-​making relies on the development of what Westerlund (2006) calls “knowledge-​building communities” (p.  119) in which co-​construction of knowledge is the norm. Westerlund proposes that informal strategies used in knowledge-​building communities provide a model for formal settings regardless of the genre of music being learned. Co-​construction of knowledge occurs between and among peers and teacher, although the teacher is described as a “more expert learner” (p. 122). As Westerlund points out, “expertise is more likely to flourish in communities where students support one another in knowledge construction and where, at the same time, they develop collective expertise that can be distinguished from the expertise that individual students may have” (p. 122). In a study of “mutual learning communities” in which nine high school band students worked in peer-​directed, garage band–​like groups to compose original music, Allsup (2003) noted that peer learning had less to do with “transmission of skills” and more to do with discovering musical skills together (p. 33). Peer-​directed learning can provide opportunities for discovery of skills on many levels in ensemble learning in school. The inclusion of informal learning strategies in peer groups and the aural learning of music of students’ choosing can activate connections within the ensemble that potentially broaden and enhance “social consciousness” (Wright, 2008; see also Rodriguez, this volume). Simply providing time for students to perform music they have discovered how to play on their own can augment social awareness and foster a sense of community in the learners. The inclusion of informal learning in a beginning band can set the stage for such awareness and meaningful connections within the ensemble (Davis, 2010). Integrating students’ ways of being musical fosters a socially aware community of learners. Beginning instrumental ensembles can also compose and arrange music collaboratively from their earliest stages, leading to increased student engagement and sense of ownership (McGillen & McMillan, 2003).1 In addition, students should be encouraged to share original pieces or works-​in-​progress that, with the students’ permission, may be completed through cooperative work and may lead to other creative projects within the ensemble (see Davis, 2008). As new musical concepts are introduced in the repertoire, learners should have opportunity to creatively interact with these concepts in tangible ways. Working at least some of the time with the unpredictable, human creativity provides exciting pedagogical possibilities and, as Wenger (1998) proposes, “what matters is the interaction of the planned and the emergent—​that is, the ability of teaching and learning to interact so as to become structuring resources for each other (p. 267).

Fostering a Musical Say Music-​making in an instrumental ensemble is a group experience and an individual endeavor (Shively, 2004) that should provide space for the development of

208

Sharon G. Davis

INVESTMENT Student broker for musical understanding Teacher investment in student process Meaning connections

INFORMAL LEARNING STRATEGIES Aural process, Peer teaching, Fiddling, Playing not telling Time, space, and scaffolding Student-centered

A CHILD’S LIVED EXPERIENCE Experience based, Peers teaching peers Practical integration of children’s meaningful music experiences

STUDENT EMERGENT IDENTITY

REFLEXIVE PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN

Figure 13.2  Helix representing interactive processes of a learner-​centered classroom.

independent musicianship. Creating space for a broader instrumental experience suggests a change from teacher-​centered to learner-​centered ensembles and entails a shift in power from podium-​driven decision-​making to a more democratic learning environment (Allsup, 2003; Georgii-​Hemming & Westvall, 2010; Shively, 2004). From the literature it is clear that children engage naturally in informal processes, and educators can draw on these processes early and balance these with more formal processes. Becoming a musician requires the power to contribute to and be a part of musical decision-​making. For the individual, these settings seem to foster a musical say and in the formal ensemble can be identified by three major enabling conditions:

• Learning should be connected to learners’ lived experience. • Teachers need to make space for, understand, and embrace learners’ informal learning strategies. • The process requires investment on the part of both learner and teacher.

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

209

In Figure 13.2 (from Davis, 2008), I represent the resulting interactive learning and teaching processes as a spiraling double helix. The first loop on the helix represents a child’s lived experience and incorporates the musical experiences of the individual and the corporate learning experiences that build community along with the pedagogical implementation of these experiences. The second loop represents the integration of the informal strategies that students naturally use outside school. Investment on both the part of the student and the teacher is the third loop of the strand. As members of this community of practice, teachers must realize that pedagogical strategies and repertoire should be altered as a result of the coalition between students’ natural learning processes and the investment in and validation of those processes in the formal ensemble. Responsibility and independent musicianship can be nurtured if students have been provided with the possibility to have ownership, which requires student decision-​making and teachers’ respect for students’ decisions and musicianship. To foster a musical say is to respect children’s lived experience and to incorporate their experience, their musical choices, and their strategies as part of relevant and authentic pedagogical design. Teacher investment occurs through creating opportunities for this to happen and scaffolding the process in an informed and tactful way so that learner strategies can grow and mature.

Reflective Questions

1. After observing students in informal situations, for example, on the playground or as they warm up together in an instrumental ensemble, have you observed musical strategies that could be incorporated into ensemble learning? 2. What are the musical preferences of your students? How might you incorporate these into the ensemble repertoire? 3. What collaborative learning experiences can you design to incorporate student interests and foster investment? 4. What informal learning strategies do you practice in your personal musical life?

KEY SOURCES Allsup, R. E., & Benedict, C. (2008). The problems of band. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 156–​173. Hebert, D. G. (2012). Wind bands and cultural identity in Japanese schools: An ethnography and social history. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

210

Sharon G. Davis

WEBSITES Musical Futures Projects: http://​www.musicalfutures.org. Wider Opportunities: http://​www.ks2music.org.uk. Simón Bolívar Music Foundation: http://​www.fesnojiv.gob.ve/​en.html. Informal Learning: http://​www.infed.org.

NOTE 1. Wiggins (2015) describes numerous compositional lessons for the elementary classroom that can be adapted for beginners in an instrumental ensemble. McGillen and McMillan’s study related to collective songwriting processes with secondary student composers. Although several compositional stages were delineated, McGillen and McMillan identified the exploration stage as the most significant to the cooperative model because it enabled exchange and modification of ideas.

REFERENCES Allsup, R. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), 24–​37. Allsup, R. E., & Benedict, C. (2008). The problems of band: An inquiry into the future of instrumental music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 156–​173. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-​efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Barrett, J. R. (2007). Currents of change in the music curriculum. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 147–​ 162). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Barrett, M. S., & Smigiel, H. M. (2007). Children’s perspectives of participation in music youth arts settings: Meaning, value and participation. Research Studies in Music Education, 28, 39–​50. Berliner, P. F. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blacking, J. (1973). How musical is man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-​Hall, Inc. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burnard, P. (2000). How children ascribe meaning to improvisation and composition; rethinking pedagogy in music education. Music Education Research, 2(1), 7–​23. Campbell, P. (1995). Of garage bands and song-​getting: The musical development of young rock musicians. Research Studies in Music Education, 4, 12–​20. Campbell, P. (1991). Lessons from the world:  A cross-​cultural guide to music teaching and learning. New York: Schirmer Books.

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

211

Campbell, P. Connell, C., & Beegle, A. (2007). Adolescents’ expressed meanings of music in and out of school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(3), 220–​236. Campbell, P. (1998). Songs in their heads:  Music and its meaning in children’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press. Cope, P. (2002). Informal learning of musical instruments: The importance of social context. Music Education Research, 4(1), 93–​104. Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2003). Parent-​teacher-​pupil interactions in instrumental music tuition: A literature review. British Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 29–​44. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Optimal experience. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. Davis, S. G. (2005). That thing you do! Compositional processes of a rock band. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 6(16). http://​www.ijea.org/​v6n16/​ [accessed October 28, 2010]. Davis, S. G. (2008). Fostering a musical say: Enabling meaning making and investment in a band class by connecting to students’ informal music learning processes. Unpublished doctoral diss., Oakland University, Rochester, MI. Davis, S. G. (2010). Metaphorical process and the birth of meaningful musical rationality. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(1), 3–​21. Davis, S. G. (2013). Informal learning processes in an elementary classroom. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 198, 23–​50. Downey, J. (2009). Informal learning in music in the Irish secondary school context. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 8(2), 46–​59. Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–​145. Froseth, J. (2000). Do it! Play in band. Chicago: GIA Publications. Georgii-​ Hemming, E., & Westvall, M. (2010). Music education—​ a personal matter? Examining the current discourses of music education in Sweden. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 21–​33. Green, J. P., & Vogan, N. F. (1991). Music education in Canada:  A historical account. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (2008). Music, Informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (2010). Response. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 89–​93. Harwood, E. (1998). Music learning in context: A playground tale. Research Studies in Music Education, 11, 52–​60. Hebert, D. G. (2005). Music competition, cooperation and community: An ethnography of a Japanese school band. Unpublished doctoral diss., University of Washington, Seattle. Humphreys, J. T. (1995). Instrumental music in American education:  In service of many masters. Journal of Band Research, 30, 39–​70. Jaffurs, S. E. (2004). The impact of informal music learning practices in the classroom, or how I learned how to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 189–​201. Kendall, M. J. (1990). A review of selected research in elementary instrumental music education with implications for teaching. Journal of Band Research, 25(2), 64–​81. Lamont, A., Hargreaves, D., Marshall, N. A., & Tarrant, M. (2003). Young people’s music in and out of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20(3), 229–​241. Lautzenheiser, T., Higgins, J., Menghini, C., Lavender, P., Rhodes, T. C., & Bierschenk, D. (1999). Essential elements 2000: Comprehensive band method. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard.

212

Sharon G. Davis

Lilliestam, L. (1996). On playing by ear. Popular Music, 15(2), 195–​216. Lum, C. H. (2008). Home musical environment of children in Singapore: On globalization, technology, and media. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(2), 101–​117. Mans, M. (2009). Informal learning and values. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 8(2), 80–​93. Marsh, K. (1995). Children’s singing games: Composition in the playground. Research Studies in Music Education, 4, 2–​11. McGillen, C., & McMillan, R. (2003). Cooperative song writing: Adventures in anarchy and engagement with adolescents. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 25–​38. McGillen, C. (2007). The whiz bang orkestra: An alternative approach to band classes and classroom ensembles. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 17–​28. McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 5–​35. McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2006). Playing an instrument. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 331–​352). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2000). Children’s creative collaborations: The importance of friendship when working together on a musical composition. Social Development, 9(3), 348–​369. Mills, J. & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Musical literacy. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician:  A handbook of musical development (pp. 155–​171). Oxford, UK:  Oxford University Press. Moore, A. (2001). Rock:  The primary text:  Developing a musicology of rock. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Morrison, S. J. (2008). Of school bands, orchestras and jazz ensembles. In P. S. Campbell (ed.), Musician and teacher: An orientation to music education (pp. 165–​186). New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Murao, T., & Wilkins, B. (2001). Japan. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical development and learning: The international perspective (pp. 87–​101). London: Continuum. Rice, T. (1996). Traditional and modern methods of learning and teaching music in Bulgaria. Research Studies in Music Education, 7(1), 1–​12. Roberts, D., & Christenson, P. (2001). Popular music in childhood and adolescence. In D. Singer & J. Singer (eds.), Handbook of children (pp. 395–​413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schleuter, S. L. (1997). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists. 2nd ed. New York: Schirmer. Shively, J. (1995). A framework for the development and implementation of constructivist learning environments for beginning band classes (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-​Champaign. Shively, J. (2004). In the face of tradition: Questioning the roles of conductors and ensemble members in school bands, choirs, and orchestras. Questioning the music education paradigm (Vol. 2, pp. 179–​190). Toronto: Canadian Music Educators Association. Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stauffer, S. (2001). Composing with computers: Meg makes music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150, 1–​20. Tait, M. J. (1992). Teaching strategies and styles. In R. Colwell (ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 525–​534). New York: Schirmer Books. Temmerman, N. (2000). An investigation of the music activity preferences of pre-​school children. British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 1–​60.

Instrumental Ensemble Learning and Performance

213

Trevarthen, C. (1999–​2000). Musicality and the intrinsic motive pulse: Evidence from human psychobiology and infant communication. Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue, 155–​215. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:  Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Westerlund, H. (2006). Garage rock bands: A future model for developing musical expertise. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 119–​125. Wiggins, J. (1994). Children’s strategies for solving compositional problems with peers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(3), 232–​252. Wiggins, J. (2015). Teaching for musical understanding. 3rd ed. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Wiggins, R. A., & Wiggins, J. (2008). Primary music education in the absence of specialists. International Journal of Education and the Arts 9(12). Retrieved from http://​www.ijea.org/​ v9n12/​[accessed October 28, 2010]. Wilson, T. (1986). Japanese bands:  What makes them so good? Music Educators Journal, 72(5), 41–​47. Wright, R. (2008, July). Thinking globally; Acting locally:  Informal learning and social justice in music education. Music education as liberatory education. Paper presented at the International Society of Music Education World Conference, Bologna.

PART 3

MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING DURING ADOLESCENCE: AGES 12–18 Part Editor Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce

Chapter 14

COMMENTARY: MUSIC LEARNING AND TEACHING DURING ADOLESCENCE: AGES 12–​18 Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce

This part of the volume focuses on music teaching and learning during the adolescent years by identifying and exploring key issues, concepts, and debates that particularly impact on, or are significant for, the musical experiences and development of young people during this period of their lives. A number of key themes emerge from the chapters that transcend the organizational framework of this part of the volume. These cause us to question assumptions about the role of music in the lives of adolescents, including how young people use and relate to music and the way we as music educators can best meet the challenges of addressing young peoples’ musical and wider needs in the range of contexts in which their musical learning and experiences take place. The chapters also encourage us to think deeply about the nature of musical knowledge and musical roles, how these are constructed, and the extent to which such constructions empower or disempower young people. Since the earlier versions of these papers appeared in The Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Volume 1 (Odena & Spruce, 2012), the authors have continued to explore these issues further. For example, in Debates in Music Teaching, Philpott and Spruce (2012) challenge teachers to reach their own informed judgments about contemporary debates. In Remixing the Classroom, Allsup (2016) provides alternatives

218

Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce

for the traditional master-​apprentice model. And in Musical Creativity, Odena (2016) urges readers to think deeply about musical creativity and its development. The authors’ recent work, developed from ideas discussed in the original chapters, is now enriching their updated contributions. The context for this part of the volume is set by the next two chapters. Philpott and Wright focus on the nature of music teaching and learning in schools in the adolescent phase, while Allsup, Westerlund, and Shieh explore the interface between school music and youth cultures: the place of music in school in adolescents lived lives. Both these chapters, in their different ways, explore the power ­relationships between the adolescent and the adult world and the way particular views of music content knowledge and pedagogies are promoted and contested. From these two chapters emerge many of the themes that are explored from different perspectives in other chapters in this part of the volume. Drawing on the work of Basil Bernstein, Philpott and Wright develop a framework that allows for the analysis of different curriculum models, particularly in terms of the power relationships that underpin their development and implementation. They demonstrate how music curriculum content (what counts as valid musical knowledge in schools), pedagogy (what counts as valid transmission of that knowledge), and evaluation (what counts as valid realization of musical knowledge) are determined through the exercise of power and control by dominant ideologies and groups of which the preeminent one is the State. They describe how (musical) knowledge is “recontextualized” at a number of hierarchical levels before it is engaged with by the learner. These levels begin most typically with state-​defined promotion of knowledge that is deemed to be appropriate for a particular subject and then filtered through “official recontextualizing fields” such as curriculum and inspection bodies to ensure compliance. As a balance to the officially promoted knowl­edge, there is what the authors describe as “pedagogical recontextualizing fields” where agencies independent of the state, mediate knowledge in particular ways in order for it be used by teachers. Furthermore “discursive gaps” that occur between various points of the recontextualizing process provide opportunities for teachers to influence the “what” and “how” of music teaching and learning. Parallel with the hierarchical structures that underpin the construction and dissemination of appropriate knowledge are teacher-​pupil power relationships as they are manifested within the music classroom through strong and weak classifications of knowledge (what the knowledge is) and framing (the pedagogical approaches). Where classification and framing are strong, pupil empowerment is weak, and students are unable to play any part in deciding what for them is important musical knowledge and practice. This then creates the context within which young people may become alienated from music in school. Philpott and Wright make the critical point that innovative approaches to curriculum content and pedagogy do not of themselves guarantee inclusion of all children in the educational process. As they say, Bernstein has shown that schools may well act to reproduce existing patterns of power and symbolic control while

Commentary

219

ostensibly being ideologically committed to opposite or contrasting goals, and that is only where teachers act intentionally to counter inequality and bias and make connections between patterns of social privilege and music education that formal music-​making will begin to address the inequalities and the promotion of privilege that are inherent in its power structures. They suggest that only a fundamental change in the “underlying conceptual framework,” so that it focuses on “the establishment of democracy in education,” can address fundamental inequalities and that the conditions for a democratic framework for music education are:

• Inclusion—​the right to be included • Enhancement—​the right to have the tools for critical reflection • Participation—​the right to be engaged in the processes of change

Philpott and Wright’s vision of music education is rooted in democratic ideals that support young people in determining their own futures developing student agency:  “education, if it is useful to adolescents, must help them become critical authors of their present and future lives.” They suggest that the focus of music education should be on the empowerment of young people achieved through supporting the promotion of youth agency, criticality, and self-​discovery. Allsup, Westerlund, and Shieh arrive at very similar conclusions (although by different means), arguing that the starting point for music education pedagogy should be “educational ideals,” not musical preferences or examinations of youth subcultures, as “neither inculcation into a dominant ideology nor subcultural revolution offers a reasonable guide for adolescent development.” Like Philpott and Wright, Allsup, Westerlund, and Shieh challenge the notion that a focus on pedagogy or curriculum content can of itself address young people’s alienation from music in school. They challenge a range of assumptions and beliefs about “youth culture” and “musical identity”; especially that either can be conceived of as a singular or fixed entity. They argue for “cultures of youths” in which “exchange and communication empower participants to create and reshape the very culture that is creating and reshaping them.” Most especially important, however, and fundamental to creating a context for young people’s agency, is a rejection of the idea of youth culture(s) simply as a stepping stone on the way to adulthood and an affirmation of it rather as a state that “carries sensibilities and practices meaningful in and of themselves.” The authors examine the notion that a “culture of agency” can be developed simply through bringing into the classroom music associated (by adults) with “youth-​subcultures.” They suggest that such a view is oversimplistic and fails to take into account both the plurality of youth cultures and the diversity of musical styles and practices with which young people engage. Drawing on research by both Ståhlhammar and Green they argue that what is more important than musical style or content is “authenticity of musical learning practices” so that the focus is not what is taught but the way it is taught, and advocate for a “judicious” use of unknown music by the students.

220

Oscar Odena and Gary Spruce

Higgins and Bartleet examine the potential for collaborations between schools and community music facilitators to provide for the needs of disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups and to foster “intersocietal and intercultural acceptance and understanding” and development of “critical consciousness.” Through the use of case studies they explore the impact community musicians can have on young people’s music in school and the potential professional benefits of collaborative working for both teachers and the community music facilitators. Fautley and Colwell provide a comprehensive overview of the debates, ideas, and concepts that underpin contemporary assessment in the music classroom. They begin by exploring the different contexts and types of assessment and the ways assessment data and information can be derived and the purposes to which it is put. They particularly focus on how assessment processes and data can be both valid and reliable. Central to their chapter, however, is a vision of how assessment can be used as a means of empowering children in their musical learning. Odena presents an overview of the key research into, and examines different understandings and practices of, creativity in music education in the adolescent years. Inter alia, he describes how “creativity” has typically been promoted by progressive movements in education, “where there is an emphasis on the interests of the students, democratic ways of behaving, and problem-​centered enquiry.” He points out how a belief in the potential of all to be creative and act creatively provides a paradigm within which student agency can be promoted. In a passage that resonates with the ideas and arguments outlined in the first two chapters concerning valued knowledge and the relationship between musical practice across youth and adult cultures, Odena observes, drawing on Csikszentmihalyi’s concepts of “fields” and “domains,” that “what may be a creative achievement for a particular student may not be assessed as ‘creative’ in the adult world, not just because of different level of skill but because of different norms,” for instance where the activity involves musical practices relevant for the students that may prove problematic within the classroom. The potential alienation of students from music in schools is identified again in the final chapter, by Ruthmann and Dillon, where they explore ways technology can address the disjuncture between music in schools and music in young people’s lives through exploring the disparity between how students use technology outside school and how they can use technology in schools. Primarily, however, Ruthmann and Dillon consider how technology can be used to develop a “relational pedagogy” that honors the agency of students. Picking up themes of democracy and empowerment from previous chapters, they explore the way technology has the “potential to provide a democratized environment for learning.” Key to this is recognizing how technology allows for visual and aural music representations in ways that challenge the dominance of the representational modes of Western art music. The key themes that emerge from this chapter concern the potential of music and music education to act transformatively on the lives of adolescents. Nevertheless, for this to happen educators need to adopt a heightened consciousness of the potential for dominant ideologies and unquestioned assumptions about youth culture

Commentary

221

to disempower young people and to perpetuate inequalities and alienation from music education, particularly in schools. The authors in this part of the volume argue that a critical role for music educators is to construct contexts, frameworks, and relationships for learning and musical experience that support young people as individuals and within which young people can “give shape to their emerging selves” and develop critical consciousness and autonomy. The chapters in this part of the volume present us with a vision of music education that is rooted in democratic values and that celebrates the rich diversity of young peoples’ relationships with music and the roles that it plays in their lives. The chapters also present us with a further challenge, which is to revisit our ideas about what music education is and what it is for, such that “schools, community music programs, and research agendas [become] laboratories of experiment and imagination, spaces where students and teachers work together toward negotiated and personally meaningful ends” (Allsup, Westerlund, & Shieh, ­chapter 16). This part of this volume is dedicated to Steven Dillon, coauthor of ­chapter 20, who passed away in April 2012, shortly after completing the earlier version of the chapter for the original handbook.

REFERENCES Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Odena, O. (ed.). (2016). Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. London and New York: Routledge. Odena, O., & Spruce, G. (eds.). (2012). Part 4. Music learning and teaching during adolescence: ages 12–​18. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (vol. 1, ­chapters 24–​30, pp. 435–​548). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Philpott, C., & Spruce, G. (eds.) (2012). Debates in music teaching. New York: Routledge.

Chapter 15

TEACHING, LEARNING, AND CURRICULUM CONTENT Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

This chapter addresses the interfaces between learning, teaching, and curriculum in classroom music teaching. A  theoretical framework will be presented drawn from the work of the British sociologist Basil Bernstein that allows for the analysis of different curriculum and pedagogic models in music education. To elaborate on this, a number of different curriculum models will be presented and analyzed. Finally, some thoughts concerning future music curricula will be presented, based on Bernstein’s principles of democratic rights in education, which focus on the possibility of promoting social justice in the music classroom. We assume that music education 12–​18 has certain characteristics:

• That the music curriculum in this age range is part of compulsory schooling until the age of 14 or thereabouts and becomes an elective subject between the ages of 14 and 18. • That, unlike previous age phases, within the 12–​18 age range there is likely to be specialist input from a music teacher who has been “trained.” • That there is likely to be some type of “official” curriculum in one guise or another either national, regional, or implicit within “standards” for the subject. • That music will be timetabled, organized, and resourced as a specialist subject. • That music education in this age phase will lead to specialist courses and examinations (most usually post-​14).

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

223

We are concerned here with school curriculum music and not what might be termed the “extra curricular,” although our analysis could be applied to both, and the two are not always so easy to separate. It is the adolescent age range that appears to have been the most problematic for music in state education. Issues that have arisen include low reported levels of pupil enjoyment of music classes, a lack of motivation for pupils to contribute effectively in music lessons, questions of the authenticity and relevance of school music to the lives of adolescents, low uptake of the subject when it is elective or optional, and problematic issues of inclusion of social groups based around culture, gender and race, to name but some (see Green, 1988; Harland et al., 2000; Hanley & Roberts, 2000). Yet this is contrasted with evidence of strong involvement in musical practices in the lives of adolescents outside of school. In addition to negotiating these issues, teachers’ work has undergone, and is still undergoing, a period of unprecedented change and government intervention. Music teaching has not been immune to these changes. The neoliberal agenda for education has seen governments seeking to impose their educational philosophy through national curricula, prescribed pedagogy, standards, and associated teacher education. We write of the issues above as though they are global, as our research and enquiries in our own communities of practice lead us to believe that they are pervasive if not entirely uniform. More than ever, then, music teachers need to be able to articulate what it is that they do; identify where and in what ways it differs from other curriculum subjects; and highlight ways its pedagogy, processes, and products are uniquely valuable. In addition, it is useful for music teachers to be aware of the underlying structures of power and control that limit their individual agency (in other words, some of our problems are not of our own making and are not easily ours to remedy), and to be aware of the potential for them to work for change in both immediate musical and pedagogical terms, and also potentially in socially transformative ones. Connections between teaching, learning, and curriculum content are complex and multifaceted. There is a need for music teachers to have a conceptual framework when thinking and talking about music curricula and pedagogy and when describing change and progress. The work of Basil Bernstein provides just such an analytical framework for interrogating schools and schooling and for shedding light on potential gaps in the system where there are opportunities for change. Since Swanwick’s (1988) use of early Bernstein theory in his discussion of power and control in music classrooms, the potential contribution of Bernstein to a consideration of music education has been largely ignored and only recently systematically applied (Wright, 2006, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Wright & Froehlich, 2011). Bernstein’s work culminated in a theory he termed the “pedagogic device,” which allows an analysis of the education system at all levels from the macro level of society, and its decisions about how knowledge is selected to become curriculum, to the micro level of the decisions and interactions of teachers and pupils or pupil and pupil in the classroom. We intend to present key concepts from this theoretical framework to illustrate their power in helping us understand music education.

224

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

In doing this we believe that an emphasis needs to be placed on the agency of the individual teachers and their impact on the lives of pupils. In this respect we turn to the work of critical pedagogues and their considerations of social justice and social change through education when exploring a future for music education. We relate this to Bernstein’s view of a democratic music education enshrined in three rights—​inclusion, enhancement, and participation—​and explain how these might relate to a music education for the twenty-​first century.

A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Before we launch into the theory, let’s begin by visiting some very different music lessons to see why such a theory might be useful to music teachers. Scenario 1. Thirty pupils aged 13–​14 sit at desks grouped into clusters to seat six pupils. The 55-​minute lesson begins with the teacher introducing a new unit of work on “program” music. The pupils listen as a class to extracts from a number of pieces from Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition. Teacher and pupils then discuss the ways in which the composer has used the musical elements of pitch, pace, texture, timbre, structure, silence, dynamics, and duration to capture the “story” of the music. Each group is given a postcard of a picture from an art gallery, and they are asked to compose a one-​minute piece of music to “capture” their picture in music using electronic keyboards, tuned and unturned percussion, and (if the pupils have them) their own instruments. One group is sent to work on sequencing software in the technology suite. As the composing activity proceeds, the teacher observes the groups working and teaches by asking questions about the group’s compositional intentions and the ways they have sought to achieve them. She sometimes makes suggestions about sequence and structure of the material. Eventually the class will perform their pieces to each other and evaluate them. Scenario 2. A class of 30 students aged 14–​15 enters the main music room, which is set up for a rock band rehearsal with microphones and amplification for singers electric lead and bass guitars connected to amplifiers and a drum kit. The teacher reminds the students that they should continue rehearsals on the same songs as the week before. These pupils have previously formed bands with their friends and now leave with their “band mates” to work on their chosen songs in the nearby group activity room, also supplied with instruments, PA system, and so on. They listen to recordings of the songs they have chosen to perform; try out phrases, riffs, licks, and drum patterns, piecing the performance together by trial and error. If the teacher is asked to help, he demonstrates on the instruments or advises on balance, pitch, harmony, as required. At a later stage in the process, the pupils will perform their songs to each other and evaluate them.

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

225

Scenario 3. Twenty five pupils aged 15–​16 enter the band room/​classroom and assume their places in the sections of a traditional wind band of flutes, clarinets, saxophones, trumpets, trombones, euphonium, tuba, and percussion. Music stands are set up already, and music is in place, forming an extensive “pad” of performance material on each stand. The teacher gives instructions for tuning, and then the warm-​up exercises commence, with students playing the scale of concert B-​ flat. The entire band begins to play the scale together in whole notes (semibreves). Variations on this then follow in quarter notes, eighth notes, double eighth notes, and a variety of patterns and scales. The teacher gives advice on instrumental tone and technique to various sections or players as this section of the rehearsal/​lesson progresses. Detailed rehearsal then ensues on a piece of music from the “pad,” with sections being rehearsed, attention being given to difficult passages, and the teacher occasionally moving into the band to demonstrate on various instruments if pupils are having difficulties with a particular passage. We see here three very different approaches to music education. So far we have been able to describe them, but to analyze them systematically we need a language that is both thorough and flexible enough to adapt to the variety of circumstances we may find. It is in this respect that we suggest Bernstein may be useful and have selected some key concepts that we hope will be helpful to classroom music educators. For Bernstein (1973) there were three crucial aspects of education that he called “educational message systems.” These were curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluation. As Bernstein explained, “curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, pedagogy defines what counts as valid transmission of knowledge, and evaluation defines what counts as a valid realisation of the knowledge on the part of the taught” (p. 85). Thus we can already begin to see analytical categories emerging with which to interrogate the three scenarios. In broad terms these equate to content (curriculum), the teaching and learning of content (pedagogy), and how we and our pupils recognize achievement in the assessment of content (evaluation) (see fig. 15.1).

Curriculum

Pedagogy

Evaluation

Figure 15.1  Initial analytical categories for music education—​the message systems.

226

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

We can now analyze each of the scenarios in these terms. Scenario 1. This example derives from a curriculum and pedagogy that is heavily based on group and individual composition stimulated by listening to, and studying, music from a wide variety of styles and traditions. The initial content is chosen by the teacher—​such as program music, avant-​garde music, classical Indian music—​as a stimulus for composition. The main aim of the approach is twofold, that is, to develop an understanding of a wide variety of “musics” and to develop creativity. The pedagogy is driven by studying the essential features of this music through listening, performing, appraisal, and analysis and setting open-​ended composing tasks based around these essential features. Pupils are encouraged to work in groups when responding with freedom to the initial stimulus and are also given the freedom to perform in response through copying or adapting preexisting music. At this stage the teacher shies away from formal input unless especially requested by the pupils. The teacher aims to replicate the ways real composers work from diverse stimuli that are often “left behind” once the creative process begins, and this limits the interventions or impositions made. During the creative phase pupils are encouraged to set their own evaluative objectives and criteria for success based on their interpretation of the musical stimuli. Scenario 2. In this curriculum model, the emphasis is on authenticity of musical learning, with teachers trying to connect the learning experiences of students within schools as closely as possible to their musical learning experiences out of schools. Although the resources assume that the pupils will engage with music in the rock and pop tradition, the curriculum model allows students to have a great deal of freedom in deciding the musical content they wish to learn and who they work with to learn it. The pedagogy aims to keep as close as possible to the “informal” learning found in rock and pop groups, that is, listen, experiment, and play, with the teacher as a facilitator and musical resource. The goal is to include everybody, and a great effort is made to produce an enjoyable learning experience and to connect it closely with adolescent pupils’ interests, individual needs, and motivations. Students are encouraged to evaluate their work based on criteria arising out of their personal experiences, that is, was it a successful performance and how could it be developed? Scenario 3. This curriculum example is one in which there is a heavy emphasis on performance, the development of performance skills, and learning how to read and write traditional notation. The aims of the curriculum, and associated pedagogical approaches, are focused on pupils being able to engage with music as independent performers. Lesson objectives and content are built around pupils learning how to perform their “parts” with independence and fluency, and the school uses a series of graded, notated, and differentiated pieces in a range of styles and traditions. The pupils learn these pieces during curriculum time and play them on instruments provided by the school and their own instruments brought in from home. The pedagogy involves a highly structured sequence to the music that is progressively organized, with pupils practicing “parts” at all skill levels. The teacher spends a good deal of time teaching the pupils the skills they need to perform by

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

227

modeling technique. On occasions, and in appropriate traditions, pupils are given opportunities to improvise, and they learn how to do this through a structured and sequenced approach that the teacher has developed. Ongoing formative assessment and evaluation relates to feedback and target setting around developing the skills and technique to perform the pieces. The main target is a performance at the end of the unit of work during which the pupils are assessed against criteria that relate to a successful performance of the piece in hand. Bernstein went on to look further inside these three message systems of curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluation and from his background as a sociologist identified additional layers of detail. For example, two significant factors he noticed were the effects of power and control on the educational decision-​making of teachers, and in their interactions with pupils and the interactions between pupils. His early work identified these forces at play within concepts he termed classification and framing. Bernstein argued that the classification and framing found within the message systems combine to produce an educational discourse or educational version of a particular realm of knowledge. He termed this a pedagogic discourse. Pedagogic discourse can also be interpreted more broadly to mean the message system, or language, within which education operates. Bernstein developed the term classification to describe the transmission of power relationships. In its simplest form we can explain classification as describing who has the power to teach what and to whom. It is also the extent to which things are kept apart or brought together. Where there is strong classification, things are kept apart, such as the knowledge content of the music curriculum, for example musical traditions or the elements of the performing, composing, and listening. Where classification is weak, however, there is a more “open” approach to content, and things have the potential to be brought together or integrated, as in a performing arts program or in holistic models of music education where performing, composing, and listening are integrated. Framing is the term Bernstein developed to describe the transmission of control relationships. This determines how things are transmitted to and constructed by teachers and learners. Where framing is strong, the teacher has control of the way knowledge is transmitted to the knower; where framing is weak, however, the pupil appears to have more control of the method of acquiring or constructing knowledge. The word “appears” is important, as the social context of education determines to a large extent the degree to which pupils can control and process to their advantage the educational opportunities offered to them. It is important to note that Bernstein pointed out in his later work (1996) that framing of pedagogic practice is not always unambiguously weak or strong. Pedagogies may be “mixed,” either to good or bad effect. Our framework for analyzing the three examples presented earlier is beginning to look more detailed now. We can really begin to explain what is going on in each of the situations, as figure 15.2 shows. By analyzing the “message systems” of a curriculum, we can uncover “flavors” and biases that offer a basis for a critical comparison of the social conditions in the

228

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

Classification value strong/weak/mixed Framing value strong/weak/mixed

Curriculum

+

Pedagogic Discourse =

Classification value strong/weak/mixed

Classification value strong/weak/mixed

Framing value strong/weak/mixed

Framing value strong/weak/mixed

Pedagogy

Evaluation

+

Figure 15.2  Elements of pedagogic discourse.

music classroom. The more detailed our analysis is, the further we may progress toward discovering where our approaches to music education converge or differ and when pedagogic or social breakthroughs occur. This has been shown to be remarkably effective when applied to education in other subjects, as demonstrated in the work of scholars such as Morais (1991; 2002). Ana Morais and her colleagues have worked in the field of science education in Portugal to show how Bernstein’s theoretical work can be used to design pedagogies that mediate the effects of class, race, and gender on students’ abilities to access the science curriculum. To return to our exemplar models of music education, we can now analyze them further to examine the features of music as pedagogic discourse in these three situations. Scenario 1. There are some “mixed messages” in this approach to curriculum teaching and learning, with the predominant characterisation being one of strong classification and mixed framing. In terms of decisions about the nature and structure of the content, this is strongly defined by the teacher with clear boundaries in relation to what “counts” as musical knowledge. This is manifest in the music chosen to stimulate the creative process and the strong framing of the pedagogy up to the composition part of the project. However, post-​stimulus the teacher allows for more open-​ended and

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

229

collaborative approaches indicative of weaker framing of pedagogy. For example, the pupils have some control over their organization and the teaching strategies, and open interaction is encouraged in the creative process. They are also encouraged to assess and evaluate their own work based on their interpretation of the stimulus. This model of “mixed messages” derives from a tradition that acknowledges the need for pupils to develop their imagination and creativity yet also grounds this firmly in the musical traditions that we find around us at any one time and those chosen by the teacher. The crux lies in the extent to which the prescribed stimulus influences creativity in terms of the sociological relationship between pupil, teacher, and musical content. While such a curriculum focuses on a creative engagement with making and playing music, it has some of the characteristics of what might be termed a “traditional model.” Here, the music teacher is in control of decisions not only about the cultural heritage that is to be passed on but also the way it is passed on. Scenario 2. This model derives from a tradition that acknowledges the need for pupils to develop musical skills in recreating music that is significant to them in their musical lives outside school. The educational philosophy reflects a concern with student perception of relevance and enjoyment of the educational process. Sociologically this approach is sensitive to cultural values of pupils and seemingly allows them to negotiate their own musical identities within school music. This curriculum model has many characteristics of “informal learning.” Here the music teacher acts as facilitator and enabler, allowing decisions about the cultural content of the curriculum to be directed in the main by pupils. In this model pupils are, insofar as they are able within a formal educational structure, producers of curriculum, learning, and teaching in a student-​centered environment. On the face of things and in relation to Bernstein’s message systems, this approach to curriculum and pedagogy can be characterized as weakly classified and weakly framed. The contents are not clearly defined, chosen, and controlled by the teacher, and no strong boundaries as to what “counts” as musical learning and teaching are imposed. The teacher weakly frames the organization of pupils, allowing them to choose their groups, and the pedagogy is similarly weakly framed, in that the teaching strategies employed and the materials chosen are negotiated with pupils. Most aspects of interaction are open, and the predominant “flow” of classroom relationships is from pupil to teacher. Given that the teacher has weak control of the content and interactions, evaluation of the curriculum as exemplified in assessment practices is also located with the students. For example, they decide on what counts as achievement and how this will be recognized. Having said all of this, there are some nuances of strong teacher direction within the classroom resources, which are clearly focused at music in the rock and pop tradition. This is a subtle yet real example of strong classification within what would otherwise be regarded as “weak,” and serves to illustrate the subtlety and complexity of analysis opened up by Bernstein’s message systems. Scenario 3. In relation to Bernstein’s message systems this approach to curriculum, teaching, and learning can be characterized as strongly classified and strongly

230

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

framed. The contents are clearly defined, chosen, and controlled by the teacher, who imposes strong boundaries on what “counts” as musical learning and teaching. The teacher also strongly frames the organization of pupils, the teaching strategies employed, and the materials chosen. While there are aspects of interaction that are open, the predominant “flow” of classroom relationships is from teacher to pupil. Given that the teacher has a strong control of the content and interactions, evaluation of the curriculum as exemplified in assessment practices is also located with the teacher. For example, the teacher decides on what counts as achievement and how this will be recognized. Up until now we have used the message systems to analyze rather static images of the music curriculum and pedagogy. However, it is clear that (1) music education is constantly being mediated in contexts the world over, and (2) it is constantly changing. How does this happen and how can Bernstein helps us to understand this?

The Discursive Gap and Change in Music Education As Bernstein continued to develop his theoretical work and test it against empirical evidence from research conducted by and with his students, his theory developed to better encompass the interactions between social structures and the effects of action or agency on actors in the educational field. As he moved toward a clearer understanding of the complexities of the educational system, he realized that knowledge was not only chosen to be passed on to learners but that it also became changed or recontextualized by actions of individuals at all stages throughout the process. As we have seen, power and control are transmitted by the way content is classified and interactions are framed. This can happen at all levels of the model, from the macro or state level to the meso (middle) or school level or, indeed, at the micro level of the classroom, where knowledge may be recontextualized in terms of the inclinations and ideologies of individual teachers. For reasons of space, this chapter does not present a full discussion of Bernstein’s description of the complex relationship between these levels. Throughout this recontextualizing process, Bernstein identified two sets of governing rules. He termed these “instructional discourse” (ID) that is concerned with the way in which the knowledge is taught and learned, and “regulative discourse” (RD), which is concerned with the creation of social order, identity, manner, and conduct. He observed that regulative discourse is always dominant; it sets the “official” rules for classroom control, telling learners what they can do and where they can do it. It provides values, beliefs, and rules regarding learning, including the selection of content, relationships between areas of content, sequence of content, and the pace of presentation of content. It also defines the thinkable and unthinkable

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

231

within the curriculum for pupils and teachers and carries the “hidden” curriculum. Instructional discourse is the teaching language that occurs within the limits of rules established by regulative discourse. It is one of many educational discourses, including the discourse of the professional music educator and teacher. Overall this is what Bernstein termed the pedagogic device and is the trick by which teaching and learning are always circumscribed by beliefs and values. At the end of this process we are left with something Bernstein termed a “pedagogic discourse,” or the educational version of the field knowledge or subject; for us this is the school subject music. However, there is an important key concept he presents at this point of his theory that will be useful for us to take forward as we consider possible futures for music education. Bernstein identified a “gap” in the system that opens every time a discourse (subject, knowledge) moves from one “site” (or level) to another. It is in what he calls a “discursive gap” that agency may operate. For example, many countries now have prescribed curricula for music. Some are explicit and externally produced, such as a national or provincial curriculum stating what must be taught and learned and the outcomes expected. These bodies of official knowledge are then passed to music teachers for them to use as the basis of their curricula. However, as this knowledge moves from the producer to the teacher there is a gap in the production of the knowl­ edge or discourse. In this gap there is an opportunity for values and beliefs to operate and for change to occur. In other words, this is where the actions of teachers and pupils have a chance to influence music education. As Davies (2004, p. 44) asserts: In his discussion of the pedagogic device Bernstein registers the place of indeterminacy with respect to the production of knowledge in the form of his notion of the discursive gap, the “meeting point of order and disorder, of coherence and incoherence . . . the crucial site of the yet to be thought” (Bernstein, 1996, p. 44, italics in original).

Indeterminacy, agency, and, we would argue, pluralism are thus situated by Bernstein at the very heart of the pedagogic device. As educators, we can perceive the opportunity for agency within the discursive gap. For example, teachers and pupils at the micro level have the capacity to interpret state curricula, research, new pedagogies, school policy and so on, and in interpreting them to change them. In the concluding sections of this chapter we consider the potential of the discursive gap to enable more socially just models of music education. We suggest that the analytical model developed thus far allows a common language of description and analysis that might be applied to music education in different national and contextual locations. We further suggest that this provides a common conceptual language that music educators badly need in order to make explicit what it is that we do and how we do it. This also provides us with a common conceptual language with which to discuss the potential for change in the music classroom. Table 15.1 indicates the analytical categories that could be usefully applied to such detailed analysis at the micro level (the classroom). The use of this table as a guide for classroom observation and analysis of subsequent data allows

Table 15.1 A framework for music education analysis based on Bernstein’s (1996) theory of the pedagogic device Message system

Curriculum

Pedagogy Instructional Discourse

Pedagogy Regulative Discourse

Evaluation Teacher

Evaluation Pupils

Description

Content and Mode of transmission

How does learning and teaching happen?

How is order established and maintained

Mode of evaluation of knowledge

Mode of evaluation of knowledge

Subcategory 1

Curriculum content-​ musical genre

Teacher/​pupil interaction

Teacher/​pupil interaction

What is recognised as being good

What is recognised as being good

Subcategory 2

Curriculum content-​ musical activity

Pupil/​teacher interaction

Pupil/​teacher inter­action

What is recognised as being bad

What is recognised as being bad

Subcategory 3

Organisation of pupils

Pupil/​pupil interaction

Pupil/​pupil interaction

What is recognised as being worthy of time/​ effort

What is recognised as being worthy of time/​ effort

Subcategory 4

Shape of lessons

Pattern of contact -​whole class/​ groups/​ individuals?

Classroom rules and regulation, How is order maintained?

What is recognised as a waste of time/​effort

What is recognised as a waste of time/​effort

Subcategory 5

Curriculum time

Styles of questions used? Are Control and management-​ they open or closed? who takes the decisions about what is done, how it is done and how it is regarded?

Subcategory 6

Teaching strategies

Are the pupils allowed to make suggestions?

How are pupils brought to attend?

Subcategory 7

Materials

Is difference accepted/​ rejected/​ cherished

Does the teacher deal with pupils individually or collectively, in public or private?

Resources Instruments

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

233

the observer to map Bernstein’s three educational message systems in action and the effects on them of regulative (order keeping, values, beliefs) and instructional (learning and teaching) discourses. You will notice that the evaluation column is repeated for teachers and pupils although the content is the same. This is important because teacher evaluation of what is good, bad, useful in a classroom may differ markedly from that of the pupil. The value attached to learning can be shaped in both cases by values and beliefs to very different effect. We present this as a model for those wishing to explore classroom practice in further detail using Bernstein’s work, and as a conceptual framework for exploring and developing a democratic and socially just music education.

Music Education, Inclusion, and Democracy The capacity to take full advantage of education is not distributed evenly throughout society. Different social groups experience and gain benefit from education to differing extents. Indeed, our subject, music, presents particular issues in respect of access to and benefit from it in education. As has been noted earlier, inclusion in musical learning is one of the main issues facing music educators in the twenty-​first century. Bernstein’s final book (1996) dealt with the difficult problem of education’s relationship to society. He concluded: “education is central to the knowledge base of society, groups and individuals. Yet education also, like health, is a public institution, central to the production and reproduction of distributive injustices” (p. xix). He claimed that for education to change, to become truly democratic, all students needed to receive three educational democratic rights: enhancement, inclusion, and participation. Enhancement is the right to experience boundaries as “tension points between the past and possible futures . . . it is the right to the means of critical understanding and to new possibilities” (Bernstein, 1996, p. xx). Inclusion is to be included: “socially, intellectually, culturally and ­personally” (p. xx). Participation is the right to participate in situations where order is formed and changed. Family ability to pay for tuition and instruments, cultural relevance of curriculum to pupils from social minority groups, issues of music and identity formation in adolescence and gender bias are just a few of the areas that lead us to question how democratic current music education really is in many global education systems. Yet if, as anthropologist Mithen (2006, p. 1) in his book The Singing Neanderthals suggests, music “has been encoded into the human genome,” it is something we are genetically programmed to need to do, it may be conceived of as a basic human need.

234

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

Music Education as Democratic Praxis If as educators we do not explicitly address issues of social injustice such as exclusion of groups of pupils from an aspect of their education such as music, important to their needs, we perpetuate the status quo. Moreover, we may actually discover that many of the problems facing us in music education with adolescents derive from the fact that young people do not perceive their basic pedagogic democratic rights as being met by current models of music education. This does not mean that we advocate dismantling many very successful approaches to music education but rather that we advocate consideration of the shifts and balances we might make to accommodate young people’s democratic rights within our programs. Our choices in terms of curriculum, learning, and teaching have everything to do with this. As we saw above, it is here that we are working in the gap in the pedagogic device, and here that we can effect change. Without change in these areas, we will perpetuate in many instances the existing patterns of exclusion, and let us not forget self-​ exclusion, very popular in the case of our subject, from music in schools. Research in music education has shown that individual teachers have considerable power to effect change, given teachers’ ability, within limits, to shape the nature of school experience and music educational discourse for their pupils (Allsup, 2004; Schmidt, 2005; Abrahams, 2004, 2005; Lamb, 1996; Wright, 2008). This is important knowledge for those persuaded by the views of scholars known as critical pedagogues (e.g., Freire, Giroux, McLaren), who see education as crucial to the freedom of social minorities from domination. Those working in music teacher education and continuing professional development play important roles in this respect in emphasizing the “gaps” within the education system in which teachers have the power to act. In addition, teachers should be encouraged to exercise their power to challenge and unsettle dominant conceptions of music and musical learning and to view teaching as not just development of musical learning but as a process underpinned by democratic praxis (informed, committed action). Table 15.2 is suggested as a working model that might be used to guide teachers in their assessment of the extent to which they have included pupils’ democratic pedagogic rights within their curriculum. Exploiting discursive gaps for a democratic and socially inclusive music curriculum is at the heart of the work of critical pedagogues. For example, Abrahams (2006) has developed a framework for what he refers to as the application of critical pedagogy to music education: Grounded in the social theories of Freire, McLaren, Giroux, and Habermas, the music lessons pose and solve problems that engage children in critical thinking, critical action, and critical feeling. The lessons inspire a dialogue that breaks down power structures and barriers that separate the music students hear in the classroom from the music they prefer to listen to outside of class. Throughout this process, students are empowered as musicians and realize they know that they know, a state identified by Freire as “conscientization.” The result is a transforming experience for students and their teacher. (p. 1)

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

235

Table 15.2  A framework for pedagogic democratic rights in music education (after Bernstein, 1996) Right

Definition

Application A democratic musical education should afford to all equally:

Inclusion

The right to be included intellectually, socially and culturally

The chance to see one’s own cultural image reflected as valued in the school mirror. To perceive one’s voice as heard in the school acoustic. The right not to feel excluded. To be able to take part in musicking without experiencing disadvantage or alienation The right to remain musically and culturally autonomous-​not to be absorbed or have to conform to the dominant culture.

Enhancement

The right to the tools for critical The chance to acquire the faculty of reflection upon the present and critical reflection upon the musical and the perception of possible new cultural givens in one’s life. futures. The right to perceive musical participation as possible in the future.

Participation

The right to take part.

The chance to express an opinion about how musicking takes place and to have The right to participate in one’s opinion listened to and respected. situations where order is formed Decisions about music in the educational and changed environment to be taken wherever possible by a democratic process.

This is one example of ways music educators are engaging with the principles of critical pedagogy as they apply to our subject. The work in Swedish schools (see Georgii-​ Hemming & Westvall, 2010), and of Allsup (2004) in the United States and Green (2001; 2008) in the United Kingdom in introducing to class music informal learning approaches based on the learning styles of rock and pop musicians are further examples.

Democracy, Inclusion, and Autonomy in Music Education As Bernstein (1996) observed, late twentieth-​century society has pedagogized all possible areas of human agency. In this “totally pedagogised society” models of education have emerged that are overtly focused on external objectives of economic

236

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

system performance. “Trainability” has become the apotheosis of this education system, policy oriented toward a model for work and life ostensibly bent on equipping current and future generations to skill and reskill, as required, to produce an appropriately flexible workforce. To this end, state power and control have been exercised to reconstitute the idiosyncratic practices of individual subjects to force them to fit the mold of state-​controlled educational formulae. This serves to preserve the status quo and ensure that the interests of dominant social groups continue to be served and enhanced through education. This is a particularly dangerous climate for music education. However, music classrooms have the potential to counter this ideology, to remind young people and their teachers that education is not solely training for work and life, that life has facets beyond the material. If we did this in music education the outcomes for youngsters in school music might be dramatic, as can be seen in our final scenario. Scenario 4. In this model there is no curriculum in the sense of agreed content or principles for teaching and learning. Indeed, there is no compulsory music timetabled at all. The music center is an open resource, available for blocks of time on a noncompulsory basis, that pupils can use for their music-​making based on their own choice. The center is a resource-​rich environment in which can be found recordings, a range of IT equipment, a wide range of instruments, practice rooms for individuals, and groups of various sizes. Pupils develop their own personal projects in the music center and have the scope to draw in art, fashion, culture, movies, and any other media. There are teachers in the center, and their role is to support and facilitate learning based on the needs of the pupils as identified by the pupils themselves. Learning can appear haphazard rather than sequential, yet the emphasis is on “real” music, whether through copying or composing. Listening takes place as result of need (to support a project) or choice (pleasure). The main aim of the center is to offer choice, a place where individual needs can be catered for, and to allow for flexibility between pupils and other media. If there are any explicit objectives for learning, then these will be set by the pupils themselves and become the basis for any engagement with teachers, resources and media. Strong links are routinely made with any music-​making outside school that the pupils are engaged in. Using our previous analysis, this model of curriculum, teaching, and learning can be characterized as weakly classified and weakly framed. From an institutional perspective the school does not define the content of the curriculum, that is, what must be covered, and they also allow for weak boundaries between music and other disciplines. In this model decisions about organization and approaches to teaching and learning and the use of materials and resources are firmly with the pupils themselves. Interactions between pupils and teachers are always open with little control imposed on the nature of the learning relationship. Because pupils are at the center of setting objectives for their own learning they are also in the forefront of establishing criteria for evaluation, as well as what counts as being “good or bad.” There is a strong reliance on self-​and peer assessment, focusing on the personal needs of each pupil.

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

237

This model focuses on the music-​making and learning of the pupils from the pupils’ perspectives. It embeds informal learning into school music, which promotes pupils as curriculum makers and not merely curriculum consumers. It is also related to those models that promote the values of self-​expression, pupil-​centeredness, discovery, creativity, imagination, and relevance. This scenario represents a possible vision for a democratic and socially inclusive music education based on our engagement with Bernstein’s pedagogic device and principles for a democratic education. It could be that music teachers from around the world will come to different conclusions. The power to influence change toward such a vision is apparent in the gaps between the various sites for the recontextualization of curriculum and pedagogy (i.e., at the levels of state, school, and individual teachers and pupils). It is here that agency can operate, but only, we would argue, after careful analysis of curriculum, pedagogy, and conceptions of inclusion in any one context. Having said this, it would be naive if we did not recognize the power of what Bernstein calls the regulative discourse to maintain the status quo, given that this discourse is related to wider social and cultural structures. Indeed, there is a long history of the status quo embracing change with little or no redistribution of access to achievement and success in the music classroom (Philpott, 2010). It is also the case that there are levels of complexity that cannot be captured by any analytical framework. However, we would argue that there is an imperative to question assumptions about curriculum and pedagogy by using, for example, some of the ways outlined in this chapter as a precursor to moving toward a more socially inclusive music education.

Conclusion and Summary The work of Bernstein outlined in this chapter provides the basis for sociological analysis and research of music curriculum and pedagogy in a wide variety of different contexts. The framework outlined can be used to critically interrogate curriculum and pedagogy at macro, meso, and micro levels. As well as using the model to audit current practice, it can also be used to analyze and promote change in music education. Indeed, we feel that it is the ongoing responsibility of music educators and their pupils to question the values that underpin music education and to articulate those to which they aspire. We should be committed to questions such as: What features characterize the classification and framing of our work? Are we satisfied that these represent an effective and inclusive music education? Where are the discursive gaps in the pedagogic device and to what extent can we exploit these for change? We hope that this chapter has contributed to this process in relation to the curriculum, teaching, and learning of music for 12-​to 18-​year-​old pupils.

238

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

Reflective Questions Using the framework for analysis developed in the chapter, audit the music curricula with which you are most familiar:

• How does the “flavor” compare with the scenarios outlined? • In what ways do the curricula you are familiar with reflect wider patterns of social relations and control? • Are other models of society and curriculum challenging the status quo that you have identified? • Where are the “gaps” in the pedagogic device that can be exploited for change, for example between the macro, meso, and micro levels of curriculum, teaching, and learning? • What has changed in the recent history of the curriculum you are familiar with in relation to the message system outlined here? • To what extent does this curriculum and pedagogy achieve Bernstein’s democratic rights?

KEY SOURCES Muller, J., Davies, B., & Morais, A. (eds.). (2004). Reading Bernstein, researching Bernstein. London and New York: Routledge Falmer. Woodford, P. G. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics and the politics of practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

REFERENCES Abrahams, F. (2004). The application of critical theory to a sixth grade general music class. Visions of Research in Music Education, 4, 43–​53. http://​www-​usr.rider.edu/​~vrme/​articles4/​vrme.pdf [accessed September 30, 2010]. Abrahams, F. (2005). The application of critical pedagogy to music teaching and learning:  A literature review. Update:  Applications of Research to Music Teaching, 23(2), 12–​22. Abrahams, F. (2006). Critical pedagogy for music education: A best practice to prepare future music educators. Visions of Research in Music Education, 7(1). http://​www-​usr.rider. edu/​~vrme/​v7n1/​index.htm [accessed September 30, 2010]. Allsup, R. E. (2004). Of concert bands and garage bands: Creating democracy through popular music. In C. Rodriguez (ed.), Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education (pp. 204–​223). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Council. Bernstein, B. (1973). Class and pedagogies: Visible and invisible. Paris: OECD, CERI.

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Content

239

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:  Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis. Davies, Z. (2004). The debt to pleasure: The subject and knowledge in pedagogic discourse. In J. Muller, B. Davies, & A. Morais (eds.), Reading Bernstein, researching Bernstein (pp. 44–​61). London: Routledge Falmer. Georgii-​ Hemming, E., & Westvall, M. (2010). Music education—​ a personal matter? Examining the current discourses of music education in Sweden. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 21–​33. Green, L. (1988). Music on deaf ears. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Hanley, B., & Roberts, B. A. (2000). Looking forward: Challenges to Canadian music education. Canada: Canadian Music Educators Association. Harland, J., Kinder, K., Lord, P., Stott, A., Schagen, I., & Haynes, J. (2000). Arts education in secondary schools:  Effects and effectiveness. Slough, UK:  National Federation for Educational Research. Lamb, R. (1996). Feminist pedagogy in music education. Theory into Practice, 35(2), 124–​131. Mithen, S. (2006). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind, and body. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morais, A. M. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559–​569. Morais, A. M., Fontinhas, F., & Neves, I. (1991). Recognition and realisation rules in acquiring school science:  The contribution of pedagogy and social background of pupils. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Researching Science Teaching, University of Wisconsin. Also available from the Department of Education, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon. Morais, A. M., Peneda, D., & Madeiros, A. (1991). The recontextualizing of pedagogic discourse: Influence of differential pedagogic practices on students’ achievements as mediated by class, gender and race. Paper presented at the International Sociology of Education Conference, University of Birmingham, UK. Also available from the Department of Education, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon. Philpott, C. (2010). The sociological critique of curriculum music in England:  Is radical change really possible? In R. M. Wright (ed.), The sociology of music education (pp. 81–​92). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Schmidt, P. (2005). Music education as transformative practice: Creating new frameworks for learning music through a Freirian perspective. Visions of Research in Music Education, 6(1). http://​www.rider.edu/​~vrme [accessed September 30, 2010]. Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind and education. London: Routledge. Wright, R. M. (2006). Music as pedagogic discourse: An ethnographic case study of one Year 9 class of pupils and their music teacher in a South Wales secondary school. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff. Wright, R. M. (2008). Kicking the habitus: Power, culture and pedagogy in the secondary music curriculum. Music Education Research, 10(3), 389–​402. Wright, R. M. (2010a). Sociology and Music Education. In R. M. Wright (ed.), Sociology and music education (pp. 1–​21). Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Wright, R. M. (2010b). Democracy, Social Exclusion and Music Education: Possibilities for change. In R. M. Wright (ed.), Sociology and music education (pp. 262–​283). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

240

Chris Philpott and Ruth Wright

Wright, R. M. (ed.) (2010c). Sociology and music education. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Wright, R. M., & Froehlich, H. (2011). Basil Bernstein’s Theory of the Pedagogic Device Applied to Curriculum Construction in Music Education: From the Macro to a Micro View of Instructional Practices. In J. O’Flynn (ed.) (2011) Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education 5–​9 July, 2009. Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Dublin, Ireland: St. Patrick’s College.

Chapter 16

YOUTH CULTURE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

In response to increasing diversity and globalization, music teachers and researchers are looking more closely at the young people in their classrooms. Relevance is no longer assumed to be automatic, and a quest for so-​called real-​world or authentic musical experience is sought as a way to direct what gets taught and why. In this chapter, the authors argue that such questions of worth and value, with their attendant concerns with authenticity and identity, are imperfect. Rather, youth culture is more adequately understood as cultures of youth—​creative, plural, contradictory, dynamic, and purposeful. Thus, with no essentialized view of adolescence to guide educators, and a suspicion about what counts as real or unreal, the central questions that guide contemporary music education should be those that address agency and criticality. How do youths develop critical and creative agency through the study of music, and what role do the cultures of youth play in this development? Using this conceptual frame, we reposition the varied literature on the culture industry, popular music, informal learning, and community music in search for a space of praxis, where the tensions between cultural integration and youth agency might be negotiated and the business of education conducted. In doing so, we advocate a pedagogy that addresses both the present and future lives of youths and their multiple and contingent cultures.

242

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh Consider the following: Fourteen incarcerated juveniles, ages 15–​17, all African-​and Latino-​American males, and an assortment of hand drums. Once seated in the classroom, the young men instantaneously begin to pound away at a very simple beat: stomp-​ stomp-​clap, stomp-​stomp-​clap, “We will, we will, rock you . . . ” (Or if you prefer, quarter-​note, quarter-​note, half.) A few start hollering in between the beats, one or two begin signifying—​hurling rhymed insults at each other. Within seconds the volume is blistering and the air is charged. The counselor looks at me, the music teacher, with eyes that say: when are you going to stop this and start teaching them real music? (Shieh, classroom notes, 10/​17/​07)

The days are slowly ebbing, though far from gone, when the term real music carried weight. Globalization, postmodernism, and the varied practices described by multicultural education have at turns challenged the idea that one particular kind of music has more inherent worth than another. Yet the term “real music,” like the term “real world,” has a commonsense way of surfacing when conversations, or even research, turn to teens and the music they like. Adults and young people speak of “real music” as a way of distinguishing what is desirable from what is not, and music educators get drawn into this debate (Väkevä, 2009). And while some would call the 1970s rock group Queen the “real” thing (as appropriated above or not), others locate “reality” in something institutionally established, like classical music or jazz. Where, indeed, is the “real”? Part of what assigns realness to one music and not another has to do with the assumption of a youth culture, distinct from schools and teachers and the authorized knowledge that the adult world represents. In search of relevancy, practitioners include what they perceive to be the music of youth culture (e.g., street beats) with the aim of affording students greater voice and the opportunity to develop their selfhood (Isbell, 2007). Others note that these attempts at inclusion allow for broader participation in music, particularly from those students who might be alienated from the more rarified practices traditionally found in schools (Benedict, 2009). But relevancy alone is not a cure for the problems of schooling, nor does it define the limits of what knowledge is worth knowing. As Dewey notes, any idea, principle, or cultural form “must present its birth certificate, it must show under just what conditions of human experience it was generated, and it must justify itself by its works, present and potential.” However, he adds, “the future rather than the past dominates the imagination” (1920, p. 48). Education, if it is useful to adolescents, must help them become critical authors of their present and imagined future lives, the main point on which this chapter will conclude. This is not, however, to dismiss the claims of youth culture, but to note that when we consider the aims of education along with those of youth identity, we are presented with a bevy of moving parts and moving problems. Beneath the false simplicity of teaching what is real or authentic lie profound questions that struggle with the dual functions of education, those of integration and transformation (Allsup, 2015). The former speaks to the present-​tense effort to help young people make sense of a world that is factually real to them, while cultivating a sense of relevant

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

243

interaction between a culture’s past achievements and its hopes for the future. The latter function speaks to the urgent need to nurture within our students a sense of agency and ownership over their development, and to ignite new hopes for a future that can only be imagined differently from our own. The active participation of adolescents and teachers in these dual projects requires some kind of formal negotiation and critical perception between competing conceptions of what is worth knowing and why—​between influences of the past and present, home and school, adult life and youth culture, and the outside world and the classroom (Allsup & Westerlund, 2012a). The manner in which teachers conceptualize youth culture has significant impact on how they teach and what gets taught in terms of these functions. The contemporary idea of youth culture gestures toward treating youth as a social achievement (Maira & Soep, 2005), rather than a developmental stage on the way to adulthood (Erickson, 1968): teen culture is a culture as real as any other human culture. In this formulation, youth culture is worth thinking about not simply because it gives students and teachers a way to connect—​a bridge between adolescent and adult worlds—​but is worth studying because youth culture carries sensibilities and practices meaningful in and of themselves. But is this the whole story? The link between youth identity and the adult-​run media industry unevenly favors corporate interests. And there are educators who, realness aside, would find the sonic violence and escalation of noise described in the introduction too frightening to permit. In most schools, to say nothing of prisons, teachers may avoid these confrontations with popular culture, calling them violent, misogynistic, homophobic, and miseducative (Scruton, 2007). The point is that for those music educators who believe that music functions as a social force and a constituting element of community, the relationship between education and youth culture is fraught with issues of immense responsibility, risk, and confusion. Keeping in mind the dual functions of education, readers should note that the concerns above are concerns of integration, of cultivating aspects needed to live in a democratic society. It is worth considering a possible blind spot in our profession: the problem of music education in secondary schooling may have less to do with questions of cultural integration, which creates misleading categories of real and not real, and more to do with actualization and transformation. In other words, perhaps agency, the manner in which young people adapt, feel ownership, and transform the cultural knowledge they construct and create both in and out of school, may provide a way of negotiating the tensions around youth culture. Youth culture, we assert, is highly porous—​a living plurality whose realness is not constituted by what it is or what it is defined against, but by what it does. The conditions of youth and youth culture, the way that present cares affect unfolding experience, their stories, needs, and hopes—​these should be of immense interest to music educators. For Henry Giroux, “how young people narrate themselves must be understood through both the specificity of their struggles and the necessity of a shared language of agency, a language that points to a project of hope and possibility rather than a crippling determinism” (1996, p. 52).

244

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

This conceptualization is key, insofar as it moves us away from the false dichotomies of adult/​ youth, development/​ achievement, or in-​ school/​ out, each with their accompanying arguments of what is real and what is not. Instead, it gestures toward a plural notion of cultural identity that emerges through context and ownership, where exchange and communication empower its participants to create and reshape the very culture that is creating and reshaping them. If there is to be such a thing as youth culture, we propose here that it is most accurately and educatively defined as cultures of youths. Cultural realness, in this plural sense, is no longer constituted by what it is or how it is defined in relation to predetermined subcultures and categories, but is constituted by what it does in relation to youths and youth activity. This position, which asks educators and researchers to see youth culture as constituted by persons with projects, rather than as a monolithic cultural phenomenon or an objectifiable culture into which curious ethnographers peer, is a position that takes young people seriously in their human attempt to give shape to emerging selves.

Media and the Culture Industry It would be extraordinarily difficult to speak of the relationship between music and today’s cultures of youths without also discussing the role of the media and culture industry in reflecting and constructing these cultures. We know that the culture industry—​the intersecting domains of film, fashion, social media, music, and advertising, in which money, profit, and pleasure are intertwined—​is controlled almost exclusively by adults, and it would be an understatement to describe as daunting and profound the degree to which the development of youth identity takes place through an interaction with the media. The business of youth is very big business, and parents and teachers alike fight to influence teens on equal terms, pressing against a backdrop of popular images and messages whose de facto education may not have young people’s best interest at heart (Wee, 2010; Noguera, 2003). Today, most of the music that youths enjoy and call their own comes by way of recordings, broadcasts, and performances controlled and calibrated by transnational media conglomerates. Whether the nature of that engagement has positive or negative affects on youth agency is the subject of this section. Much of the critique leveraged against an engagement with popular music in schools has its origins in the social theory of the Frankfurt School, in particular Theodor Adorno. As early as the 1930s, Adorno noted a conflation with familiarity and taste in music, and argued that music in capitalist societies has been reduced to the marketing of repetitious commodities that aim to render listeners as passive consumers. The less demanding a piece of music, the more easily it gets consumed; and thus types of music become increasingly characterized by a marked (and marketed) likeness to one another. Performers and listeners, for example, are

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

245

rendered anesthetized and socially compliant by popular music’s purposefully benign structures and melodies, becoming “forcibly retarded [sic],” without the capacity “to make demands beyond the limits of what was supplied” (1938/​2002b, pp. 302–​303; Adorno, 1941/​2002c). Because of this, music loses its potentially transformative capability, and new and revolutionary forms of music (Adorno offers the work of Arnold Schönberg as one example), and by extension new forms for society, become too difficult for their adherents to imagine (1932/​2002a). The tendency for critics who take this perspective on mass culture is to argue that because youths are already familiar with media-​driven popular music and because this music carries such ostensibly devastating effects, it should be avoided in schools (Bloom, 1987). Such an uncomplicated dismissal of popular music, however, neglects an interesting aspect of Adorno’s argument: it is not simply popular music, but any music that is popular or undemanding—​including the canon of classical classics like Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony—​that has sacrificed transformative potential through easy listening and easy consumption (Adorno, 1938/​2002b, pp.  294–​296). While many within our profession are debating whether to teach popular music and why, Adorno’s challenge might be better read as a question of how to reclaim a critical and creative sensibility toward any musical genre, not as a prescription on what to teach. We have noticed, however, that when it comes to music, the teenagers we know do not appear anesthetized and socially compliant, without the capacity “to make demands beyond the limits of what was supplied.” What, after all, are we to make of the way young people have mobilized music such as rap, rock, and hip-​hop in opposition to dominant ideologies of race and class (Dimitriadis, 2009; McLaren, 1999; Walcott, 1999)? Or the very diversity of popular forms and the mostly free access teens have to them (Montgomery, 2000)? Or the way that critique is given and willingly received in online music communities, where self-​composed open-​source materials are shared within an anti-​mainstream sentiment (Partti, 2012; Partti & Karlsen, 2010)? While many writers acknowledge that popular music participation has indeed been commodified and co-​opted from spaces of resistance (Njubi, 2001), such interface need not preclude individual agency, suggesting instead an expansion of communal participation and action. This perception of youths as producers of culture and not simply its passive recipients has been pioneered by Dick Hebdige and the Birmingham school of cultural studies. Cultural “styles” are used and developed with particular aims in mind so that “each subcultural ‘instance’ represents a ‘solution’ to a specific set of circumstances, to particular problems and contradictions” (Hebdige, 1979, p.  81). Sharing with the Frankfurt School a debt to Marxism, Hebdige argues that these problems and contradictions are for young people centered around the binary tensions associated between the adult-​as-​state-​ power and youths’ relegation into subordinate social positionings (p. 132). Joining Hebdige and others such as Stuart Hall (Hall & Jefferson, 1975/​1993) and Paul Willis (Willis et al., 1990) in their acknowledgment of youth resistance through popular culture, Simon Frith diverges in his refusal to see music simply as a symbol of antiadult or deviant values, instead seeing it as a purposeful activity that leads to

246

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

self-​disclosure. The “industrialization of music” is neither a totalizing discourse nor one to be opposed, but rather “a process in which music itself is made—​a process, that is, that fuses (and confuses) capital, technical, and musical arguments” (2007, p. 32). Dan Laughley takes this one step further in repudiating Marxism as a starting point for critique, positing instead a “consumer culture complete with imagination, choice and emotions” (2006, p. 89). Seen together, these positions begin to displace the singular question of what a youth culture is and what its music represents in place of richer questions that deal with intentions and desires: in other words, for what various musics do for and within cultures of youths. Rather than looking at music as something that carries its own inherent values and meanings, one determines its worth through a process that combines social interaction with self-​discovery, thus allowing for a kind of creativity that a hegemonic culture industry polarizes as passive consumption or active revolt. After all, neither inculcation into a dominant ideology nor subcultural revolution offers a reasonable guide for adolescent development, and attention to action and agency might be more useful to educators. It is undeniable that young people both produce and consume the music they like, that capital arguments are inescapable, and that powerful corporations have a stake in the construction of cultures of youths. And while there is evidence that media culture is becoming more participatory, replete with the capacity to remix and create rather than simply respond and consume (Allsup, 2016; Vasudevan, 2010; Jenkins et al., 2009), there is potential in the displacement of media control to construct a false notion of youth agency, one that contains little capacity to work through important issues of power in today’s world. The need to maintain a critical posture toward the musics of youths remains a salient concern for music educators, and one we will return to in the final section.

The Quest for Authenticity “The authenticity of secondary school music, and its relation to music outside school,” declare psychologists Hargreaves, Marshall, and North, “is at the heart of the problem” of contemporary music education (2003, p. 156). The “problem” is one that has drawn considerable attention from researchers in the United Kingdom, and has been noted widely:  a growing disaffection of youths with school music (Lamont et al., 2003; Kratus, 2007). While the previous section looked at the close relationship between youth identity and popular culture, we move now to examine various theoretical rationales for bringing the music and musical processes that youth presumably engage in outside schools inside. A  proposed solution to the problem of youth disinterest with school music has been the commonsense idea of authenticity—​used here to describe congruence between a music program and the musics that adolescents identify with, but also to describe a process of music-​ making, a cultural practice, and the work of community music practitioners.

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

247

In their empirical work, music psychologists such as David Hargreaves, Adrian North, and John Sloboda have studied the relationship between youth identities and music. Hargreaves has highlighted the importance not simply of identities in music—​such as composer, performer, or teacher—​but the way that music constructs identities, from gender to the varied subgroupings of youths (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002; Abramo, 2009). Numerous studies demonstrate that adolescents in particular develop strong identities around popular music, wearing their musical preferences as a “badge of honor” (Tarrant, Hargreaves, & North, 2002, p. 135; Hargreaves & Marshall, 2003). And Andy Bennett (2000) observes through his global examination of youth cultures that music not only participates in the construction of self, but also of the social worlds within which the self is understood. It is unsurprising, then, that in research on musical listening, Sloboda (2004; Sloboda, O’Neill, & Ivalidi, 2001) notes how readily music can become a source of conflict or connection. These studies suggest that if experiences in the music classroom do not affirm the identities students have constructed for themselves, the classroom is felt as inauthentic, perhaps even detrimental to adolescent self-​esteem and self-​image. This is not to say that teen identities do not or cannot shift in relation to many factors (including the classroom); rather, researchers emphasize that the music classroom lies nested within a larger “outside” system, one in which adolescents have a stake in maintaining “a high level of self-​esteem . . . established through identification with groups of people who have a positive image” (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002, p. 9). The attention to youth identity and culture provides a substantial rationale for the inclusion of hands-​on popular music in public schools in the United Kingdom and Australia (Wemyss, 1999; Dunbar-​Hall, 1993). In Nordic countries popular music has gained long-​standing institutional recognition via national curricula (Ståhlhammar, 1999; Väkevä, 2006)  and music teacher education programs (e.g., Westerlund, 2006). In the United States, the National Association for Music Education has investigated its use (Rodriguez, 2004), and ethnographers such as Hebert and Campbell have argued that the “formation of the self-​image of adolescent students” provides a compelling “case for rock music’s inclusion” (2000, p. 15). Indeed, even where popular music is not played in its original form, there is evidence that its inclusion leads to greater student engagement (Newsome, 1998). Hargreaves, Marshall, and North (2003) have taken a more reserved tone, calling broadly for recognition of the overlapping musical, personal, and sociocultural outcomes of music education—​the “contexts of music-​making”—​of which popular music may or may not be a part (p. 157). Similarly, in Sweden, Börje Ståhlhammar criticizes the way popular music as a school subject has become dissociated from the people who engage in it, and advocates a “meeting between pupils’ and teachers’ experiences. It is important that they together arrive at a consensus in their description of the subject” (2000, p. 43). The link between school and out-​of-​school contexts is the site for a second and related group of empirical researchers interested in furthering the discussion around authentic learning in music education. Championed by Lucy Green in the United

248

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

Kingdom and Göran Folkestad in Sweden is the idea that musical authenticity lies not in what is taught, but in how music is taught:  “Perhaps we should aim, not for the authenticity of the musical product, but for the authenticity of the musical learning practice; in other words, not for ‘musical authenticity’ but more for ‘music-​ learning authenticity’ ” (Green, 2006, p. 115). For Green, that authentic practice is located in informal processes that allow young people to develop their own musical culture in the classroom through an interaction with the music they like, sans teacher imposition. Starting with observations of the way popular musicians learn, Green records a process of enculturation or immersion, one that involves listening to and copying records and acquiring skill through experimentation and imitation, which leads ultimately to creative self-​development (2004, 2001). These practices, she argues, fundamentally “trust children’s and young people’s instincts and natural inclinations for music learning” (2004, p. 239), and consequently aid the learning of all musical forms, not just popular ones (2008, pp. 148–​180). In his recent writings, Folkestad (2006) has mediated this position by noting that in both popular and classical settings formal teacher-​directed and informal practices often coexist, and sometimes appear simultaneously. Folkestad cautions that formal learning needn’t be “artificial, boring, and bad” (read: inauthentic) and argues that recognition of a dialectic between formal and informal practices will enable better teaching (p. 143). Nor is conflict inherent between popular music education and formal training, as evidenced in Finnish music teacher education classes (Westerlund, 2006). Rather than import informal practices into formal contexts, some practitioners have sought a greater congruence with the cultures of youths through the expanding field of community music and its promised freedom from the constraints associated with schooling. Although there are many reasons to support community music, Kari Veblen (2004) reports that some programs “blossom as alternatives to school music programs that make it impossible for teachers and students to achieve satisfying musical experiences because teachers are forced to adhere to restrictive, top-​down ‘control’ devices (tests, measures, ‘standards’)” (p. 7). By locating norms of instruction within so-​called real-​world communities, the belief is that both the music and the learning will be more authentic and responsive to the cultural contexts of youths (Veblen & Olsson, 2002). Visual arts educator Judith Burton (1996), for example, suggests that a greater sense of authority is evinced when professional artists visit classrooms, bringing “the aura of the cultural context in which young people live their daily lives” (p. 318). Another possibility is that the real world privileges certain pedagogies, those that “naturally accord with innovative concepts of learning such as authentic learning, situated learning and process-​ directed learning” (Koopman, 2007, p. 152). Thus, a kind of natural, instinctual, or even naïve curriculum may emerge, what Jerome Bruner calls a “folk pedagogy” (1996, pp. 44–​65). Work in the community arts in general is often associated with folk projects, for example, student-​initiated collaborations like mural-​painting or writing and filming documentaries (Richardson, 2008), or with musical engagements that aim “to reflect and engage the cultural life of the community and of the participants” (Veblen & Olsson, 2002, p. 731).

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

249

These broad claims fail to note, however, the constraints around the organization of community music programs:  the lack of funding, staff inconsistency, and conflicting community expectations, as well as many of the same pressures toward achievement and excellence that drain school music of general enjoyment. And while in particular contexts community programs may afford their adherents certain freedoms, the idea that nonschool music institutions are somehow fundamentally closer to the essential core of a given community’s values than the neighborhood secondary school seems an indefensible assertion. Schools, after all, play an active role in reflecting and constructing local community; they are also communities in and of themselves. Yet these assumptions raise a key point: if the quest for musical authenticity is one of the defining problems of secondary music education, where is authentic youth culture located? The quest for what is real and what is not, we argue, is ultimately a problematic aim. It is problematic because youths are not static: a musical identity is actively constructed through engagements with different materials and practices, and at best only holds truth at a fleeting moment in time. The findings of Hargreaves and his fellow psychologists, as Hargreaves himself has observed above, cannot and should not serve as a definition for youth culture. Rather, these studies provide points of guidance, ways for music educators to displace their own insular perspectives—​if only temporarily—​in order to find points of connection with youths from which to build greater efforts at agency. Ironically, the quest for authenticity may serve to constrain youths more than liberate them. In the United States, Nicole Fleetwood (2005) argues: Cultural narratives based on representations of an authentic youthful subject who is more often racialized as darkly other and gendered as masculine reify U.S. ideologies that consistently mark racialized youth as outside of normative white adult society, yet “indigenous” to U.S. urban ghettos, and as responsible for their own marginalized conditions. (p. 156)

There are indications that the same racializations are taking place elsewhere in the world, where youth, popular music, and blackness have become synonymous (see Väkevä, 2006, p. 129). For Fleetwood, realness and authenticity is a dangerous terrain that can easily reify itself through certain constructs and ways of acting (not unrelated to the culture industry) and thus inhibit or obstruct youth from defining their own lives. The history of ethnic cultures in the United States speaks to this fact, and several ethnographers have noted the way minorities have been “ghettoized” into particular ethnic identities under the very language of authenticity (Kwok-​Bun, 2005; Majluf, 1997). Barnett (2010) has documented the anger that nonwhite urban youth feel when white educators stereotype them in lessons around hip-​hop culture, assuming erroneously that all black youth enjoy or even listen to hip-​hop music. A final and divergent approach to locating authenticity, with an aim of displacing the problem of relevance to youth, is set forth by David Elliott in Music Matters (1995). For Elliott, the question of “musical relevance” that has driven the above discussion equates excellence with popularity, and in doing so misses the

250

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

central educative question of quality, not to mention the importance of educative encounters with unfamiliar music cultures (pp. 292–​293). Music learning in school must take place through “authentic musical situations” approximating the varied practices and contexts of the “authentic music cultures” (p. 264) that take place outside of school. Authenticity is located not in its relationship to youths or their communities, but to musical practices that “swirl around the efforts of practitioners who originate, maintain, and refine established ways and means of musicing, as well as cherished musical histories, legends, and lore” (p.  67). By inducting the young into these real-​world practices, including their values, standards, histories, and ways of knowing, Elliott argues that the same practices create their own relevancy. The aim of music educators should not be to bring secondary education to an idea of authentic youth culture, but to bring authentic musical practices, judiciously selected for both their familiarity and unfamiliarity, to young people. In a way, Elliott explores the opposing end of the real-​world spectrum by locating authenticity and the question of identity, and ultimately relevance, away from youths (Elliott, 1996)  and toward the integrity of culturally established or institutionally established (read:  real) cultural music practices as known by their practitioner-​teachers to affirm the geographically and ethnically defined local identities. But can there be such a thing as an authentic music culture? If cultures of musics, like students of musics, are permitted agency to change and adapt, this proposition becomes problematic. The music educator who refuses these claims to authenticity, we argue, opens up the possibility of educating for agency. While it is true that young people do carry their immediate contexts into each and every classroom, the classroom must remain a site where interactions between young persons’ diverse histories, identities, and desires bring about new and undiscovered occurrences, new authenticities (Allsup, 2016; Kallio, Westerlund, & Partti, 2014; Parkinson & Smith, 2015). This interaction, which might very well include Elliott’s familiar and unfamiliar musical traditions, Folkestad’s informal and formal musical approaches, or perhaps a ‘participatory parity’ between teachers and students, as Narita and Green (2015) recently suggest, allows for the creation of new identities, musical or otherwise. And an educator’s, and consequently student’s, mediation between the old and the new, rather than the quest for the real or authentic, defines the starting points of what we earlier referred to as critical self-​authorship.

Discussion Designing instruction that starts with the music young people like has been an important step forward in our profession. Its ethos reveals a growing awareness that children are not simply unformed adults or minigrownups whose developmental deficiencies need filling by the more mature. By studying young people’s musical

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

251

worlds more closely, by asking them questions and including them in decision-​ making—​by caring about their needs and hopes—​our profession has opened doors to new practices, new kinds of repertoire, and new ways of learning music. But what if our focus shifted just a bit? What if we were to hold on to the important gains we have made, but readjusted our starting point? Rather than looking first at musical preferences, authentic musical practices, or ethnographic examinations of adolescent cultures and subcultures and then taking their self-​evidence as models for practice, what if music researchers and teachers started with educational ideals? Ideals that are important for all growing persons, like empowerment, agency, criticality, ethical care, and self-​discovery? Making student agency our educational starting point would inevitably reform what gets learned and how. For example, rather than helping students learn to play a song they like, we might help them become coauthors of that song, metaphorically and literally. We would encourage their choices, teach them new tricks, provoke new ways of seeing and hearing, and listen to their stories (Greene, 1995). On one end of the educational spectrum, we might help young people understand that the composer of a favorite song is simply a guest in his own text, and that interpretations of art take vastly different form (Barthes, 1977, pp. 207–​212). On the other end, we might detail the conventions surrounding swing or remind students of the importance of playing octaves in tune. But with empowerment as a guiding ideal, teachers would be required to practice a flexibility of instructional methods and standards in which a fixed end (perhaps one that is perceived by the teacher or student as real or authentic) results in a multiplicity of warranted means (see Allsup & Westerlund, 2012b). Schools, community music programs, and research agendas would be laboratories of experiment and imagination, spaces where students and teachers work together toward negotiated and personally meaningful ends. Criticality in the context of this chapter is understood not simply as the ability of students to decode and politically evaluate a problematic piece of popular music (though this is certainly part of our definition and one that requires careful adult intervention), but critical musical agency is the greater actualization of a growing self, realized through the performing, creating, and making of music with others in mind. It is the ability to use a multiplicity of avenues to attain desired results, with free directions of thought and study that include the past, as well as the familiar. Critical musical agency, the capacity to think and act autonomously, would be developed in settings where the unpredictable and unfamiliar are uncovered with others. Responsive to youth needs and hopes, teachers would be vital agents in affording its development and amplifying its returns. It is important to note, however, that responsiveness is not coterminous with relevance. All good teaching needs to be responsive to the students and the worlds they live in, and all good teaching must eventuate relevance in the learner. But as this chapter makes clear, relevance, “realness,” or authenticity is never the only starting point in a music classroom. When making student agency an educational starting point, relevance may be immediately apparent in only some or in limited situations. At other times relevance may emerge when the unfamiliar is tested and found to be useful, or it may

252

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

emerge unevenly when that which is tested is found not to be useful (an indispensable lesson for developing agency). Education, then, is presented here as the story of interaction and exchange, community and schooling, teachers and students, formation and reformation—​categories that needn’t oppose one another. “Youth culture,” after all, is also adult culture, and its greatest manifestation, popular music, is enjoyed among toddlers in nursery schools, the elderly in retirement communities, and even among music majors at conservatories around the world. This is not to say that there are no bridges left to cross. Our traditional methods of preparing music teachers (with some exceptions) continue to reinforce the divide between the cultures of youths and their adult teachers. The bridging of this gap is our methodological moment. Just as Kodaly sought to bridge the false divide between folk and classical music, and Dalcroze united body and mind, and Suzuki joined family and the school, the artificial division between the cultures of youths and the worlds of music education need mending. Still, this is not a bridge of mere connection, a one-​way drive from teacher to student or popular to classic. The intersections we speak of will be marked by tension in which the ideals of education and growth are moved through and against its many divides. Success will be defined by agency, measured by the degree to which our interactions empower a break with the “real” and taken-​for-​granted. Our quests become quests for meaning. Our maps lead to new places. A sense of hope accompanies this vision of empowerment and self-​actualization, for adults and youths alike.

Reflective Questions







• We contend that a music educator’s quest for “authenticity” or “realness” is not only unhelpful, but misguided. Mutuality, cross-​cultural exchange, and dialogue are proposed instead. Does such a perspective threaten musical traditions, or possibly save them? • If our students are an amalgam of creative, ever-​evolving, contradictory, and unstable musical selves, what guides the music educator in designing instruction? What long-​term aims animate your curriculum? How are these aims related to who your students are—​or who you perceive your students to be? • Not all youth music is appropriate for school. But where does censorship begin and end? What music gets discussed and performed, and what doesn’t? Where are the limits regarding politics, sex and sexuality, religion, race, and other explosive topics? How are such discussions negotiated, and to what end are they negotiated? • If critical musical agency is the capacity to think and act autonomously, what forces stand in the way of accomplishing this aim? What is the

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

253

teacher’s role in naming, shaping, and transforming these forces? Can you imagine ways students and teachers might work together to build greater personal, social, and musical capacity?

KEY RESOURCES Dewey, J. (1997). The democratic conception in education. In Democracy and Education (pp. 81–​99). New York: The Free Press. Frith, S. (1996). Performing rites:  On the value of popular music. Boston:  Harvard University Press. Giadina, M. D. (2009). Flexibly global? Performing culture and identity in an age of uncertainty. Policy Futures in Education, 7, 172–​184. Giroux, H. (1996). Fugitive cultures: Race, violence, and youth. New York: Routledge. Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of adolescence. New York: Routledge. Maira, S., & Soep, E. (eds.) (2004). Youthscapes:  The popular, the national, the global. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

REFERENCES Abramo, J. M. (2009). Popular music and gender in the classroom. New  York:  Abstracts International, Teachers College Columbia University. Adorno, T. (1932/​2002a). On the social situation of music. In R. Leppert (ed.), Essays on music (pp. 391–​436). Berkeley: University of California Press. Adorno, T. (1938/​2002b). On the fetish-​character in music and the regression of listening. In R. Leppert (ed.), Essays on music (pp. 391–​436). Berkeley: University of California Press. Adorno, T. (1941/​2002c). On popular music. In R. Leppert (ed.), Essays on music (pp. 391–​ 436). Berkeley: University of California Press. Allsup, R. E. (2015). Music teacher quality and the problem of routine expertise. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 22(1): 5–​24. Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom: Toward an open philosophy of music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Allsup, R. E., & Westerlund, H. (2012a). Methods and situational ethics in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 11(1), 124–​148. Allsup, R. E., & Westerlund, H. (2012b). Through simple discovery. In A. J. Palmer & A. de Quadros (eds.), Tanglewood II: Summoning the future of music education (pp. 191–​208). Chicago: Gia Publishers. Barnett, A. C. (2010). Critical voice and social justice in the urban music classroom. New York: Abstracts International, Teachers College Columbia University. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Benedict, C. (2009). Processes of alienation: Marx, Orff and Kodaly. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 213–​224.

254

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

Bennett, A. (2000). Popular music and youth culture: Music, identity and place. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc. Bloom, A. (1987). Music. In The closing of the American mind (pp. 68–​81). New York: Simon & Schuster. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burton, J. (1996). Natural allies: A trilogy. In J. Remer (ed.), Beyond enrichment: Building effective arts partnerships with schools and your community (pp. 309–​329). New  York: American Council for the Arts. Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York: Henry Holt & Company. Dunbar-​Hall, P. (1993). Teaching popular music. Sydney, Australia: Science Press. Elliott, D. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. (1996). Music education in Finland: A new philosophical view. Finnish Journal of Music Education, 1(1), 6–​21. Erickson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Fleetwood, N. (2005). Authenticating practices: Producing realness, performing youth. In S. Maira & E. Soep (eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the national, the global (pp. 155–​172). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–​145. Frith, S. (2007). The industrialization of popular music. (Originally published in 1987). In Taking popular music seriously:  Selected essays (pp. 93–​118). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Giroux, H. A. (1996). Fugitive cultures: Race, violence, and youth. New York: Routledge. Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Green, L. (2004). What can music educators learn from popular musicians? In C. Rodriguez (ed.), Bridging the gap:  Popular music and music education (pp. 225–​ 240). Reston, VA: National Association of Music Education. 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 Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Hall, S., & Jefferson, T. (eds.) (1975/​1993). Resistance through rituals:  Youth subcultures in post-​war Britain. London: Routledge. Hargreaves, D., & Marshall, N. (2003). Developing identities in music education. Music Education Research, 5(3), 263–​273. Hargreaves, D., Marshall, N., & North, A. (2003). Music education in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. British Journal of Music Education, 20(2), 147–​163. Hargreaves, D., Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2002). What are musical identities, and why are they important? In R. MacDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 1–​20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. New York: Routledge. Hebert, D., & Campbell, P. S. (2000). Rock music in American schools:  Positions and practices since the 1960s. International Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 14–​22. Isbell, D. (2007). Popular music and the public school music curriculum. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(1), 53–​63.

Youth Culture and Secondary Education

255

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A., & Weigel, M. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture:  Media education for the 21st Century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation. Kallio, A. A., Westerlund, H., & Partti, H. (2014). The quest for authenticity in the music classroom: Sinking or swimming. Nordic Research in Music Education Yearbook, 15, 1–​26. Koopman, C. (2007). Community music as music education: On the educational potential of community music. International Journal of Music Education, 25(2), 151–​163. Kwok-​Bun, C. (2005). Chinese identities, ethnicity, and cosmopolitanism. New York: Routledge. Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–​48. Lamont, A., Hargreaves, D., Marshall, N., & Tarrant, M. (2003). Young people’s music in and out of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20(3), 1–​13. Laughley, D. (2006). Music and youth culture. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Maira, S., & Soep, E. (2005). Introduction. In Youthscapes:  The popular, the national, the global (pp. xv–​xxxv). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Majluf, N. (1997). “Ce n’est pas le Pérou,” or, the failure of authenticity: Marginal cosmopolitans at the Paris Universal Exhibition of 1855. Critical Inquiry, 23(4), 868–​893. McLaren, P. (1999). Gangsta pedagogy and ghettocentricity:  The hip-​ hop nation and counterpublic sphere. In C. McCarthy, G. Hudak, S. Miklaucic, & P. Saukko (eds.), Sound identities:  Popular music and the cultural politics of education (pp. 97–​ 117). New York: Peter Lang. Montgomery, K. C. (2000). Children’s media culture in the new millennium: Mapping the digital landscape. The Future of Children, 10(2), 15–​167. Narita, F. M., & Green, L. (2015). Informal learning as a catalyst for social justice in music education. In C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, G. Spruce, & P. Woodford (eds.), Oxford handbook of social justice in music education (pp. 302–​317). New York: Oxford University Press. Newsome, D. (1998). Rock’s quarrel with tradition: Popular music’s carnival comes to the classroom. Popular Music and Society, 22(3), 1–​20. Njubi, F. (2001). Rap, race, and representation. In M. Oliker & W. Krolikowski (eds.), Images of youth: Popular culture as educational ideology (pp. 151–​183). New York: Peter Lang. Noguera, P. (2003). The trouble with black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 431–​459. Parkinson, T., & Smith, G. D. (2015). Towards an epistemology of authenticity in higher popular music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 93–​127. act. maydaygroup.org/​articles/​ParkinsonSmith14_​1.pdf. Partti, H. (2012). Learning from cosmopolitan digital musicians: Identity, musicianship, and changing values in (in)formal music communities. Helsinki: Sibelius Academy. Partti, H. & Karlsen, S. (2010). Reconceptualising musical learning: new media, identity and community in music education. Music Education Research, 12(4), 369–​382. Richardson, R. L. (2008). Insights from arts and civic engagement:  13 profiles. http://​www. communityarts.net/​readingroom/​archivefiles/​2008/​11/​insights_​from_​a.php [accessed September 28, 2010]. Rodriguez, C. (ed.) (2004). Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education. Reston, VA: National Association for Music Education. Scruton, R. (2007). Culture counts: Faith and feeling in a world besieged. New York: Encounter Books. Sloboda, J. (2004). Exploring the musical mind: Cognition, emotion, ability, function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

256

Randall Everett Allsup, Heidi Westerlund, and Eric Shieh

Sloboda, J., O’Neill, S., & Ivalidi, A. (2001). Functions of music in everyday life: An exploratory study using the Experience Sampling Method. Musicae Scientiae, 5(1), 9–​32. Ståhlhammar, B. (1999). Music is more: A broader concept of music from a Swedish perspective. Research Studies in Music Education, 12(1), 38–​48. Ståhlhammar, B. (2000). The spaces of music and its foundation of values: Music teaching and young people’s own music experience. International Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 35–​45. Tarrant, M., Hargreaves, D., & North, A. (2002). Youth identity and music. In R. MacDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 134–​ 150). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Väkevä, L. (2006). Teaching popular music in Finland: What’s up, what’s ahead? International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 126–​131. Väkevä, L. (2009). The world well lost, found: Reality and authenticity in Green’s “New classroom pedagogy.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 8(2), 7–​34. http://​act. maydaygroup.org/​articles/​Vakeva8_​2.pdf [accessed September 28, 2010]. Vasudevan, L. (2010). Literacies in a participatory, multimodal world: The arts and aesthetics of web 2.0. Language Arts, 88(1), 43–​50. Veblen, K. (2004). The many ways of community music. International Journal of Community Music, 1(1), 5–​21. Veblen, K., & Olsson, B. (2002). Community music:  Toward an international overview. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook for research on music teaching and learning:  A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 730–​ 753). New York: Oxford University Press. Walcott, R. (1999). Performing the (black) postmodern: Rap as incitement for cultural criticism. In C. McCarthy, G. Hudak, S. Miklaucic, & P. Saukko (eds.), Sound identities: Popular music and the cultural politics of education (pp. 97–​117). New York: Peter Lang. Walker, R. (2007). Music education: Cultural values, social change and innovation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Wee, V. (2010). Teen media:  Hollywood and the youth market in the digital age. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Westerlund, H. (2006). Garage rock band: A future model for developing musical expertise? International Journal of Music Education, Showcase, 24(2), 119–​125. Wemyss, K. L. (1999). From T.I. to Tasmania: Australian indigenous popular music in the classroom. Research Studies in Music Education, 13(1), 28–​39. Willis, P., Jones, S., Canaan, J., & Hurd, G. (1990). Common culture: Symbolic work at play in the everyday cultures of the young. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Chapter 17

ASSESSMENT IN THE SECONDARY MUSIC CLASSROOM Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

The issue of assessment in music education in the secondary school is one of concern in a range of contexts, including teaching, learning, accountability, policy, and politics. In order to investigate assessment in the secondary school, we need to begin by understanding what assessment is, what the terminologies involved mean, what the implications of assessment are for learners, teachers, program organizers, administrators, legislators, and other interested stakeholders, and what constitutes secondary school music. In the course of this chapter we will consider the following issues in student assessment (program assessment is not considered):

• The context of assessment • Uses and purposes of assessment • Legitimizing assessment • Assessment and music pedagogy

The Context of Assessment Secondary school music experiences can be as broad as the definition of music. Even in those countries with a secondary school music requirement, students can usually

258

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

elect the musical experience of interest. Thus, any portrayal of assessment practices will be as wide-​ranging as are the curricular offerings. We discuss assessment which happens for pupils aged between roughly 11 and 18 years old. Between these two age delimiters lie a wide range of experiences and musical encounters, from formal compulsory music lessons for all, through various forms of optional take-​up of music, including a range of electives, through to systems where music itself is optional; within all contexts there is also a wide range of musical learning that takes place outside formal curricula. The content component of music courses also varies widely, from contexts where there is a considerable statutory program of study, such as a national curriculum, through to those where the main delivery of music lies in participation in musical ensembles (content standards). Assessment, however, focuses on performance standards (student competency on the content standard). We can be most definite about assessment when a purpose of secondary school education is preparation for college, specifically a career in music. The types of assessment for students electing this track are similar, whether Advanced Placement music theory examinations in the United States, the history and theory exams in Israel that follow a sequential curriculum, or the performance and theory examinations in Taiwan. When the state is involved in these examinations, scores on these examinations can determine scholarship and admission decisions. Assessment involves making judgments, and is closely tied to, or synonymous with, issues of evaluation. Assessment has a long history in music; for example, singing and playing contests. The secondary school context of music instruction also needs explaining. There are a range of approaches to secondary schooling across many national contexts, and some of these are dissimilar from each other.

Assessment and Standards Assessment consists of designing, conducting, interpreting, and communicating the results of an investigation into learning. One assigns value, one describes the meaning of data and observations, one synthesizes experiences, and the resulting judgments indicate the merit, worth, and significance of the educational venture. Assessments can be influential in determining support for or reduction of programs, they can aid in establishing priorities and instructional emphases, and they can be specific or general. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) publication Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, 2014) provides much useful information about this aspect of the work of both test-​setters and classroom teachers more generally, both in the United States and, increasingly, internationally as well. The term “high-​stakes” assessment is given to summative assessments that certificate significant aspects of attainment. These are the ones that give rise to publicly accountable assessments, in the form of end-​of-​course examinations, school leaving

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

259

certificates, degree classifications, and so on. They are considered high-​stakes as the implications of passing them can be significant, and the implications for failing them can be an impediment. There is no doubt that the international standards movement in curriculum and testing in a few core subjects, such as mathematics, has also influenced the assessment movement in music. State agencies and professional organizations are exploring the development of music assessments modeled on the core assessments used for national and international comparisons. These efforts are valuable and of interest, but high-​ stakes tests in music are not likely to be required. For example, one issue in assessing is determining what level of competency constitutes “proficient.” Australians (New South Wales) who had an assessment mandate have experimented with use of a cutoff point between proficient and not proficient, as well as scores indicating other levels of proficiency. Establishing these cut-​points is important. The standards movement consists of three standards:  content standards (the appropriate level of the content being presented); performance standards (whether the level of performance, knowl­ edge, understanding, etc. is at the expected age level); and opportunity-​to-​learn standards (have the students been provided with adequate resources, expert teachers, and instructional time) to reasonably be expected to attain the content and performance standards. These standards may differ depending on mandates. In Mexico, outcomes are expected to include awareness, contemplation, expression, appreciation, contextualization, and creation. Caribbean nations have agreed on listening and appraising, performing, and composing. Belarus and Russia seem to assess music instruction based on observation, singing and playing of instruments, creative assignments, oral responses, essays, projects, and listening exams that test composer and/​or selection recognition. Taiwan has established cognitive objectives as being 25% of any assessment, psychomotor 50%, and affective, which includes participation, appreciation, and creating, 25% (Holmes et al., 2010). In the United States, percentages are not specified but include performing, creating, and responding. Categories or mandates in other countries suggest composing (including arranging), audiation, performing, literature studies, skills, and aesthetics—​musical styles and idioms.

Uses and Purposes of Assessment Assessment and Testing In some quarters there is an assumption that assessment is primarily concerned with testing. This assumption is breaking down in contemporary assessment discourse. It is the case that testing involves assessment, but one can measure without assessing—​assessment requires a judgment about value that a score on a test does not provide. It is entirely possible to make an assessment judgment concerning a pupil’s music-​making that does not involve a test.

260

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

The construction of all assessment strategies requires consideration of a table of specifications—​what aspects of music instruction should be evaluated and their relative importance. The division between cognitive, psychomotor, and affective objectives is a type of table of specifications, although a table often consists of multiple specific topics and weightings. Usually, consideration has also been given to a taxonomy of learning to ensure assessing a wide range of competencies from simple to complex, from basic factual knowledge to competence in use of that knowledge in analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating.

Assessment and Evaluation A distinction needs to be drawn between assessment and evaluation due to country differences. For educational purposes, however, in the United States, evaluation may have an empirical aspect (that something is the case), or normative aspect, where one determines the value of something, as used commonly in program evaluation; whereas in the United Kingdom, evaluation usually means “. . . the process of collecting evidence and making judgments about programs, systems, materials, procedures and processes; ‘assessment’ refers to the process of collecting evidence and making judgments relating to outcomes, such as student’s achievement” (Harlen, 2007, p. 12). Likewise, in the United Kingdom, the term “teacher evaluation” normally refers to evaluation by teachers, whereas in the United States, it means evaluation of teachers and teaching (Kane, Kerr, & Pianta, 2014). In Spain, assessment and evaluation are interchangeable but have two meanings: assessment can mean grading, as assigning a formal grade for school reports and promotion, or it can have the broader meaning described in this chapter. In discussing student achievement in the United States, the terms “assessment” and “evaluation” tend to be interchangeable. Measurement, however, is usually defined as the use of tests designed to report any change in behaviors by means of assigning categories or numbers to these, which result in a score that can then be used in summative assessment. Measurement tries to be objective; assessment/​evaluation tends to be more subjective. We shall not attempt to resolve in this chapter the definition differences in various cultures.

Summative Assessment In many national contexts summative assessment is what is meant when assessment is being discussed; in other words, for some teachers summative assessment is assessment! Summative assessment takes place at specific points in a course of study, and is designed to sum up the attainment of the learner. Summative assessments are often put

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

261

in place at the end of instructional units, or at the end of a course, especially when they provide a certificatory function. Thus a graduate will talk of having a first class degree, or an upper second, and a pupil will talk of having grade 5 flute. Summative assessments include recitals, auditions, contests as well as formal, scheduled, assessments. Summative assessment can take place on a smaller scale too. Teachers who give their class a test may be employing summative assessment. The pupil who gets a score of 9 out of 10 will be considered to have done better at the test than the pupil who gets 4 out of 10. These small-​scale classroom tests can be used to build up a picture of attainment over time. Summative assessment is common in accountability contexts and when grades in music are customary or required. These assessments, auditions, the research in New South Wales, and Item Response Theory (IRT; uses item analysis and a statistical program to estimate that if a student knows the answer to question X that s/​he also knows the answer to question Y) work in Germany are all summative examples. Summative assessment is used for accountability and for making policy decisions. Summative assessments are criterion-​ referenced measures; the criterion can be a cut score, a rich description of what musical competencies indicate “proficient” on a score of three or above or an Advanced Placement examination. With criterion-​referenced measures, all students can be successful. The results of summative assessment should result in reflection by both pupil and teacher: What can I do differently next time to improve? Why did the students not learn what was emphasized?

Formative Assessment Studies have suggested that it is formative assessment that makes the most difference to student learning. Black and Wiliam found that the differences it makes are “quite considerable, and [are], amongst the largest ever reported for educational interventions” (1998, p. 61). Black and Wiliam’s data demonstrated the effect size of proper use of formative assessment—​effect size indicating the degree of student improvement. Proper use is key; large numbers of studies of the use of formative assessment showed no or even negative impact. Effect size is similar to the normal curve; an effect size of .42 is equivalent to a percentile gain of 16 percentage points, for example a student’s score could increase from the 50th percentile to the 66th percentile; in other words, a student’s score could increase from 5 to 6.6 out of 10. A meta-​analysis by Hattie (2009) of 15 studies found effect sizes ranging from .23 to 1.12. In music education formative assessment has a long history of being a part of the daily work of the classroom and instrumental teacher. Formative assessment procedures involve working with students so that they know what it is they need to do in order to improve. Validity and reliability data are not crucial with formative assessment—​excellent teachers, however, have valid content objectives and tend to be consistent in their interaction with students.

262

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

One of the most widely misunderstood aspects of assessment currently is the distinction between formative and summative assessment. This has been exacerbated by these words being interpreted in different ways in different national contexts. Formative assessment is concerned with taking learning forward. It is not one or multiple tests; true formative assessment is a process. Music teachers in all national contexts will have incorporated aspects of formative assessment into their teaching, possibly without realizing that is what they are doing! Formative assessment normally involves dialogue; it is not “top-​down” assessing. Here are some examples: • Instrumental lesson: when a learner plays her piece to the teacher, and the teacher makes comments, s/​he will talk with the learner, to help the learner understand what it is that needs to be done, and to help clarify issues and misconceptions. • Classroom composing: when a group of pupils compose using classroom instruments, the teacher will discuss with the learners how their work could be improved and what the pupils’ understanding of the task involves, and will help the pupils identify what could be done next. • Choir rehearsal: when a choir is having sectional rehearsals, the leader makes observations as to what could be done to improve, gets the singers to try out alternatives, and works with them to develop the aspects in question. • Ensemble rehearsal: when the second clarinets play an eight-​bar phrase and the director points out rhythmic inaccuracies, asks the players to try again, and then checks that they understand the differences by discussing with them and possibly doing a before/​after comparison. As teachers make constructive comments and observations, as well as modeling, they are undertaking formative assessment. What this requires from the teacher is that s/​he needs to know what it is that needs to be addressed, what the next sequential (more challenging) steps to be taken involve, and then shares these, usually orally, with the learners. In assessment literature this is characterized as feedback. In music, oral/​demonstration feedback is a normal feature of learning. Oral feedback is spontaneous, and located in the immediacy of a learning episode. Written feedback has a part to play, too, but the immediacy of the oral is a key feature of formative assessment. Viewed from this perspective, it is hard to imagine teaching without assessing; indeed, as Swanwick rightly observes, “. . . to teach is to assess” (1988, p. 149). What this means is that as true formative assessment is a process, it needs to concern itself with what is to be done next in order for the learner to improve. This is assessment that is done by the teacher with the pupils. Formative assessment does not in and of itself yield grades or levels, nor does it compare learners one with another. It is individualized and personalized, and concerned with taking a specific learner or group of learners forward in their own music-​making. To this extent some teachers have observed that it does not feel like assessment at all! For example, in Rusinek’s study of disaffected learners in Spain (2008), the teacher used formative assessment strategies (although they are not referred to as such) to engage students who were otherwise at risk of failure in the school system. Classroom assessment is

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

263

not (necessarily) formative assessment; it must lead to improved instruction (Black & Wiliam, 2004).

Characteristics of Effective Formative Assessment It is a goal of all music teachers to improve the learning and performance of their students. There are many ways by which this can be undertaken in music education, but it is likely to be formative assessment which is at the heart of these. There are a number of features that formative assessment will take: It will be dynamic: Students will play their music, and the teacher will work with the pupils to explain, probably modeling, what it is that could be done to improve. It will be a part of the learning encounter: Formative assessment does not take place separate from teaching, it is embedded within it. It will involve feedback: Teachers will talk with, not at, their pupils about the learning. This enables the teacher to understand the pupils’ context, clear up misunderstandings, and produce a personalized response based on the music they have just heard, not simply general exhortations to do better. It will be reactive: As a result of a learning episode, the teacher needs to be prepared to change aspects of the pedagogic approach. This can mean choosing different pieces to perform, choosing specific studies to embed technique, closing gaps in prior learning through careful review prior to initiating new tasks. It means the teaching reacts to the learners; it does not carry on regardless. Students know what it means to get better: Formative assessment encounters based on the above tenets should clarify what the next steps are that the students need to take, specific to their needs. This involves delineating clearly what comes next. To do this the teacher needs to share their understandings of quality outcomes with the learners; again modeling can help. Students can begin to take charge of their own learning when they have the competence to “validly” assess their own learning, and, where appropriate, that of the ensemble.

The Formative Use of Summative Assessment Key to understanding the differences between formative and summative assessments is to realize that, stripped of any context-​or nation-​specific overtones, formative assessment is about improving learning; summative assessment is about auditing it.

264

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

One of the reasons that this distinction has not been widely grasped is that much of what passes for formative assessment is not formative assessment per se, but is summative assessment used in a developmental fashion. Some national and local contexts involve the regular use of testing. Such testing, as we have seen, involves summative assessment. Telling a student that she has achieved, say, 7 out of 10, level 5, or a score of 27, does not tell the learner what it is she needs to do in order to improve. The interpretation of test scores in a way that does help the students improve is known as the formative use of summative assessment. Figure 17.1 (from Fautley & Savage, 2008, p. 27) gives a visual representation of this. Figure 17.1 shows that the formative use of summative assessment is the way teachers can use the results from tests, working in ways we discussed in the section on formative assessment above, to help their learners move to the next level of attainment. This needs to be interactive, as simply knowing that a mark of 6 out of 10 was achieved does not tell the student how to achieve 7 out of 10. This is because “marks, levels, judgmental comments or the setting of targets, cannot, on their own, be formative. Pupils may need help to know how they can improve” (Mansell et al., 2009, p. 10). The differences between formative and summative assessment were summarized by Mansell et al. (2009, p. 9):

• Summative comes at the end of learning episodes, whereas formative is built in to the learning process. • Summative aims to assess knowledge and understanding at a given point in time, whereas formative aims to develop it. • Summative is static and one-​way (usually the teacher or examiner judges the pupil), whereas formative is ongoing and dynamic.

Su

The Formative Use of Summative Assessment

mm

ati

ve

t

en

As

se

ss

me

nt

Looks Back

Past Achievement

ve ati

sm es

s

As

rm

Fo

Looks Forward

Future Achievement

Time

Figure 17.1  Assessment modalities. From Fautley and Savage (2008, p. 27).

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

265

• Summative follows a set of predefined questions, whereas formative follows the flow of spontaneous dialogue and interaction, where one action builds on (is contingent on) an earlier one.

Self-​and Peer Assessment Self-​and peer assessment are key assessment strategies. The ideal situation is one where the student comes to hold the same concept of quality as the teacher, and knows what to do in order to develop his or her own learning, or move to the next step. In order to do this, both summative and formative assessment require a clear and concise conceptualization of what is to be learned. Formative assessment requires that the teaching and the sequencing of understanding be sequential, the sequence understood by pupil and teacher, and that it be based on some type of taxonomy that leads from knowledge of terminology to higher order thinking. Self-​assessment is often undertaken by pupils in terms of what they wish to be able to do next, and based on their own realistic understandings of what they can do. This is a point outlined by Alda de Oliveira in her discussion of the music education of street children in Brazil (2000).

Portfolio Assessment The notion of portfolio assessment is a key issue in educational thinking today, and has a number of benefits for the music educator. Portfolio assessment involves building up evidence over a range of attainments as evidenced by the growth of the individual. For example, in contexts where performing is central to curricular music, one solution in secondary music ensemble experience, rather than giving each member a grade, is to rely on a student portfolio. Each spring, or more often, the ensemble presents itself to the public and to school administrators through a public performance of works mastered during the year. On request, the ensemble could sight-​read a number, and/​or students could demonstrate their understanding of the music performed by responding to questions from the audience. Small ensembles and soloists could perform as well. The material in a portfolio still must be assessed either by a range of descriptors or by gain scores. The interpretation could be pass-​fail or a multiple point continuum. The portfolio is a type of summative assessment. For more general classroom music, portfolios would normally be expected to include a range of composing, performing, and listening activities. In Taiwan, Ming-​Jen Chuang has described their utilization in schools by a group of teachers,

266

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

observing that the range of responses they produced enabled the teachers concerned to become more reflective in their work (Chuang, 2007). For twenty-​first-​ century purposes, the use of e-​portfolios readily allows recordings of student work to be located centrally, along with supporting documentation, and any scores or performing instructions. E-​portfolios permit a wide range of material to be included, including the all-​important sonic representations of music composed and performed by the student concerned.

Legitimizing Assessment All assessments must be fair. In addition, they must be valid and reliable.

Reliability Reliability is concerned primarily with the consistency of the assessment. For example:

• If a student undertook the same assessment on two subsequent occasions, would the same results be obtained by that student? • If a single assessment by a single student is graded by two different assessors, will the results be the same? • If the same assessment was undertaken by two groups of students of similar ability, would both groups of pupils achieve the same results?

High-​stakes testing is normally criterion-​referenced, and reliability should be quite high.

Validity Validity refers to how any data are used to arrive at the truth, and the interpretation of these data. Thus, there are multiple descriptions (types) of validity, and utilization of them is going to depend to some extent on the context, as well as the uses and purposes of the assessment. Four types of validity commonly encountered in the literature are: • Face validity: This is where an assessment looks as if is assessing that which it is supposed to be assessing. • Content validity: Here the data need to be relevant to the subject matter. • Construct validity: A construct in education refers to an abstract item, such as pitch, or rhythm, which should be understood and uniquely definable.

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

267

• Consequential validity: Refers to the consequences that assessment and testing can have on learners, teachers, systems, and society (for a detailed discussion of validity issues in assessment, see Kane, 2006). There are trade-​offs between reliability and validity: . . . attempts to increase reliability which generally means closer and closer specification, and use of methods that have the least error. It [attempting to increase reliability] results in gathering and using a restricted range of evidence, leading to a reduction in validity. On the other hand, if validity is increased by extending the range of the assessment to include outcomes such as higher level thinking skills, then reliability is likely to fall, since many of these aspects of attainment are not easily assessed. (Harlen, 2005, p. 247)

Validity also needs to be considered with regard to the context in which an assessment has occurred. So, for example, a single outcome score might superficially be the same (such as 58%), but this does not imply that it will have a transferable meaning from one scenario to another. In the context of a band performance, 58% means something very different than it does in the context of a harmony examination. The notion of context needs to be considered carefully here (Colwell, 2016).

Objectivity and Subjectivity Reliability and validity are important issues for music education, because in an attempt to increase reliability, it is all too easy to fall back on things that are easily assessable, which, while probably reliable, are not necessarily valid in measuring aspects of musical learning. For example, can an evaluation of an advanced-​ level pianist’s interpretation of a Beethoven piano sonata be undertaken solely by assessing his or her fingering? This is fairly straightforward to assess, but probably does not vary much between performances, and so is reliable, but as an assessment of musical worth, its content validity is questionable. Not dissimilar instances are regularly to be found in classroom and instrumental music lessons. In music some questions have right answers, such as when was Mozart born, and some are more open to interpretation, such as in a specific piece of harmony, is II♭–​V–​I a better cadential progression than IV–​V–​I? Extrapolated further, this means that issues of objectivity and subjectivity will inevitably form part of the thinking concerning assessments, and the purposes to which they are put. There is a tendency to treat assessment data as being only worthwhile when it is entirely objective, but this is problematic. Presently there seems to be an emphasis on objectivity in education, whereas in industry, employees are observed, and subjectivity predominates. Indeed, as Gipps warns, “assessment is not an exact science, and we must stop presenting it as such” (1994, p. 167). There will be many areas of subjective

268

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

assessments made in music education, and this is to be expected. What is appropriate, however, is for assessments to be as reliable and valid as they can be. But this in itself raises another issue for music education, as assessing things that are easily assessable may not result in assessing the things that should be assessed, the unfortunate consequence of which is that things come to be assessed because they can be. This can lead to situations where those things that are assessed are technical or organizational matters of music-​making that are easy to assess, for example a composition either does or does not contain an ostinato, whereas assessing creative thinking involved in a composition or whether the results of a performance can be considered to be musical or not very musical are much more difficult judgments to make. Contained within issues of objectivity are those that appertain to assessment of different standards of proficiency. Faced with a bewildering range of contemporary styles and types of music produced by secondary-​school-​age students, assessment strategies need to keep pace with this. For teachers who are “insiders” in the music in question, this may not be too much of a problem; for “outsiders,” the task can seem daunting. What is meant by a musical performance of a Chopin etude? What is meant by a musical performance of a blues piece? What is meant by a musical performance of thrash metal? What is a musical composition for a 12-​year-​old pupil using a Glockenspiel? Are all these examples evidencing the same notion of musicality? Do they compare? What if they are all by the same pupil? Also relevant here is the notion of consensual assessment (Amabile, 1982), where judges with appropriate expertise formulate both gradings and criteria, making criterion-​referenced validity of prime importance. Where issues of validity and reliability will arise is when assessments of different types of musical attainment are compared one with another, and this returns us to notions of objectivity. For example, how might the grade given to a rock band be equivalent to that given to a baroque recorder quartet? Should it?

Assessment Data Assessment data, formative and summative, refer to that which arises when assessment is undertaken. Assessment data can be both tangible and intangible, taking a number of forms, including recordings, conversations, test scores, pupil writing, pupil performances, musical scores, and written comments. So far it is the purposes of assessment that have been discussed. However, the uses to which assessment data are put are significant, too, especially as the information that arises from assessment sometimes has to serve a range of uses. Formative assessment has one clear aim, which is to improve teaching and student learning. In the case of summative assessment, however, there can be a range of uses to which assessment data are put.

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

269

Using Data from Assessments The most important and the most controversial component of any type of assessment is how the data are used. What does a score of 88/​100 on a test tell us about the student or the program? or a score of II from a music festival or contest, or a “satisfactory” on a student composition? Interpreting data from any type of assessment requires knowledge, experience, and a full understanding of the characteristics of tests, testing, and students. A student’s background, his or her talent, socioeconomic level, home and community support, level of effort, and much more, including tradition and expectations of the community, are variables that contribute to the controversies of assessment and the level at which it has meaning for music teaching and learning. Assessment of secondary school music in all cultures consists of two major types of assessment, formative and summative. Either type of assessment begins with the statement of a clear goal of what it is to be assessed, and those being assessed must understand the goal or goals. Without this clear statement, the assessment will lack reliability and validity. A survey of assessment practices in Sweden found that students seldom knew the purpose of the assessment, did not receive feedback from the assessment, and did not know whether the results meant that they were performing at the expected level of competence (Murphy, 2007). Designing assessments that have to meet the requirements of different groups of users can distort the assessment being undertaken. Take the example of a teacher who wants to see how well her class is able to perform a specified piece of music. She may well set up a performing situation where the pupils play the piece, and the teacher grades them. The results from this can be used for the teacher to decide what is needed to do next in order for her learners to improve, and for the learners to know how well they performed. However, if the same sets of data are also used to measure how well that teacher has worked at teaching her class the piece of music, then the teacher is likely to approach the teaching in a rather different fashion, ensuring that the focus remains on the end product at all times, and avoiding any important incidental learning that could take place along the way. What is happening here is that assessment data are having to simultaneously fulfill more than one purpose, what Boud (2000) refers to as the “double-​duty” of assessment. Using assessment data for purposes for which they were not intended might not be helpful; “clarity about the legitimate and illegitimate uses of assessment data, and the intended or unintended consequences of those uses, is crucial” (Mansell et al., 2009, p. 8). This can be taken a stage further, too. If assessment results are going to be published nationally and enable comparison of a specific school with other schools, then the management team of the school is also likely to want to monitor the way the music teacher has taught the class the performance piece, in order to maximize the school’s position. In some countries, publication of such grades enables newspapers to print “league tables” of schools classified by the results from summative assessments. This aspect of assessment raises issues of accountability, and assessment data used in this way can cause problems for music teachers. Indeed,

270

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

there is a danger that in some countries externalized assessment becomes a means whereby the content can be determined centrally:  “State standards reflect value choices about what is most important for students to learn and what constitutes mastery of that knowledge. But different constituencies have different ideas . . .” (Colwell, 2007, p. 6). This is an important observation, and is key to understanding different local and national contexts concerning assessment. What this can result in is known as “teaching to the test,” and occurs where high-​stakes assessment systems place considerable weight on assessment results. This can result in a narrowing of the curriculum, and of learning opportunities, as teaching becomes focused solely on final assessment; this is known as “assessment backwash.” Many jurisdictions are working on ways in which data generation and collection by teachers can be improved (Brookhart, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016; Gardner, 2012). As the performativity role of assessment data (Ball, 2003, Wiliam, 2011) becomes ever more tangible, as well as the role of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD) (https://​www.oecd.org/​ pisa), assumes greater international importance for comparative purposes, these various assessment systems are increasingly likely to become less disparate and more likely to converge.

Assessment and Music Pedagogy Knowledge Types in Music Education In designing assessments, the first thing that needs to be done is for the assessment designer to decide what it is that will be assessed and ensure that the objective/​task is clearly understood by all students. In music education there is a long history of a split between learning and doing. This needs some consideration, as assessment of an activity will derive from task criteria, whereas assessment of learning will derive from learning criteria, and it is likely to be the case that these are different. Teachers often have finely honed skills in deriving task criteria from action; what can be less clear is the specification of learning criteria. The implications of this for practice can be considered through the example of classroom performing. If a class is engaged in a performance using tuned and untuned percussion instruments, say, then an individual’s contribution to the performance of the piece of music can be assessed by such factors as being able to play correct notes, on the beat, and with a reasonable technique. But what have they learned by doing this? Have they learned about playing on the beat? Is this assessed in performance? If they have learned it already, why are they doing it again? In other words, how is assessment of learning distinguished

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

271

from assessment of doing? This key question takes us to the heart of the matter in music education assessment. An answer to this question can be found in a consideration of knowledge types involved. Ryle (1949) wrote of “knowing that” and “knowing how.” These two types of knowledge also equate with the notion of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. In the United States, Bennett Reimer (1992) has suggested that four types of knowledge are relevant to musical knowing—​knowing within and knowing how as primary, knowing about and knowing why as contributory to the first two. Knowing within is least amenable to verbal description, but “feeling within” is apt. These types can be described in terms of objectives; to perceive, discriminate, feel, and evaluate works; to be aware of historical, social, cultural, political, and religious contexts, and to be cognizant of the issues that surround them, thus influencing perceiving, understanding, creating, and judging. What classroom assessment will need to do is to focus attention on the knowledge type that is most appropriate.

Devising Assessment Criteria Music education has a long history of devising assessment criteria for performing music. In the United Kingdom, the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music has been devising such assessments for more than a century, and similar principles of a graded sequence of examinations where content is progressively more challenging are well embedded in a range of national contexts. However, devising assessment criteria for other areas of classroom music, such as composing, tend to be less well developed. In developing assessment criteria for music education a number of points need to be borne in mind. These include:



• A criterion should have a degree of exclusivity, in that it should normally be specified closely enough to be able to evaluate a single item, skill, or construct without too many extraneous variables; in other words, it helps if a criterion can relate to a singularity. • A criterion should be assessable, in that it should be possible to ascribe a hierarchy of attainment. • A criterion should have some relationship to the whole, in that it should not be evaluating a tangential aspect of attainment. • A series of criteria that endeavor to deconstruct a whole should, when taken together, go some way toward formation of an overall impression of the whole. • That which is deemed important, but hard to assess, should not be omitted at the expense of that which is easy to assess, but less important.

272

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

Assessment of Performing The application of assessment criteria as outlined above finds its most ready expression in performing music. In some national contexts, performing music is almost the only one in which music education takes place. In others, performing is part of a more general program of music education. Whatever the system, as with other aspects of musical learning, teachers will need to consider formative and summative aspects of performing separately. According to McPherson and Schubert (2004, p. 64) there are at least four main types of competences that are addressed using assessment criteria in music: technique, interpretation, expression, and communication. These are areas that the teacher will want to assess formatively in order to affect improvement and summatively in order to measure and audit. In the case of contexts where assessment of solo and ensemble performance is deemed appropriate, there are a number of complications. A form of checklist is common that has been proved to be fairly reliable but with little evidence of validity. A vocal performance could be rated on tonal, rhythm, executive technique, and expression, each with subcategories. For example, executive technique may be remarkable because of student posture, diction, vibrato, focused and centered tone quality, and uniform vowel pronunciation. A checklist furnished to judges of ensembles (the checklist necessary to increase reliability) may include performer controlled elements of tone (natural, free, vibrant) dynamics, breath/​stick/​bow management, pitch, and rhythm; each weighted as to its importance, accompanied by an evaluation of the conductor’s interpretation, musicianship, technique, and his/​her management of stage deportment, again each weighted, with deportment carrying the least overall weight in a total score.

Assessment of Composing Many national music education contexts involve composing. This enables students to actively connect with music-​making. It does not normally involve learners in staff notation writing, but is concerned with creating music directly using classroom instruments or information and communication technology (ICT), and is often undertaken as a conjoint group activity. Composing is a creative act, and creativity is notoriously difficult to assess. What the assessment of composing will entail are decisions made by the teacher as to the division between assessment of composing process and assessment of compositional product. Assessment of product can normally be undertaken using teacher or externally devised criteria, and will entail summative assessment strategies. Assessment of composing as process will often entail formative assessment. This means that the teacher needs to enter into

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

273

dialogue with the students with regard to the music they are producing, using the formative strategies outlined above. (It is important to note that assessment of composing needs to be separated from that of performing; it is the composing aspect that should be to the fore here.) Composing in general music classes often entails a series of stages, including generative, revising, and organizational. The role of the teacher in formative assessment is to help the learners work their way through these stages, aiming at helping them realize their ideas. Intentionality can be a key factor, which is why formative assessment strategies, with their emphasis on discussion and feedback, are important. In a study of the criteria used for assessing composing in Australia, Beston found that teachers tended to utilize composition-​specific criteria wherein “each composition generates specific groups of criteria which centre predominantly on applications of musical concepts” (2004, p.  37). It was also found that “teachers avoid criteria in their judgments which are less quantifiable or more challenging, such as originality” (p. 38). In Sweden, in a study of composing using ICT (Nilsson & Folkestad, 2005), it was found that it was through discourse that young people’s creativity could best be understood. This again emphasizes the key role that formative assessment plays in taking learning forwards.

Assessing Informal Music Learning With the rise of informal musical learning, such as the Musical Futures program in the United Kingdom (www.musicalfutures.org.uk), new demands are being made on teachers with regard to assessing informal learning. What will be of importance here is the notion of assessing development, and this is again process-​based. In many ways this has links with the way composing is assessed, in that intentionality is again key. Here the role of the teacher is to help the learners with understanding what it is they wish to achieve, and then trying to remove barriers that prevent them from achieving it. This entails knowing what the learners wish to achieve, again a formative assessment judgment.

Conclusion Assessment in music education is a complex and contested area. There are no easy answers. Assessment of musicality, of musical performances, of composing, of improvising all bring their own challenges. In this chapter we have only begun to scratch the surface of the topic. For many teachers, working in situations where

274

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

performativity and accountability are the watchword, the role of assessment in day-​ to-​day teaching and learning has assumed significance. Both summative and formative assessment are essential in secondary school music, and both must be done well. We have pointed out the dangers of an overreliance on assessment assumptions, and have made suggestions as to how assessment can be used for the purpose that music teachers are likely to be most focused on in their everyday working: improving the learning of all pupils.

Reflective Questions

• How do you employ formative assessment in your teaching? • How do your pupils know what to do to improve? • Who are the results of assessments in music education aimed at? You? The pupils? Parents? School management teams? District auditors? • Why do you teach what you do? Does assessment inform it? If so, how? • What use do you make of tests and test scores? Why? • Do you have a clear idea as to what improvement in what you teach entails? How do you articulate this to the learners?

KEY RESOURCES Brophy, T. S. (2000). Assessing the developing child musician:  A guide for general music teachers. Chicago: GIA Publications. Brophy, T. S. (ed.). (2008). Assessment in music education. Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on assessment in music education, Florida. Chicago: GIA Publications. Colwell, R. (2002). Assessment’s potential in music education. In R. Colwell & C. P. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 1120–​1158). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity:  A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–​1013. American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Assessment in the Secondary Music Classroom

275

Beston, P. (2004). Senior student composition:  An investigation of criteria used in assessments by New South Wales secondary school music teachers. Research Studies in Music Education, 22(1), 28–​41. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 215–​228. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 68. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Classroom assessment is not (necessarily) formative assessment (and vice-​versa). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (pp. 183–​188). 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. part II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–​67. Brookhart, S. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brookhart, S. (2014). How to design questions and tasks to assess student thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brookhart, S. (2015). Performance assessment: Showing what students know and can do. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International. Brookhart, S. (2016). How to make decisions with different kinds of student assessment data. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chuang, M.-​J. (2007). A class portfolio can be feasible in general music classes. In T. S. Brophy (ed.), Assessment in music education. Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on Assessment in Music Education. University of Florida (pp. 259–​272). Chicago: GIA Publications. Colwell, R. (2007). Music assessment in an increasingly politicized, accountability-​driven educational environment. In T. S. Brophy (ed.), Assessment in music education. Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on Assessment in Music Education. University of Florida (pp. 3–​16). Chicago: GIA Publications. Colwell, R. (2016). Tergiversation today:  Interpreting validity. In T. S. Brophy, J. Marlatt, & G. Ritcher (eds.), Connecting practice, measurement, and evaluation. Chicago:  GIA Publications. de Oliveira, A. (2000). Street kids in Brazil and the concept of teaching structures. International Journal of Music Education, 35(1), 29–​34. Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2008). Assessment for learning and teaching in secondary schools. Exeter, UK: Learning Matters. Gardner, J. (ed.) 2012. Assessment and learning. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing:  Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press. Harlen, W. (2005). Trusting teachers’ judgement: Research evidence of the reliability and validity of teachers’ assessment used for summative purposes. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), 245–​270. Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. London: Sage. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-​analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge. Holmes, A. V., Gokturk, D., Aguilar, B. E., & Chen, J.-​J. (2010). Assessment “over the ocean”—​outside the US. In T. S. Brophy (ed.), The practice of assessment in music education: Frameworks, models, and designs (pp. 95–​102). Chicago: GIA Publications. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 17–​64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education & Praeger Publishing.

276

Martin Fautley and Richard Colwell

Kane, T. J., Kerr, K. A., & Pianta, R. C. (eds.) (2014). Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Mansell, W., James, M., & Assessment Reform Group. (2009). Assessment in schools. Fit for purpose? A  Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London:  Economic and Social Research Council, Teaching and Learning Research Programme. McPherson, G., & Schubert, E. (2004). Measuring performance enhancement in music. In A. Williamon (ed.), Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 61–​84). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murphy, R. (2007). Harmonizing assessment and music in the classroom. In L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 361–​388). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Nilsson, B., & Folkestad, G. (2005). Children’s practice of computer-​based composition. Music Education Research, 7(1), 21–​37. Reimer, B. (1992). What knowledge is of most worth in the arts? In B. Reimer, R. Smith, & K. Rehage (eds.), The arts, education, and aesthetic knowing: Ninety-​first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 20–​50). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Rusinek, G. (2008). Disaffected learners and school musical culture: An opportunity for inclusion. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 9–​23. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, and education. London: Routledge. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Chapter 18

THE COMMUNITY MUSIC FACILITATOR AND SCHOOL MUSIC EDUCATION Lee Higgins and Brydie-​Leigh Bartleet

Community music facilitators move in and between many diverse settings. They can be found facilitating local music activities in arts centers, schools, sporting grounds, recording studios, places of worship, living rooms, and a wide range of other community contexts. This chapter specifically focuses on community music facilitators who have been invited into the school environment to stimulate or establish active music-​making opportunities. As skilled music leaders, these facilitators emphasize active participation, sensitivity to context, inclusivity, and a commitment to diversity in their practice. They seek to create relevant and accessible music-​ making experiences for school students that integrate activities such as listening, improvising, inventing, and performing. On the whole, they are committed to the idea that everybody has the right and ability to make, create, and enjoy their own music. As such, they seek to enable accessible music-​making opportunities for those they are working with, and are consciously encouraging and developing active musical knowing while acknowledging both individual and group ownership of the music that they make. There are of course many musicians and music educators throughout the world who work in these ways. However, what distinguishes community music facilitators is their connection to local, national, and international

278

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

organizations that support, advocate, and describe their activities under the banner of community music (Bartleet & Higgins, 2017). From a pedagogical perspective, community music facilitators strive to work within flexible learning, teaching, and facilitation modes and are committed to multiple learner/​teacher relationships and processes. They aim for excellence in both the processes and products of music-​making, and these are commonly relative to the individual goals of the students. In this way, community music facilitators recognize that the students’ social well-​being and personal growth are as important as their musical development, and therefore advocate lifelong musical learning. As a common characteristic, community music facilitators are also aware of the need to include disenfranchised and disadvantaged individuals or groups, recognizing the value of music in fostering intersocietal and intercultural acceptance and understanding. Although community music facilitators predominantly work outside formal instructional settings, when they do work with schools their programs are most vibrant and sustainable when both parties—​the community music facilitator and the school—​work in partnership (Bartleet, 2012). It is through collaboration and a sense of shared purpose that a dynamic relationship can be fostered that enriches the cultural life of the school and its curriculum. For example, community music facilitators can provide ensemble experiences for students and access to repertoire, styles of music, and approaches to composition that go beyond what is routinely studied in the classroom. Likewise, community music facilitators can provide teachers and students with access to music with cultural specificity, as well as related instruments and performers. In such cases, community music facilitators are able to offer rich cross-​cultural resources for classroom use. In turn, school music teachers are able to provide access to relevant teaching resources and pedagogical models that might not customarily be used by community music facilitators in the other settings they traverse. School music teachers are often highly skilled musicians themselves, and are also able to provide community music facilitators with rich musical resources for their programs in schools. Such collaborations between community music facilitators and schools can cultivate mutually beneficial links between school music studies and local music activities. Coll and Deane (2008) present a wide range of practical examples from the United Kingdom in their book Music and the Power of Partnerships. The interaction between creative music practitioners and young students has a relatively long history. For example, the influence of the “composer-​teacher” was seen throughout the twentieth century, with the likes of Igor Stravinsky, Arnold Schoenberg, and Paul Hindemith, all of whom shared musical ideas and techniques with students in their studios (Pitts, 2000). The identity of the community music facilitator as interventionist—​that is, a musician who consciously opens spaces for musical happenings—​can also be traced through this lineage. It especially has resonance with the experimental music vocabulary of composers and educators in the 1960s and 1970s such as John Paynter, Peter

The Community Music Facilitator

279

Aston, George Self, John Cage, and Murray Schafer. Although functioning as “a house divided,” experimentation through contemporary music was a significant feature of the secondary school curriculum in the United Kingdom in the 1970s (Higgins, 2012), and as Bruce Cole (2000, p. 140), suggests, “it is highly unlikely that community artists [or community musicians in the United Kingdom] would have flourished to the extent they have without schools to work in and without the impetus provided by education innovation”. During the 1970s there were significant changes in classroom teaching practices reflecting the adoption of creative group work. In short, these music educators had the desire to transform the classroom into something resembling a laboratory or “workshop” space. As a space for experimentation, the workshop was seen to provide an environment more conducive for young people to explore music and music-​making. Randall Allsup (2016) also makes a case for the classroom as laboratory. This radical approach to teaching placed emphasis on creativity, expression, spontaneity, and cooperation—​attributes synonymous with what we now might think of as community music. It is also here, in the changing educational climate of the late 1960s and 1970s, that the musician-​in-​residence—​a forerunner to the type of community music facilitator we are describing—​became a feature within schools. More often than not, the musician-​in-​residence was a supplement to the existing music elements of the school curriculum rather than an invested educational collaborator. This can be seen in the proposals of the influential Yale Seminar on Music Education held in the United States in 1963 (Palisca, 1964). Among other things those participating made recommendations for musicians-​in-​residence and for musicians on tour and/​or living in the community to be introduced to the schools as musicians, composers, or scholars. The Contemporary Music Project (CMP), an initiative that originated through the placement of young composers in public schools throughout the United States, also reflects an approach to teaching and learning that has its emphasis on creativity. Beginning in 1959 with a grant from the Ford Foundation, the CMP ran until 1973 and attempted to generate a space through which the music profession in the United States might open its mind toward change and innovation (Mark, 1996). In Canada, the John Adaskin Project began in the 1960s and performed a similar function by providing challenges to the existing order, and developing new methodologies and materials (see http://​adaskin.musiccentre.ca/​). Likewise, in 1981, Australia’s Musica Viva (an independent professional performing arts organization that has been running since 1945) extended its educational activities to make live music accessible to school children through interactive tours and musician-​in-​ residence programs. Such programs were designed to present live music to children in schools in a way that enhanced their learning in music, supported teachers in achieving music education outcomes, and provided employment and training opportunities for Australian musicians (Barkl, 2005). This program has continued to grow and now reaches over 300,000 students annually across metropolitan and regional Australian schools.

280

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

These approaches can be found in the work of Peggie (1997), where he outlines a number of the practical issues relating to community musicians working in schools. In particular, he explores the importance of team building, timing, and preparation, as well as reflection on the nature of “musical reality” (which is often different for students, teachers, and community music facilitators). Peggie’s work (1997) also offers a useful sequential model of the stages that a collaborative community-​school project might go through:  setting a context, exploring, observing, creating, testing and rewriting, rehearsing, and performance or presentation and reacting. Such approaches resonate strongly with the Musical Futures approach, which also fosters new and imaginative ways of engaging young people in music activities (Hallam et  al., 2010; Hallam, Creech, & McQueen, 2016). These innovative developments over the past 50  years in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia have paved the way for the current generation of community music facilitators who are presently working within school environments. Community music practitioners demonstrate a diverse range of pedagogical approaches but share the aim of creating a community without hierarchical or oppressive structures (Higgins & Willingham, 2017). For example, Gillian Howell’s work with new arrival youth in Australia illustrates some of these approaches (e.g., Howell, Higgins, & Bartleet, 2017).

Approaches of Practice Community musicians who work in schools often refer to themselves as facilitators rather than teachers. This is not necessarily a criticism of teaching, but rather a way of distinguishing an approach that resists the hierarchical connotations often associated with teaching standardized or preset curricula in schools.1 Derived from the French facile (meaning to make “easy”) and the Latin facilis (meaning “easy to do”), facilitation is concerned with encouraging open dialogue among different individuals with differing perspectives. Christine Hogan (2002, p.  57) usefully describes a facilitator as “self-​reflective, process-​person who has a variety of human, process, technical skills and knowledge, together with a variety of experiences to assist groups of people to journey together to reach their goals.” As a complex practice, facilitation has grown throughout the second half of the twentieth century in areas such as business, education, and social development policy and management. Its evolution extends from educators such as John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Alexander Sutherland Neill, Kurt Hahn, and Malcolm Knowles.2 It also includes Edgar Schein’s “process consultancy” and the radical developments within action research discourse from practitioners such as Jean McNiff and Jack Whitehead (2002).3 In addition, person-​centered counseling, the approach pioneered by Carl Rogers, has also played a significant role in this developing field. Likewise, Robert

The Community Music Facilitator

281

Chambers has been influential in developing participatory methodologies for use in the developing worlds.4 The community music facilitator’s emphasis on reflexive lifelong learning, not governed by set curricula, echoes Paulo Freire’s notion of conscientization, the ongoing process by which a learner moves toward critical consciousness. There are close links between the community music facilitator’s approach to libratory education, outlined in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 2000) and developments in critical pedagogy (Abrahams, 2007; Schmidt, 2005), social justice (Gould, 2007; Gould et  al., 2009; Jorgensen, 2007; Hess, 2014), lifelong learning (Jones, 2009; Myers, 2007; Kruse, 2013), and informal approaches to music education (Folkestad, 2006; Green, 2008; Karlsen & Vakeva, 2012; Schippers & Bartleet, 2013). If facilitation is the mechanism for enabling active music-​making opportunities, the notion of the “workshop” or “laboratory” provides both a conceptual and a physical environment through which community music facilitators commonly work within schools. The term “workshop” is most often associated with inclusivity, experimentation, creativity, and group work (see Benson, 2010; Doel & Sawdon, 1999). In music education, it was during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s that ideas surrounding the workshop and the laboratory were being utilized in the manner we are describing here, and exponents included many of the composer-​ teacher pioneers mentioned above. In terms of practice, the desire of these pioneers was to transform the classroom into a physical space more conducive for young people to actively explore music and music-​making. This might be as simple as reorganizing the room’s layout, for example, moving the chairs and tables to one side. As such, the workshop can also be seen as a contingent structure that enables an open environment where active and collaborative music-​making can be fostered. Such a concept resonates strongly with Small’s (1996, p. 213) idea that creative activity should be placed “firmly at the centre of musical education.” Music education should foster and harness human desires for musicking; in other words, taking part, in any capacity, in a musical performance (Small, 1998). As music is an open structure that permeates and is permeated by the world, the music workshop is an ideal site through which one can create what might be described as a “deterritorialized space.” Following Deleuze and Guattari (1988), deterritorialized workshop spaces also produce change through freeing up fixed physical, mental, and spiritual relations, and seeking the opportunity to expose new relationships. Through this sense of openness and focus on relationships, the workshop becomes a touchstone through which diversity, freedom, and tolerance might flow. Consequently, pedagogical practices that work within these “workshop” or “laboratory” structures are actively involved in the pursuit of equality and access beyond any preconceived limited horizons. Over the past few decades community music facilitators have continued to pursue and develop these ideals, using workshops and facilitation as their means of achieving a democratic space favorable to both skill building and creative music-​making capacity. As we turn toward our illustrations of practice, these approaches can be seen in action.

282

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

Illustrations Community Drumming Workshops in Schools: Powers Percussion Drumming circles are commonly found in community music settings around the world, and provide useful illustrations of the approaches to practice we have just described. These highly popular activities are known for encouraging an inclusive form of music participation based on an improvised approach. When taken into school settings they can provide students with liberating musical experiences that foster deep social and cultural interactions. To explore how such ideals work in practice, this section briefly focuses on the Powers Percussion program in the northwest United States. This program is run by community music facilitator Mark Powers, who is a musician-​in-​residence for a number of elementary, middle, and high schools. In addition, he facilitates percussion-​based Correctional Education programs in adult and juvenile facilities. Of particular relevance to this chapter are the workshop programs Powers runs in schools. His Sights and Sounds of Ghana workshops focus on the music and culture of the Ewe people of West Africa. Drawing on Powers’s studies in the village of Kopeyia in 2003, in these workshops he explores life, music, and school in Ghana with his students. In this cross-​cultural exchange, he introduces them to the complete family of drums, bells, and shakers of the Ewe people, as well as kpanlogo drums of the Ga, “talking drums” of the Dagomba, djembes, and a 14-​key balafon. In his Junk Jam workshops, Powers then shows school students how to discover “found sounds” and explore the percussive possibilities within common everyday items, such as 5-​gallon pails, garbage cans, automotive brake drums, and soda can shakers. In these workshops students learn how to creatively transform ordinary objects into musical instruments (see Smith, 2008). Powers is now developing more workshop programs for schools that focus on the musics of Puerto Rico and Cuba. In the Puerto Rican workshops he will introduce students to the island’s bomba and plena styles of music, song and dance and the Cuban program will include congas, batá drums, and other percussion. In addition, Powers is developing a program that explores Asian metal instruments, such as a variety of gongs, Buddhist prayer bells, elephant bells, and khong wong lek from Thailand. From a pedagogical perspective Powers’s workshops in schools aim to expose students to different musics from around the world, and also their cultural contexts. This usually includes an introduction to aspects of a region’s music through traditional instruments, playing techniques, song lyrics, audio and video of performances, traditional dance, and language. Powers also wears typical clothing from the region and allows students to handle the region’s textiles and currency, thus giving them a taste of everyday life in the cultures about which they are learning. Given the range of activities that Powers facilitates in these workshops, they provide a vibrant integrated arts experience that caters to a range of learning styles. Powers is also mindful

The Community Music Facilitator

283

of the music, art, and social science education standards that school teachers are required to meet, and emphasizes that each of his workshop programs “is designed to touch on many of these areas, helping them reach necessary outcomes” (Mark Powers, personal communication, December 29, 2009). Such drumming workshops can provide school students with a highly rewarding musical, cultural, and social experience. Powers believes the success of his workshops stems from their energetic and interactive nature, where students are led to develop teamwork skills and nurture their creativity as they explore different musical styles, cultures, and traditions: “I think that learning should be fun and I strive to let my passion for the world’s diverse music and people be evident throughout my time with the students” (Mark Powers, personal communication, December 29, 2009).

Community Songwriting Workshops in Schools: Dandenong Ranges Another powerful and widespread form of community music activity is group songwriting. Like drumming workshops, songwriting workshops can also provide empowering and transformative learning experiences for school students. As Denborough (2002) puts it: As holders of community knowledge and pride, songs can lift the spirits and hold them aloft. The physical act of singing together, of making music together, can also be transformative. This seems especially so if the process resonates with cultural traditions of community song-​making and music-​making which exist in the vast majority of communities. In this way, not only can the song itself act as a musical documentation of the alternative stories of the community, but the community performance of this song can act as a demonstration of the continuation of a joyful and inclusive tradition. (para 6)

To explore how such issues work in practice, in this section we briefly focus on the songwriting workshops run by the Dandenong Ranges Music Council in Victoria, Australia. The Music Council has been funding, facilitating, and teaching community music in this region for 30 years and has made a major contribution to providing learning and performance opportunities for musicians of all ages and abilities. Significantly, the Music Council’s Community Music Centre is located on the grounds of the Upwey High School, allowing for collaborative partnerships between this school, and indeed many other schools in the region, and community music to flourish. Of particular relevance to this chapter are the Music Council’s projects that connect with local schools and focus on issues that have significant local interest, such as fire prevention, water conservation, and local poets and composers. A striking

284

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

example of this can be found in the Fire Cycle Project, which was designed to educate and heal the community after a number of serious bushfires had taken homes and lives in the area in 2005. At the heart of the Fire Cycle Project was a series of informal songwriting workshops with local schools, fire brigades, and park rangers. The project also involved the commissioning of new music and an integrated arts program designed to tell the community’s fire stories through music, dance, and the visual arts. It also involved the production of a fire education CD made by local community musicians and fire brigades, a firefighters’ Torchlight Parade, and a large-​scale community concert that involved hundreds of participants. These songwriting workshops were run by community music facilitator and songwriter John Shortis and a local music therapist. They were designed to not only educate school students about fire prevention but also assist them to express their grief over the devastation that was caused by the bushfires. In the local schools, Shortis brainstormed ideas and issues with the students about what had happened, and their feelings and reactions to the events, and incorporated their words and ideas into the resulting songs. He followed a similar process with a group of local firefighters who wrote a song about fire education and prevention. The way this process was facilitated by Shortis was critically important to ensure community engagement, as Bev McAlister (founder of the Music Council) observes: This John Shortis has so much integrity with the group he’s working with that he takes their exact words. Like with the “Song of the Fireys” it was “What do you want to say to the community?” And I think their . . . verse was about fire education and one bloke said, “Oh, clean up your block or get a shock!” . . . And it’s what you do before the fire arrives that gives you a better chance to survive and that became the chorus of that song! (Bev McAlister, personal communication, September 14, 2007).

The songs that resulted from these workshops were then recorded with a local school choir and adult choir and launched at the Torchlight Parade. At the major Fire Cycle performance the local fire brigade stood up alongside the school students and performed their songs to great community acclaim. These songwriting workshops not only allowed school students to cope with the grief and bewilderment they felt about this tragedy on an individual level but also taught them the importance of connecting with their local communities through music in order to rebuild their lives after such a tragedy.

Community Music in the School Curriculum: Musiko Musika Some of the most effective examples of community music facilitators’ work in schools occur when their workshops are actively integrated into the school curriculum. In

The Community Music Facilitator

285

doing so, these facilitators are able to collaborate with teachers to bring to the curriculum a number of the pedagogical ideals we have explored in this chapter so far. The importance of such a move is echoed by Jorgensen (1995) when she calls for grounding the music curriculum in a particular place and moving to an ever-​ broadening view, ensuring that all learners come to understand their place within a growing community, value differences as well as similarities, feel connected to others, accept and love their own musical traditions, and are empowered to change those things that should be changed and embrace new perspectives. (pp. 80–​81)

To explore such issues further in this section we focus on the Musiko Musika program in the United Kingdom, which was designed to bring music and music-​ making into the community through a variety of education projects. This program was founded in 1998 by Mauricio Venegas-​Astorga and Rachel Pantin. Venegas-​ Astorga has a background in setting up cultural groups and workshops in his home country of Chile in South America, and Pantin has a background in Western classical music, having trained at the Royal Academy and Guildhall School of Music and Drama. Initially Venegas-​Astorga submitted an application to the Performing Right Society Foundation for funding for an education project in songwriting, which he subsequently developed in partnership with Pantin, believing that the partnership would lend the project a broad basis of skills and experience. Out of that initial project in seven schools in London, a number of other projects with others schools have developed. The programs cater to all ages and levels of ability, including special needs schools. Of particular relevance to this chapter are the workshop programs Venegas-​ Astorga and Pantin ran in conjunction with local schools. Due to the priorities of funding bodies and the need for specialist support for music at the school level in the United Kingdom, a large amount of their work was carried out in this area. In particular, Musiko Musika ran long-​term residencies in primary schools offering a regular weekly program of workshops, projects, and instrumental teaching. In these workshops, a range of cultural and curricular links were explored, including Early Years counting skills (linking with instruments and rhythms from various cultures), design and technology (linking with Latin American instruments and rhythms at Key Stage 1), and mathematics (linking with Indian scale patterns at Key Stage 2). There was reference to the national music curriculum within the planning; however, Venegas-​Astorga and Pantin suggest that the level and range of activities they offer also significantly extends the curriculum. Underpinning their workshops is a respect for cultural diversity in music education that stems from their very different social, cultural, and musical backgrounds. From a pedagogical perspective, Venegas-​Astorga and Pantin’s workshops in schools specifically cater to the different dynamics of each age group with whom they are working. The musical and curricular elements of their workshops emphasize listening, cooperation, self-​discipline, leadership, respect for others, and concentration on a particular task. The resources provided by Venegas-​Astorga and

286

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

Pantin—​which include lesson plans, printed worksheets, and audio CDs of musical extracts, examples, and rehearsal tracks—​also ensure a sense of continuity between the workshops and the curriculum, and the ongoing use of these materials by the classroom teachers. This illustration points toward the importance of linking community music workshops to the school curriculum, and the importance of building strong relationships with schools in order to foster these collaborations. As Venegas-​ Astorga and Pantin explain, we place great importance on the long-​term relationships with schools, communities and individuals, nurturing the social relationships and responding to the specific needs of participants, teachers, etc. We insist on maintaining the links and contacts with the people that we share our music and knowledge with (Mauricio Venegas-​Astorga and Rachel Pantin, personal communication, December 30, 2009).

Venegas-​Astorga and Pantin also place great emphasis on inclusivity and high-​ quality outcomes. They are always innovating and learning—​most things they do as an organization are self-​taught, and this philosophy is passed on to the school students with whom they work.

Benefits and Challenges As these illustrations have shown, music programs in schools can be greatly enriched and extended by the participation of community music facilitators. Having said this, we are mindful that promoting this idea of enrichment or enhancement is somewhat problematic, as interactions such as those we have illustrated might better be argued for as the norm rather than an added bonus. In order to maximize these potential relationships one might conceive of these interactions as partnerships, and treating them as such could help increase local social capital. For example, partnerships of these kinds can provide opportunities for strengthening the school’s relationship with its immediate locality, raising its profile with other schools, and enhancing the part it plays in the economic, cultural, and social life of its community. As partners, the music teacher and the community music facilitator might benefit from the acquisition of new skills, a broadening of professional context, development of a wider understanding of music from different social and cultural perspectives, and an exposure to different teaching strategies. Indeed, Peggie (1997) makes a telling truism when he suggests that schools provide valuable resources for the community music facilitator. Mauricio Venegas-​Astorga and Rachel Pantin concur that by working in schools community music facilitators are able to maintain a strong connection to the social and cultural reality of the world they live in. They suggest “musicians should be strongly connected to the community to have the right to speak, sing

The Community Music Facilitator

287

or compose, to celebrate on behalf of the community” (personal communication, December 30, 2009). As a result of such partnerships, school music teachers might also find that their established modes of assessment of students’ ability and potential are challenged, leading to a reappraisal of current curriculum or a profound analysis on personal teaching style and approach. Equally, inspirational class teachers may cause community music facilitators to reflect on their professional practice. Openness to collaboration through mutual respect can yield excellent opportunities through which both community music facilitators and school-​based teachers can enrich and extend their working methods. For the students, effective music partnerships may help develop their understanding of the wider community and their role within it. Through positive teamwork this can build self-​confidence and provide a platform through which a distinctive musical voice may be heard. Collaborations of this nature can of course introduce new skills and approaches to music, but can also usefully ground these in “real world” experiences. As Mark Powers suggests, the greatest benefit of having community musicians teaching in school settings is that they are often “gigging” professionals. They are involved with music and the arts in general, on a constant basis. A teaching musician with a high level of experience, expertise and passion for their craft will inevitably draw students in, simultaneously gifting them with both education and inspiration (personal communication, December 29, 2009).

As was shown in all the illustrations above, well-​crafted music workshops may provide ensemble experiences for students, either to consolidate and extend those provided in schools or to introduce experiences that are outside what the school can make available on its own. Through participation in such ensembles, students can access repertoire, styles of music, and examples of pieces of music for analysis beyond the music that is most commonly studied in classrooms (for a detailed discussion on community ensembles, see ­chapter 49, vol. 1). With the concept of partnership in mind the more “common” musics associated with school music education may be expanded to embrace other ways of musicking. Direct exposure to a community music facilitator with complementary skill sets increases the likelihood for authentic and continuous music-​making experiences. The impact is all the more powerful when there is a sense of legacy, as in the case of the three illustrations given in this chapter, rather than short-​term novelty. If collaborations between community music facilitators and teachers are founded on values associated with mutual respect and students’ musical learning and understanding, then the development of innovative and appropriate approaches to teaching and learning can have a lasting impact. An essential feature of any successful collaboration is the implementation of appropriate methods for evaluation and quality assurance (Schippers & Bartleet, 2013). Unfortunately, this aspect of school/​community music projects is too often overlooked because of a lack of time, funding, or expertise. The implication of this can be a lack of continuous support, whether in terms of money, resources, or

288

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

goodwill. It also means that the project has no tangible documentation that could be effectively used for distribution and dissemination. This is certainly one of the significant challenges for any collaboration. Examples of evaluation practices appropriate to school/​community music projects can be found in a range of research projects and community programs, where qualitative assessments of case studies are featured (see, e.g., Bartleet et  al., 2009; Bartleet, 2012; Bragg, Manchester, & Faulkner, 2009; Soto, Lum, & Campbell, 2009). Bringing community music facilitators into school settings to collaborate with teachers clearly requires careful planning, which is largely likely to fall onto school music teachers, possibly causing a significant impact on their workloads. This is an issue that must be taken into consideration by school management. One of the challenges is to ensure that community music facilitators entering schools have all the necessary legal and professional documentation. Mauricio Venegas-​Astorga and Rachel Pantin accept such a responsibility, believing that community music facilitators need “to be able to accommodate and to be humble, while also requiring that the work is respected.” They also suggest: “communication with staff, teachers, admin staff and heads is critical. . . . You need to be able to respond to different situations and to remember that a school is a world of its own, with its own structures, community, problems, strengths, and weaknesses” (personal communication, December 30, 2009). Having said this, the potential benefits to school music programs are substantial, and obstacles can be overcome through planning and setting achievable goals and through open dialogue with all contributors. Rather than perceiving the integration of community music facilitators into school music programs as additional work to be covered, these activities could be seen as enhancing existing topics and alleviating expectations on the provision of performing groups. In situations of an overcrowded curriculum and increasing expectations placed on music educators in schools to cover classroom teaching, training of instrumentalists, the running of ensembles, and responses to regular expectations of the school year, community music facilitators can also provide support through partnership. As the illustrations in this chapter have shown, they can create and stimulate resources for teaching topics and ensembles to perform at school events.

The Future As this chapter indicates, community music facilitators can provide music educators working in schools with models of a range of teaching practices, which can connect to a wide diversity of learning styles, especially in socially and culturally diverse environments. Likewise, music educators working in schools (who tend to have formal education qualifications) can provide pedagogical models for community music practices. Both positions have much to offer each other in this respect. Some specific pedagogic issues that relate to community music (but often do not apply in schools) mean that facilitators in community music groups have skills and

The Community Music Facilitator

289

knowledge that many school-​based music educators have not had the opportunity to develop. Narrowing this gap can improve the credibility and authority of community music facilitators, and create a basis for a fruitful school-​community dialogue. An example of how this type of relationship might influence school music practices can be found through the Musical Futures project. Initially funded through the Paul Hamlyn Foundation in 2003, Musical Futures instigated an initiative to find new and imaginative ways of engaging young people (aged 11–​19) in music activities in the United Kingdom. Asking questions surrounding the factors affecting the disengagement of young people with sustained music-​making activities, this project presented a series of models and approaches that could be adapted and personalized to individual students’ needs. The aim has been to make music learning as practical an activity as possible, done “with” and “by” students, not “to” and “for” them (Renshaw, 2005; Price & D’Amore, 2007; D’Amore & Smith, 2017). Research conducted by the Institute of Education, London, into the efficacy of the Music Futures program has indicated that it has the potential to enhance pupil motivation in relation to music and enhance the quality of learning and teaching. In addition, this research has shown that Musical Futures may contribute to greater enthusiasm among pupils for taking up music at secondary level (Hallam et al., 2010; Hallam, Creech, & McQueen, 2011). Schools in Australia introduced the Musical Futures Program in 2010 as part of a state-​by-​state rollout, and the program is also used in some Canadian schools (see http://​www.musicalfutures.org.uk/​). In order for the connections between schools and community music facilitators to reach their full potential, music educators in schools can also be encouraged to consider creative ways local community music facilitators can assist in curriculum implementation. They can, for example, provide teaching content; allow access to ensembles for student performance opportunities; and link to topics being studied, such as music from culturally diverse backgrounds. Likewise, community music performers/​facilitators can be encouraged to consider ways of integrating activity with school performance schedules. Finally, one might suggest that being a good school and having a good music program will never be enough. Imagining and constructing appropriate partnerships between community music facilitators and school music may create a stronger and authentic pathway into a world of lifelong engagement with music. From this we suggest that future success in community music and school music relationships hinges on:

• Schools recognizing that music education must be a partnership between school teachers and community music facilitators • The development of a general school policy that seeks to engage with the social, cultural, and economic life of its surrounding community and thus reduce a prevailing sense of an “inside” and an “outside” • A greater urgency to increase openness toward creative and cultural exploration through a mixture of formal, non-​formal, and informal ­music-​ making environments • Adequate funding being made available to simulate and support musical interactions between schools and their communities

290

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

Reflective Questions

• What are the advantages for music teachers, students, and schools in forging a relationship with local community music facilitators and vice versa? • What are the logistical issues teachers and schools might face when working alongside a community music facilitator and how might they overcome them? • What are the logistical issues community music facilitators might encounter when working with schools and how might they address them? • Are there any examples you know that exemplify the sorts of partnerships described here? What are the salient features of these projects and how might their success be measured?

KEY SOURCES Bartleet, B.-​ L., & Higgins, L. (eds.). (2017). Oxford handbook of community music. New York: Oxford University Press. Bartleet, B.-​L., Dunbar-​Hall, P., Letts, R., & Schippers, H. (2009). Soundlinks: Community music in Australia. Retrieved from Brisbane: https://​trove.nla.gov.au/​version/​44562650 Higgins, L. (2012). Community music:  In theory and in practice. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Higgins, L., & Willingham, L. (2017). Engagement in community music:  An introduction. New York: Routledge. Schippers, H., & Bartleet, B. L. (2013). The nine domains of community music: Exploring the crossroads of formal and informal music education. International Journal of Music Education, 31(4), 454–​471. Veblen, K., Messenger, S. J., Silverman, M., & Elliott, D. J. (eds.). (2013). Community music today. Landham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

WEBSITES Dandenong Ranges Music Council: www.drmc.org.au. Musiko Musika: www.musikomusika.org. Musical Futures: www.musicalfutures.org.uk. Powers Percussion: www.powerspercussion.com.

NOTES 1. Constantijn Koopman (2007) discusses the community musician/​teacher in relation to Phil Mullen’s assertion that community musicians do not teach, they explore.

The Community Music Facilitator

291

Although we might still generally resist the term “teacher,” as it can carry many negative connotations for the sorts of participants who engage in community music experiences, we can agree that good teaching is good facilitation. 2. John Dewey (1859–​1952) advocated that teachers should create conditions for learning that guide rather than direct or impose. He emphasized cooperative power and valued individual experiences. See Dewey (1997[1938]). Maria Montessori (1870–​ 1952) developed child-​centered, experiential, multisensory learning and encouraged children to have self-​discipline and responsibility for learning. See Montessori (1912). Alexander Sutherland Neill (1883–​1973) advocated a libertarian approach to schooling and founded Summerhill in England in 1924. See http://​www.summerhillschool.co.uk/​ pages/​index.html. Kurt Hahn (1902–​87), a German-​Jewish educator, founded the Outward Bound movement as an antithesis of the authoritarian schools in Germany during the interwar period. See http://​www.kurthahn.org/​. Malcolm Knowles worked extensively within adult learning and coined the term “andragogy” (as opposed to “pedagogy”: child learner). According to Knowles this phrase best described the characteristics of the adult learner, who flourishes more successfully with a facilitative approach. See Smith (2002b). 3. Edger Schein removed the idea of “expert consultancy” within the doctor-​patient model. See http://​web.mit.edu/​scheine/​www/​home.html. 4. Carl Rogers (1902–​1987) popularized the term “facilitator” in the 1970s and 1980s. He proposed that education should maximize the freedom of the individual to learn by removing threats, boosting self-​esteem, involving students in learning planning and decision-​making, and using self-​evaluation techniques. See Smith (2002a) and Rogers (1951). Robert Chambers championed a developmental methodologies approach called Participatory Rural Appraisal, defined as a family of approaches and methods to enable rural people to share, enhance, and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, so as to plan and act. See Chambers (1983).

REFERENCES Abrahams, F. (2007). Musicing Paulo Freire:  A critical pedagogy for music education. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 223–​238). New York: Peter Lang. Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom:  Toward an open philosophy of music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Barkl, L. (2005). Professional musicians and interactive education programs: Skills, knowl­ edge and expertise required and implications for training. In Proceedings of the national education and the arts symposium: Backing our creativity: Research—​policy—​practice (pp. 27–​33). Surrey Hills, NSW: Australia Council. Bartleet, B.-​L. (2012). Building vibrant school-​community music collaborations:  Three case studies from Australia. British Journal of Music Education, 29(1), 45–​63. doi:10.1017/​ s0265051711000350 Bartleet, B.-​L., Dunbar-​Hall, P., Letts, R., & Schippers, H. (2009). Soundlinks: Community music in Australia. Brisbane:  Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre, Griffith University. Bartleet, B.-​ L., & Higgins, L. (eds.). (2017). Oxford handbook of community music. New York: Oxford University Press.

292

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

Benson, J. F. (2010). Working more creatively with groups (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Bragg, S., Manchester, H., & Faulkner, D. (2009). Youth voice in the work of creative partnerships: A report for creative partnerships. London: Creativity, Culture and Education, Open University. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Harlow, UK: Longman. Cole, B. (2000). Community music and higher education: A marriage of convenience. In Making music work (pp. 139–​150). London: Royal College of Music. Coll, H., & Deane, K. (eds.). (2008). Music and the power of partnerships. Matlock, UK: National Association of Music Educators. D’Amore, A., & Smith, G. D. (2017). Aspiring to music making as leisure through the Musical Futures classroom. In R. Mantie & G. D. Smith (eds.), Oxford handbook of music making and leisure (pp. 61–​79). New York: Oxford University Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). Introduction: Rhizome. In A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (pp. 3–​25). London: Continuum. Denborough, D. (2002). Community song writing and narrative practice. Dulwich Centre. http://​www.dulwichcentre.com.au/​community-​song-​writing.html [accessed September 28, 2010]. Dewey, J. (1997[1938]). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone. Doel, M., & Sawdon, C. (1999). The essential groupworker:  Teaching and learning creative groupwork. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–​145. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum. Gould, E. (2007). Social Justice in music education: The problematic of democracy. Music Education Research, 9(2), 215–​240. Gould, E., Countryman, J., Morton, C., & Stewart, L. (eds.) (2009). Exploring social justice:  How music education might matter. Waterloo, ON:  Canadian Music Educators’ Association [CMEA/​ACME]. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school:  A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Hallam, S., Creech, A., & McQueen, H. (2011). Musical Futures:  A case study investigation. Final report from Institute of Education University of London for the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Retrieved from London:  https://​www.phf.org.uk/​reader/​inspiring-​music/​ musical-​futures/​ Hallam, S., Creech, A., & McQueen, H. (2016). What impact does teaching music informally in the classroom have on teachers, and their pedagogy? Music Education Research, 1–​18. doi: 10.1080/​14613808.2015.1122749. Hallam, S., Creech, A., Sandford, C., Rinta, T., & Shave, K. (2010). Survey of musical futures: A report from Institute of Education, University of London for the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Hess, J. (2014). Radical musicking: Towards a pedagogy of social change. Music Education Research, 16(3), 229–​250. Higgins, L. (2012). Community music:  In theory and in practice. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Hogan, C. (2002). Understanding facilitation: Theory and principles. London: Kogan Page. Howell, G., Higgins, L., & Bartleet, B.-​L. (2017). Community music practice: Intervention through facilitation. In R. Mantie & G. D. Smith (eds.), Oxford handbook of music making and leisure (pp. 603–​619). New York: Oxford University Press.

The Community Music Facilitator

293

Jones, P. (2009). Lifewide as well as lifelong:  Broadening primary and secondary school music education’s service to students’ musical needs. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2/​3), 201–​214. Jorgensen, E. (1995). Music education as community. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 29(3), 71–​84. Jorgensen, E. (2007). Concerning justice and music education. Music Education Research, 9(2), 169–​189. Karlsen, S., & Vakeva, L. (2012). Future prospects for music education: Corroborating informal learning pedagogy. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press. Koopman, C. (2007). Community music as music education: On the educational potential of community music. International Journal of Music Education, 25(2), 151–​163. Kruse, N. (2013). “Without U, it’s just kulele”: Expressions of leisure and ’ohana in an intergenerational ukulele club. International Journal of Community Music, 6(2), 12–​18. Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education. 3rd ed. New York: Schirmer Books. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. 2nd ed. Oxon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method: Scientific pedagogy as applied to child education in “the children’s houses” with additions and revisions by the author. (Trans. Anne E. George). New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company—​http://​digital.library.upenn.edu/​ women/​montessori/​method/​method.html [accessed September 28, 2010]. Mullen, P. (2002). We don’t teach we explore, aspects of community music delivery. Paper presented at the ISME Community Music Activities seminar, Rotterdam, Netherlands, August 2002. http://​www.worldmusiccentre.com/​uploads/​cma/​mullenteachexplore.pdf [accessed September 28, 2010]. Myers, D. E. (2007). Freeing music education from schooling: Toward a lifespan perspective on music learning and teaching. International Journal of Community Music, 1(1), 49–​61. Palisca, C. V. (1964). Music in our schools, a search for improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Peggie, A. (1997). Musicians go to school. London: London Arts Board. Pitts, S. (2000). A century of change in music education: Historical perspectives on contemporary practice in British secondary school music. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Price, D., & D’Amore, A. (2007). Musical Futures:  From vision to practice. London:  Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Renshaw, P. (2005). Simply connect: “Next practice” in group music-​making and musical leadership. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-​centered counseling. Boston: Houghton-​Mifflin. Schmidt, P. (2005). Music education as transformative practice: Creating new frameworks for learning music through a Freirian perspective. Visions of Research in Music Education. Special Edition. Critical Pedagogy for Music Education, 6(1). http://​www-​usr.rider.edu/​ ~vrme/​v6n1/​index.htm [accessed September 28, 2010]. Schippers, H., & Bartleet, B.-​L. (2013). The nine domains of community music: Exploring the crossroads of formal and informal music education. International Journal of Music Education, 31(4), 454–​471. doi:10.1177/​0255761413502441. Small, C. (1996). Music society education. London: Wesleyan University Press. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performance and listening. London: Wesleyan University Press. Smith, M. (2008). PickleHerring and Marlsite projects:  An interdisciplinary approach to junk music-​making. International Journal of Community Music, 1(2), 159–​168.

294

Lee Higgins and Brydie-Leigh Bartleet

Smith, M. K. (2002a). Carl Rodgers, core conditions and education. In The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. http://​www.infed.org/​thinkers/​et-​rogers.htm [accessed September 28, 2010]. Smith, M. K. (2002b). Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-​direction and anadragogy. In The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. http://​www.infed.org/​thinkers/​ et-​knowl.htm [accessed September 28, 2010]. Soto, A. C., Lum, C.-​H., & Campbell, P. S. (2009). A university-​school music partnership for music education majors in a culturally distinctive community. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(4), 338–​356. Werder, R. H. (ed.). (1965). New challenges for music education. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Chapter 19

CREATIVITY IN THE SECONDARY MUSIC CLASSROOM Oscar Odena

The purpose of this chapter is to review key research in, and practices of, creativity in music education in order to assist the reader to better understand what is known about musical creativity in teaching, learning, and development between ages 12 and 18. The chapter aims to support teachers in promoting musical creativity in their classrooms. The choice of studies reviewed focuses on key research-​based publications, mostly based in formal education settings, and embracing all types of methodological approaches. More extensive literature reviews are available elsewhere (Burnard, 2007; Odena, 2016a; Webster, 2009). “Creativity” is a complex and fairly vague term, and in order to think about creativity in music education, it is necessary to look at the concept of creativity itself. The current wide use of the word in many fields, including arts and science, has arguably led to confusion between the different uses of the term. The first part of the chapter is devoted to an examination of some of the meanings attached to the word “creativity,” drawing on aesthetics, musicology, psychology, and education. The second part focuses on a conceptualization of musical creativity for the secondary classroom, incorporating a cross-​cultural perspective. The chapter concludes with a discussion of promising practices and some final considerations.

296Oscar Odena

The Complexity of the Concept of Creativity How Is “Creativity” Identified in Different Research Traditions? A review of the ever-​expanding academic literature on general creativity reveals four distinct but closely related main study themes: the characteristics of the creative person, the facilitating environment for creativity, the creative process, and the assessment of creative products (Odena, 2001; Odena & Welch, 2009). The proportion of enquiries focused on creativity in music education is small when compared with the investigations on general creativity, but its total number is nevertheless considerable. Hickey (2002) reviewed over 170 creativity research studies in music and arts education published since the 1940s, and came up with a similar categorization comprising four main themes: studies describing what students of different ages do when they are described as creative (developmental studies), enquiries focusing on the elements that appear to converge for creativity to occur (confluence studies), explorations of the thought processes of people engaged in creative activity (cognitive studies), and studies centered on the evaluation of creativity in musical outputs (assessment studies). Intermingled with these themes are two versions of creativity, which have been called the traditional and the new. The traditional, which is implanted in the uses of our ordinary language, refers to people who bring new things into being, such as professional sculptors or composers, and who are recognized by the community. This type of creativity has also been called historical creativity or Creativity with a capital C. In contrast, the new concept (in the sense of being contrasted to the traditional) is related to the psychological notion of imaginative thinking and can be displayed in any valued pursuit. It is a thinking style manifested in actions. This latter concept has broad applications in the school context, but confusion is likely to arise “when accounts of the new concept are presented as if they were characterizations of the traditional one,” for instance when we try to evaluate the students’ work using historical creativity criteria (Odena & Welch, 2009, p. 417). For instance, a rock song by a group of students aged 13 may do poorly if compared with the song that is at number 1 in the rock charts, but for the students the process of composing it may have been an outstanding creative achievement in its own right. In generalist education the word “creativity” has been largely associated with progressive and reconstructivist movements, where there is an emphasis on the interests of the students and democratic ways of behaving. Progressive education was widespread at the beginning of the twentieth century, and terms such as “problem-​centered enquiry” and “growth” were used for defining education by Dewey (1938) and his contemporaries. After World War II, the rapid development of science and industry shifted the emphasis of many scholars to the production of

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

297

materials for developing “creative ability.” Research in the field grew rapidly, and a turning point is acknowledged to be Guilford’s (1950) presidential address to the American Psychological Association. In the 1960s and 1970s research programs multiplied, for example under the headships of Barron and Torrance, the Journal of Creative Behavior was established (1967), and a great deal of research on general creativity has been carried out since then. For the interested reader, Kaufman and Sternberg’s volumes (2006; 2010)  offer comprehensive reviews on creativity research and its worldwide development. Contemporary Western education scholars seem to agree that creativity should be seen as a universal potential, a view that relates to the concept of creativity defined as a thinking style manifested in actions. In psychology the word “creativity” is an umbrella label encompassing different aspects of personality, ability, and motivation. In education, the interest in creativity has been strong in the perspective of informal and child-​centered teaching methods, where the same term carries different connotations, which are linked to creative teaching (Savage & Fautley, 2007). Research into creativity, thus, is pursued from several knowledge areas and may be approached from the four different themes named above: person, environment, process, and product. In the following sections further consideration is given to these four themes. In spite of the confusion over its meanings, at least two concepts of creativity, traditional and new, continue to permeate thinking on the topic.

Creative Students Psychological studies approach creativity focusing on the individual. The main areas of research are cognitive styles and personality characteristics. The assumption here is that it is possible to identify a range of attitudes and behaviors that are indicative of a creative student. Some researchers study those human beings assumed to have creative ability in an attempt to identify particular personality traits. Research in this area has tended to view creativity as a normally distributed trait, and there have been attempts to correlate creative ability with intelligence, although they have been inconclusive (not least because of the difficulty in agreeing what factors to measure for “intelligence” and “creativity ability”). Personal skills facilitating creativity would include sensitivity to pinpoint and restate problems in ways that provide new insights; fluency to generate large numbers of relevant ideas; flexibility to switch to a new approach; originality to generate unusual ideas; analysis to break down a problem into its constituent parts; and synthesis to see connections between its parts and other areas of experience (Cropley, 2001). Some studies have concentrated their attention on the personality of adults deemed as creative. For example, Cropley (2001) argued that apart from special cognitive processes, creative individuals display similar personal traits. Descriptions of the creative personality reflect an impulsive, nonconformist, and intelligent individual capable of sustained hard work, coupled with a desire to seek change, and who may show a certain disregard for observing detailed plans and rules. In Western musicians, high levels of imagination and sensitivity have been linked to

298Oscar Odena low self-​esteem and increased anxiety (Gaunt & Hallam, 2009). A combination of these traits can lead to apparently disorganized behavior, which would be linked with a romanticized or traditional view of creativity. Hickey (2002) outlines a discrepancy in the developmental models of creativity emerging from general creativity and music education studies. Researches in general creativity indicate a U-​shaped development model. This “begins with a period of high creativity in early childhood (marked by play and freedom from conformity),” which “is followed by a slump in the middle years, and then re-​emerges in a more sophisticated form of creativity for some in adulthood” (p. 400). In contrast, music education studies of creative development indicate that the model is progressive, and that children go through a sequence of different stages of mastery. It is nevertheless difficult to compare the models as they focus on the development of different skills. While the U-​shaped model appears to measure complexity and originality, understood as novel to the professional field, the music education studies measure music mastery skills in the students’ compositions (metric regularity, phrase structure, completeness), embracing the new concept of creativity as imagination successfully manifested in a valued pursuit. What clearly emerges from the literature is that the personal abilities of the students will affect the way they approach any classroom activity with a degree of creativity (defined as a thinking style).

Environment: The Context for Creativity While research into creativity during the 1960s was characterized by studies about cognitive processes and personality traits, the environment necessary for developing creativity was considered more deeply during the later decades of the last century. Csikszentmihalyi (1994), after spending 20 years studying the personality and thinking of creative people, came to the conclusion that to begin to figure out what creativity was, the context in which individuals operate was of paramount importance. Several educators have given descriptions of the classroom environment or climate more conducive for the development of creativity (Odena, Plummeridge, & Welch, 2005; Savage & Fautley, 2007). Three main aspects appear to form the classroom climate: the physical climate, the intellectual climate, and the emotional climate. Some advice in order to enhance pupils’ originality or the ability to generate unusual ideas—​which is seen as a major aspect of creativity—​is with reference to the layout of the room for a range of activities (physical climate). Resources would need to be available to support problem solving, group work, exploration, and aesthetic appreciation. Students would need to be encouraged to use the resources without strictly fixed boundaries. Concerning the intellectual climate, students would need to be challenged in order to stimulate their abilities, taking into account their capabilities. With regard to the last feature of the classroom climate, the emotional aspect, students would need to feel safe to take risks and to experiment without frequent fear of failure, and their efforts would have to be rewarded. Although the whole classroom is considered a resource for learning,

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

299

in creating the right climate or “setting the stage” the educators play a key role. Creativity, in the new sense of the term, starts with the teacher and not with the classroom setting. Teaching that encourages children to be creative may flourish whatever the physical resources. Cropley (2001) analyzes the role of the teacher in fostering creativity in similar terms. He suggests that the educator’s role is to overcome stumbling blocks to the emergence of divergent thinking (understood as the ability to find multiple ways to solve a problem), which he sees as the main aspect of creativity. In doing this, teachers need to eliminate negative attitudes toward divergence, prevent contempt from peers, and reduce anxiety about correctness or incorrectness.

The Creative Process As with the term “creativity,” there seem to be two opposing views of the creative process in the literature, the systematic and the romantic. The systematic view involves a good deal of hard work and persistence, and creativity is seen as an everyday affair. Creative work is rational and somehow ordinary. For example, many professional composers and songwriters timetable their work in a daily routine. This is in opposition to the romantic view, characterized by irrationality, mystery, unconsciousness, and even ideas such as “previous incarnations” (see, for example, Deliège & Harvey, 2006). A good example of the romantic view is Mozart’s explanation of his own composing: When I am . . . entirely alone, and of good cheer—​say, traveling in a carriage, or walking after a good meal, or during the night when I cannot sleep; it is on such occasions that my ideas flow best and most abundantly. Whence and how they come, I know not; nor can I force them . . . my subject enlarges itself . . . and the whole stands almost complete and finished in my mind. (quoted in Vernon, 1970, p. 55)

During the last century many researchers tried to describe the creative process through examining the stages in which individuals were involved throughout. A  widely accepted theory by Wallas (1926) illustrated four different stages in the formation of a new individual’s thought: • Preparation: the stage during which the problem is investigated in all directions • Incubation: the stage during which the individual is not consciously thinking about the problem • Illumination: the appearance of the “happy idea” together with the psychological events that immediately precede and accompany that appearance • Verification: closely resembles the first stage; fully conscious, the individual works out much the same series of logical rules for controlling verification as those used in the preparation stage

300Oscar Odena Later in the twentieth century this model was developed to acknowledge better the individual’s systematic effort. For example, MacKinnon (1963) added a ­skills-​acquisition stage at the start of the process that he called separation, in which individuals would develop the techniques and the elements of experience that make it possible for them to consider a problem. This stage would be followed by concentration (effort to solve the problem), withdrawal (going out of the field, recession from the problem), insight (the exhilarating “Aha” experience) and verification. Finally, Abbs (1989) proposed a model without a withdrawal period that had the following five stages:  the release of impulse, stirring the psyche; working in a medium or representative embodiment; realization of the final form using critical judgement; performance, taking the work into the community; and responses and evaluation by the community. It is not difficult to see similarities between these models, outlined in table 19.1, as well as a gradual shift toward the new definition of creativity. The first two stages of MacKinnon and Abbs could be placed within Wallas’s preparation first stage. His incubation would include MacKinnon’s period of withdrawal, but does not explicitly appear in Abbs’s model, where working in the medium is continuous. The illumination stage is named by MacKinnon as insight and may be compared to Abbs’s realization of the final form, although this realization is more of a logical work progression than a “Eureka” moment. Finally, MacKinnon and Abbs’s final stages illustrate Wallas’s verification stage. Abbs incorporates the evaluation of the work by the community, acknowledging that what is produced will be assessed by a group of individuals according to their particular norms. A relevant idea for the secondary classroom emerging from the above theories is that a period of focused effort is required in order to consider a problem. This is not acknowledged in romantic explanations of the process by successful musicians, who often omit any references to focused study perhaps due to not seeing it as work. While working in something they like, their perception of time is minimized, a situation described as being in a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Table 19.1 Stages of the creative process Wallas (1926)

MacKinnon (1963)

Abbs (1989)

Preparation

Separation (skills acquisition) Concentration

Release of impulse Working in a medium

Incubation

Withdrawal

(Working in a medium continued)

Illumination

Insight

Realization of the final form

Verification

Verification

Performance Responses and evaluation

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

301

The Creative Product There are writers who seek to identify creativity in terms of characteristics of the product. Scholars who follow this approach have the main aim of recognizing aesthetic value in a product, and argue that aesthetic value is objective because it is drawn from agreement among individuals: if a product can be shown to have certain qualities then its maker can be regarded as being creative. Following this line of reasoning, criteria for making judgments of aesthetic value are always required, regardless of the difficulty in spelling them out. However, the concept of objectivity being understood as irrefutable truth was debated by philosophers, as it indicates a certain approach to the truth rather than the truth itself (Hamlyn, 1972). To some extent, aesthetic value is measured by agreement among individuals, no matter when or where the recognition of value is done. Since the 1970s social psychologists have carried out empirical studies concluding likewise that “a product is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree” on its assessment (Amabile, 1996, p.  33). These investigations highlighted the difficulty of having objective universal criteria for identifying creativity, similar to the difficulty of having them for identifying beauty. In some enquiries researchers tried and failed to separate creativity from aesthetic appeal and technical quality in the evaluators’ ratings, suggesting that in practice creativity is often related to other qualities, and supporting the idea that a product will be deemed as creative to the extent that it is novel but also useful or valuable to the task at hand (Amabile, 1996). Some writers claim that creativity in products cannot be analyzed because doing so will destroy the mystery of artistic creation. This claim is related to the traditional concept of creativity. Nevertheless, if the new definition of creativity as imagination successfully manifested in any valued pursuit is accepted, then it might be said that anybody can be creative. This would appear to refute the objective view of aesthetic value. As mentioned, confusion arises when accounts of the new concept are presented as if they were characterizations of the traditional. Burnard (2006), drawing on Csikszentmihalyi (1999), observes that identifying musical creativity in the classroom depends on the relationships that hold between the musical opportunities and constraints, the students, and the teachers assessing “quality” using a particular set of norms. In doing this, what may be a creative achievement for a particular student may not be assessed as creative in the adult world, not just because of different level of skill but because of different norms, for example where the activity involves musical practices relevant for the students that may prove problematic within the classroom. Indeed, accepting the students’ musicianship from their communities of practice is a contested issue. Some educators advocate for an increased recognition of the students’ musical creativity practices (Barrett, 2005), while others doubt “whether it makes sense to separate” the students’ from the adults’ musical creativity (Elliott, 2005, p. 16) and advocate for activities focused on the music cultures of the adult world (Elliott, 1995).

302Oscar Odena

Conceptualizing Musical Creativity for the Secondary Classroom The intention in the last section was to present previous research in order to demonstrate various approaches to the study of creativity. Clearly, there has been a marked shift of meaning from the “traditional” to the “new” concept. Within the latter concept, creativity is imaginative thinking or the process of having novel ideas and making something of them. Many contemporary educators seem to agree that creativity should be seen as a universal potential. The next two sections focus on the notion of creativity in the secondary music classroom and outline some developments in different countries.

Can Musical Creativity Be Taught? If So, How? Secondary school music teachers in many Western countries are required to develop a degree of musical creativity in their classrooms. The terminology used in music curricula is not always clear: the word “creativity” is sometimes used to refer to the development of imaginative thinking in students (or general creativity) and other times is used to list activities under the label of “creative musical activities” such as composition and improvisation. In music education the concept of creativity is commonly associated with composing and improvising, but arguably, there is also a degree of creativity involved when students perform and recreate music, and when they respond to a recording or a live music concert. What seems clear is that music teachers need to develop a concept of creativity in order to inform what they do, because the choice and implementation of musical creativity practices depend on the teachers’ background and understanding (Odena & Welch 2007; 2009). It is through this understanding of creativity and the process that takes place when we are creative that teachers can better place themselves to facilitate the emergence of creativity in their classrooms (Philpott, 2007). Depending on their approach, some scholars’ conceptualizing of musical creativity starts with an operational definition, while others present contrasting definitions so as to let readers develop their own. For example, Hickey (2002, p. 398) says at the outset that “a creative product is one that is both novel” (to its creator) and is “appropriate” or “valuable” in the context of a domain. Philpott (2007) does not give a single definition and highlights instead some tensions between the new and the traditional concepts, letting the readers determine the extent to which they believe creativity is a possibility in their own classrooms. Addressing student teachers, he observes that “it is only by allowing pupils to make music in many

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

303

different ways that opportunities for creativity appear” (p. 124). The following are some points for consideration when facilitating creativity in the secondary classroom presented under the four themes discussed previously:

Creative Students • Level and type of challenge: educators can plan suitable stimulating challenges in relation to the students’ developmental stage, setting them a problem that they have a realistic chance of solving (Philpott & Spruce, 2007). Students do better when the activity fits how they think: “children with creative and practical abilities, who are almost never taught or assessed in a way that matches their pattern of abilities, may be at a disadvantage in course after course, year after year” (Sternberg, 2006, pp. 5–​6). It is important for teachers to know their students, to design activities with scope for developing all their potential—​for instance, in a composition assignment, offering to particularly creative individuals additional open-​ ended and challenging tasks (more instruments, different musical materials, extended structures).

Environment: The Context for Creativity • Resources: teachers can enhance the potential for creativity by building up rich and stimulating resources, which can be used to both initiate and support the creative process. These resources can be musical and extramusical: a variety of recordings, instruments, films, computers, and music software (examples of technology uses are discussed in c­ hapter 20 in this volume (Ruthmann & Dillon) and in volume 5, part 2, edited by Himonides). • Time: students require time to satisfactorily complete their work, yet creativity in music cannot be given limitless class periods. Teachers need to be sensitive to the students’ needs and flexibly adapt the expectations as a unit of work progresses. • Emotional environment: students need to feel capable of taking risks and sense that their contributions are respected and valued. This positive environment can be built and sustained through dialogue between students and teacher with constructive positive feedback (Odena, 2014a; Reese, 2003).

The Creative Process • Levels of structure: it is advisable to include various levels of structure when promoting creativity, depending on the students, the task, and the desired musical learning. For example, teachers might set students a free choice about which problems to solve and how to do it; open-​ended tasks that channel the work through particular stimuli (a poem, an object); a structured problem solving with a limited set of expressive and structural

304Oscar Odena ingredients (Philpott, 2007). All of the above may be done individually or in groups, where students may learn from each other and generate a product in which no single student determines the result (Odena, 2014b; Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). Nevertheless, to increase efficiency, group work needs to be carefully planned, combining it with individual activities and preserving the students’ work (Odam, 2000). • Students’ support: teachers need to facilitate the students’ technical development, by questioning, prompting, and modeling. They need to be models and set up opportunities for other models to be heard, such as older students and external musicians. This requires educators to be creative, for instance “jamming” with students or composing for the class themselves (Leung, 2004; Philpott, 2007). Teachers would have to encourage further development of musical ideas, as novice musicians are likely to be satisfied with their work after a basic exploratory phase (Bolden, 2009; Kennedy, 2002).

The Creative Product • Assessment: the students’ development of creativity skills benefits from their increased understanding of the assessment criteria, which can be obtained by discussing the criteria with them in advance (Odena, Plummeridge, & Welch, 2005). Sharing the assessment of work and developing the criteria with the students can potentially facilitate the emergence of further ideas, as well as develop the students’ self-​assessment skills—​for instance, in a soundtrack composition project for an imaginary advertising campaign, asking them to come up with musical examples that match each of the assessment criteria and letting them give constructive feedback to each other at different stages of the project. Although the above strategies and recommendations may appear to focus on composition activities, they could be used for all types of musical activities, including performance and appraisal. These strategies concur with the optimal environment for creativity outlined from general creativity studies.

Mapping Out Musical Creativity Practices across Different School Traditions Opportunities for musical creativity activities differ between education systems, not least because secondary music education provision is rather limited in many

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

305

countries. While some countries have a policy for music in schools and good physical and human resources, others have well-​intentioned policies coupled with teacher shortages and small budgets that render their implementation unfeasible. Many governments still have little or no provision for music in state-​ funded secondary schools, a fact acknowledged by the International Society for Music Education in an issue of its journal entirely devoted to advocacy (Lindeman, 2005). In places where opportunities for music-​making abound in the community, music can be perceived by policy-​makers as of little relevance for the secondary classroom. If music education is offered, the type of musical creativity practices depends on the local context. The following subsection outlines some of these practices across a number of countries, focusing on their school traditions. The aim is to offer examples of diverse practices within their cultural context (Tate, 2001). Further examples can be found in comparative and research volumes elsewhere (Brand, 2006; Bresler, 2007; Campbell, 2008; Hargreaves & North, 2001; Odena & Figueiredo, 2014).

Secondary School Traditions In countries where musical creativity is an established element in schools there seems to be a historical background to the reported practices coupled with a pedagogy that goes beyond teacher-​centered activities. For instance, in Australia the emphasis on fostering the students’ self-​expression “through music education experiences that are holistic and grounded in creativity” (Campbell, 2008, p. 64) has been explained as resulting from three evolutionary stages since the 1960s. The first stage involved appreciation (listening to a set of recordings), the second was a 1970s phase of performance-​based education often drawing on the ideas of Kodály and Orff, and the third, from the 1980s onward, had a strong emphasis on the process of musical composition as part of teaching and learning (McPherson & Dunbar-​Hall, 2001). In England musical creativity practices have a relatively long tradition. The national curriculum for music states that students should be able to “improvise, explore and develop musical ideas when performing” and to “create, develop and extend musical ideas by selecting and combining resources, within musical structures, styles, genres and traditions” (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2007, p. 182). Music education is compulsory until age 14, and between the ages 16 to 18 students can study toward their A level, whose requirements include developing a portfolio of composition exercises and an original piece. Musical creativity practices in schools go back to the 1970s and 1980s with the work of teacher educators such as Paynter and Vulliamy, who advocated for musical experimentation and contemporary and popular music languages (see, for instance, a review of this period by Mills and Paynter, 2008). A common characteristic of current musical creativity practices

306Oscar Odena is the introduction of a rich variety of music traditions, including the music of the people that settled in both countries in the last century. In England, the debate in recent years has been on whether the students’ preferences should have more presence in the classroom to diminish the perceived gap between music in and out of school (Green, 2008; Welch, 2001). The expectation is that composition activities are integrated with musical understanding, performance, and aural skills, with a focus on the learning process. This involves a reconsideration of the student as the source of knowledge and an increase in the use of music software, as this allows access to sounds that were previously not available to students. Other countries are incorporating musical creativity into curriculum guidelines, but their secondary school traditions appear to be somehow out of tune with developments. In Spain, the 1990s education reform advocated for active engagement in music. Yet most teachers kept a historicist approach to the subject as a result of the absence of specialist music education inspectors, coupled with a declarative teaching tradition, in which teachers deliver all knowl­ edge with the widespread use of textbooks (Rusinek, 2007, 2008). In China, a national symposium held in 1998 called for major reforms including that music education “should encourage musical creativity, rather than adopting the traditional goals of skills acquisition, modeling music teachers and learning music theory” (Yeh, 2001, p.  32). Although independent discovery and exploration is rarely reported in the music classroom—​with the exception of Hong Kong, which has an English school tradition (Leung, 2004)–​recent developments suggest that teachers are moving from an approach focused on performing skills to another that offers students some experiences in musical creativity (Campbell, 2008). Nevertheless, Confucian philosophy permeates classroom settings, where music is treated with care and respect by teachers that are very good at breaking down complex performing skills and at helping students develop these skills (Brand, 2006; Yeh, 2001). In the United States there is no mandated curriculum, but guidance documents such as the National Standards for Music Education include composing and improvising in their list of knowledge, skills, and understanding for all students (Campbell, 2008). The country is at the forefront of research, and an increasing number of studies are being published focusing on music creativity with students aged 12–​18 (Hickey, 2003, 2009; Kennedy, 2002; Webster, 2009). Yet classroom practices across state-​funded secondary schools seem to vary. Current practices may be impacted by funding differences between schools due to local control coupled with a music education tradition focused on performing bands rather than musical creativity (Radocy, 2001). Campbell (2008, p. 82) highlights that some cases of creative composition activity exist in schools beyond jazz and Orff-​based ensembles, although provision is variable and “often dependent on whether the times regard the arts as necessary” for the students’ development.

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

307

Further Research Findings and Promising Practices Pedagogical Creativity Although, as observed, creativity may be evidenced in any musical activity, it appears that composition and improvisation are the ones with most scope for its development in the secondary classroom. A  number of strategies have been found effective in stimulating creativity in composition and improvisation activities. These include integrating music with other subject disciplines (Barnes, 2009), using free improvisation (Hickey, 2009), teaching around expressive problems, employing extramusical ideas and/​or musical features as stimulus (poems, short music extracts), and using structured improvisation as part of the composition process or its performance (Philpott, 2007). However, the possibility of employing any of these strategies will depend on the traditions of the education system, the resources available, and, most important, the teachers. Reflective teaching to develop the right type of activities for each group of students appears to be the first step for teaching creatively. This refers to the teachers’ pedagogical creativity, which would involve being able to stimulate curiosity and finding one’s own teaching style to promote creativity, as no prescribed formula appears to work for everybody (Savage & Fautley, 2007).

Selecting and Developing Classroom Activities The reference list contains further ideas for activities that may be developed following the suggestions outlined above. However, literal borrowing of ideas can be problematic. There are voices in non-​Western cultures that advocate for the development of activities without culturally exogenous stipulations. In a book comprising practices from a number of African countries, Mans (2006) advocates for educational materials based on African experience. These materials would embrace a holistic “musical arts education” approach, encompassing the learning of musical traditions, dances, construction of instruments, storytelling, and music as an intrinsic part of the communities in which the learning originates. The development of such activities would benefit from context-​aware educators who might develop several expressions simultaneously, including singing and dancing, reflecting the social dimension of making music together. In the West, the social dimension of adolescent music-​making has been recently proposed for the classroom. Following enquiries on the music practices of popular musicians and their application to formal settings, Green (2008) put forward a model for informal pedagogy that relies on peer and group learning. Some of its pedagogical principles include group work with friends; composing integrated with

308Oscar Odena listening and performing throughout the learning process; and aural work through listening and copying, engaging in self-​and peer-​feedback (once more, embracing these principles will depend on the classroom context).

Final Considerations Music education research has shown how students’ creative development is linked with the opportunities they encounter in and out of school. Due to the significance of music for identity formation during adolescence, it seems relevant that teachers allow for the classroom use of some of the students’ repertoire and practices, if they aim to engage everybody. Out-​of-​school music is highly significant between the ages of 12 and 18, and it would seem appropriate to link it with the classroom activities, providing a variety of opportunities for the development of music skills. An emphasis on self-​expression and the emotional elements of music has the potential of facilitating student engagement, making teaching more rewarding (Hallam, 2010). There is a renewed interest in musical creativity in many education systems, as parents expect the best for their children and students are increasingly more engaged in using and making music. However, advocacy is still needed to support music education for all secondary students, and in some countries, to tolerate it (see, for instance, Myanmar’s government persecution of teachers in Brand, 2006). Beyond the focus on music skills development, creative musical practices are being employed to increase inclusion of disaffected adolescents and to develop social cohesion in postconflict societies (Burnard, Dillon, & Ballantyne, 2008; Odena, 2010, 2014b, 2016). It seems that in some contexts, practical activities to develop musical creativity need to gain acceptance into formal settings by making use of its “other-​ than-​musical” benefits. Once acceptance is gained, these practices are there to stay, as they are part of a more rounded music education.

Reflective Questions

• Consider your creativity in relation to your own professional activities. Do you recognize any of the stages of the creative process in your work? • What is the environment more conducive to creative work that works best for you? And for your students? • Consider your country’s music education provision in secondary schools. Can you see any similarities and differences with any of the ideas presented in this chapter? • What can you learn from the ideas suggested here for your practice?

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

309

KEY SOURCES Odena, O. (ed.). (2016). Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. London and New York: Routledge. Edited paperback comprising recent enquiries from ten countries on musical creativity topics, including composition in the classroom and secondary school teachers’ perceptions of creativity. Webster, P. (ed.) (2009). Part 8: Composition and improvisation. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 401–​428). Oxford: Oxford University Press. This part of this comprehensive handbook contains chapters on the psychology of composition and students as creative thinkers in music.

REFERENCES Abbs, P. (1989). A is for aesthetic:  Essays on creative and aesthetic education. London: Falmer Press. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The social psychology of creativity.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnes, J. (2009). The integration of music with other subject disciplines, particularly other art forms. In J. Evans & Ch. Philpott (eds.), A practical guide to teaching music in the secondary school (pp. 91–​99). London: Routledge. Barrett, M. (2005). A systems view of musical creativity. In D. J. Elliott (ed.), Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues (pp. 177–​195). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bolden, B. (2009). Teaching composing in secondary school: A case study analysis. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 137–​152. Brand, M. (2006). The teaching of music in nine Asian nations:  Comparing approaches to music education. Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press. Bresler, L. (ed.). (2007). International handbook of research in arts education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Burnard, P. (2006). The individual and social worlds of children’s musical creativity. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician (pp. 353–​ 374). Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Burnard, P. (ed.). (2007). Creativity. Section 11 in L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 1173–​1290). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Burnard, P., Dillon, S., & Ballantyne, J. (2008). Guest editorial. Special Issue:  Pedagogies of inclusion in music education:  International perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 5–​7. Campbell, P. S. (2008). Musician and teacher: An orientation to music education. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 135–​ 158). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

310Oscar Odena Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–​335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deliège, I., & Harvey, J. (2006). Postlude: How can we understand creativity in a composer’s work? A conversation between Irène Deliège and Jonathan Harvey. In I. Deliège & G. A. Wiggins (eds.), Musical creativity: Multidisciplinary research in theory and practice (pp. 397–​404). Hove, UK: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. J. (ed.). (2005). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gaunt, H., & Hallam, S. (2009). Individuality in the learning of musical skills. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 274–​284). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. London and New York: Routledge. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–​454. Hallam, S. (2010). Music education: The role of affect. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (eds.), Handbook of music and emotion (pp. 791–​817). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamlyn, D. W. (1972). Objectivity. In R. F. Dearden, P. H. Hirst, & R. S. Peters (eds.), Education and the development of reason (pp. 246–​259). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (eds.) (2001). Musical development and learning: The international perspective. London: Continuum. Hickey, M. (2002). Creativity research in music, visual art, theatre, and dance. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 398–​415). Oxford: MENC and Oxford University Press. Hickey, M. (ed.) (2003). Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education. Reston, VA: MENC and National Association for Music Education. Hickey, M. (2009). Can improvisation be “taught”?:  A call for free improvisation in our schools. International Journal of Music Education, 27(4), 285–​299. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.) (2006). The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.) (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, M. A. (2002). Listening to the music:  Compositional processes of high school composers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 94–​110. Leung, B. W. (2004). A framework for undertaking creative music-​making activities in Hong Kong secondary schools. Research Studies in Music Education, 23(1), 59–​75. Lindeman, C. A. (2005). Editor’s comments. Special Issue on music education advocacy. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 91–​92. MacKinnon, D. (1963). Identifying and developing creativity. Journal of Secondary Education, 38, 166–​174. Mans, M. (ed.) (2006). Centering on African practice in musical arts education. Zambia: African Minds, for the Pan-​African Society of Musical Arts Education. McPherson, G., & Dunbar-​Hall, P. (2001). Australia. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical development and learning (pp. 14–​26). London: Continuum. Mills, J., & Paynter, J. (eds.) (2008). Thinking and making: Selections from the writings of John Paynter on music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom

311

Odam, G. (2000). Teaching composing in secondary schools: The creative dream. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 109–​127. Odena, O. (2001). The construction of creativity: Using video to explore secondary school music teachers’ views. Educate, 1(1), 104–​122. Odena, O. (2010). Practitioners’ views on cross-​community music education projects in Northern Ireland: Alienation, socio-​economic factors and educational potential. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 83–​105. Odena, O. (2014a). Facilitating the development of innovative projects with undergraduate conservatory students. In P. Burnard (Ed.), Developing creativities in higher music education (pp. 127–​138). New York: Routledge. Odena, O. (2014b). Towards pedagogies of creative collaboration: Guiding secondary school students’ music compositions. In M. S. Barrett (ed.), Collaborative creative thought and practice in music (pp. 239–​251). London and New York: Routledge. Odena, O. (ed.). (2016a). Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. London and New York: Routledge. Odena, O. (2016b). Using specialist software to assist knowledge generation:  An example from a study of practitioners’ perceptions of music as a tool for ethnic inclusion in cross-​ community activities in Northern Ireland. In R. Race & V. Lander (eds.), Advancing race and ethnicity in education (pp. 178–​192). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Odena, O., & Figueiredo, S. (eds.) (2014). Proceedings of the 25th International Seminar of the ISME Commission on Research. Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil. Malvern, Australia: International Society for Music Education. Available at http://​eprints.gla.ac.uk/​99334/​. Odena, O., Plummeridge, C., & Welch, G. (2005). Towards an understanding of creativity in music education:  A qualitative exploration of data from English secondary schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 163, 9–​18. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2007). The influence of teachers’ backgrounds on their perceptions of musical creativity: A qualitative study with secondary school music teachers. Research Studies in Music Education, 28(1), 71–​81. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2009). A generative model of teachers’ thinking on musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 37(4), 416–​442. Philpott, C. (2007). Creativity and music education. In Ch. Philpott & G. Spruce (eds.), Learning to teach music in the secondary school (2nd ed.) (pp. 119–​ 134). London: Routledge. Philpott, C., & Spruce, G. (eds.). (2007). Learning to teach music in the secondary school: A companion to school experience. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Qualification and Curriculum Authority (2007). National curriculum for music key stage 3. London: QCA. Radocy, R. E. (2001). North America. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical development and learning (pp. 120–​133). London: Continuum. Reese, S. (2003). Responding to student compositions. In M. Hickey (ed.), Why and how to teach music composition (pp. 211–​232). Reston, VA: MENC and NAfME. Rusinek, G. (2007). Students’ perspectives in a collaborative composition project at a Spanish secondary school. Music Education Research, 9(3), 323–​335. Rusinek, G. (2008). Disaffected learners and school musical culture: An opportunity for inclusion. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 9–​23. Savage, J., & Fautley, M. (2007). Creativity in secondary education. Exeter, UK:  Learning Matters. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–​92.

312Oscar Odena Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity:  The first 25  years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S(1), 2–​12. Tate, P. (2001). Comparative perspectives. In Ch. Philpott & Ch. Plummeridge (eds.), Issues in music teaching (pp. 224–​237). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Vernon, P. E. (ed.). (1970). Creativity: Selected readings. Middlesex, UK: Penguin. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: Jonathan Cape. Webster, P. (ed.). (2009). Part  8:  Composition and improvisation. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 401–​428). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welch, G. F. (2001). United Kingdom. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical development and learning (pp. 202–​219). London: Continuum. Yeh, C.-​S. (2001). China. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical development and learning (pp. 27–​39). London: Continuum.

Chapter 20

TECHNOLOGY IN THE LIVES AND SCHOOLS OF ADOLESCENTS S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

This chapter advocates a pedagogy where relationships form the basis for developing curricular and pedagogical ways of being with students. A relational pedagogy begins through considering these broad questions: Where are music and technology in the teacher and students’ lives? Where do adolescents make meaning through music and technology? How can teachers develop a community of practice with their students through music and technology? We argue that relationships should be placed at the center of pedagogical and curricular decision-​making. Through this approach, music educators are better equipped to make space for and honor student agency and learning through harnessing the ways adolescents intuitively engage with music and technology.

Two Cultures: Teacher and Student Vignette of a Music Technology Teacher I teach a music technology class in our school’s music technology lab. At each station, I have a computer loaded with MIDI sequencing, audio editing, notation,

314

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon and music theory software, with all computers connected to my teacher station at the front of the classroom. I can stay at the front of the room and listen in to my students working through their piano and theory lessons. My stations are arranged in rows, similar to an ensemble. Students can work at their own pace through our group piano books and use the theory software to help develop their understanding of music notation. I’m working with the technologies that I know best and used in my undergraduate training, but more and more I see my students disengaging during my classes. I see the students in the halls sharing music on their cellphones and iPods, but our school rules do not allow them to be used in our classes. I want to integrate more creative projects, but I don’t know where to start. I know that my students share music online at home through social networks like Facebook and YouTube, but I can’t access those sites in my school because they are blocked. I want to connect more with my students and their music technologies, but I just don’t know where to start . . .

Vignette of an Adolescent Musician I am always listening to music with my friends on my iPod. When I’m hanging out after school or between classes, I often take one of my earbud headphones out and share the latest music I downloaded with my friends on the way to my next class. After school, my friends and I jam on RockBand. This summer, I plan on starting guitar lessons. A few of my friends make their own music in their bedrooms recording using their laptops. They cover tunes they hear on the radio and even make up some of their own songs. Another friend of mine uses Ableton Live, Reason, and ProTools to create dance music. Sometimes I come over to her house and jam on my guitar. Music class in school is okay, but I don’t get to make the kind of music I want to. I play saxophone in the band because my friends are there, but my real instrument is the guitar. I’d like to know more about how to break down songs by ear so that I can play them on my guitar. I’d also like to learn how to compose my own songs. Maybe I can write music for video games some day.

These two vignettes, compiled from case studies of adolescent students and their teachers, illustrate a few of the possibilities and frustrations experienced by teachers and adolescent learners every day in schools. They reveal the very real gap between “school music” and the music in students’ everyday lives. Bridging this gap and connecting with the ways students are able to be musical and use technology outside of schools can present quite a challenge for teachers (Ruthmann, 2006, 2007a). A mutual learning approach can be applied in order to harness intrinsic qualities of both music and technological processes and their capacity to engage students and provide agency for expressive music-​making and learning. The discussion of what we are calling “relational pedagogies” involves developing a relationship between teacher and students that acknowledges the power differentials and provides a clear framework for moral and ethical responsibility. As Alexander (2005) suggests: “pedagogy is best defined, then, as the act of teaching together with the ideas, values and collective histories which inform, shape and explain that act”

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

315

(p.  2). A  relational pedagogy then involves identifying the actions and decisions that are moral, inclusive, and responsive to the students’ need and facilitate meaningful relationships between student and teacher, parents/​community, and student peer interactions. It also refers to the teachers’ musicianship and is concerned with notions of “embodiment, use of space, passion, emotion, empathy, and modeling” in performing arts teaching practice (Aitken, Fraser, & Price, 2007, p. 3).

A Twenty-​First-​Century Student Life Adolescent students place a high value on the relationships they have and develop in their lives. Their day at school is an opportunity to enter into relationships with peers and those who count as friends, teachers, professional staff, and parents. Adolescents develop their relationships in the present with their friends through a variety of technologies and extend these relationships in virtual/​online spaces inside and outside of school. They text and instant message their friends using mobile phones and computers. They interact through social networking sites and post opinions on blogs, as well as in person throughout the day. In many schools in the United States and Australia the use of mobile phones and mp3 players are restricted by policy. The affordability of these technologies has increased access to mobile technology among adolescents to the point where ownership is becoming ubiquitous, even in communities with low socioeconomic status (Pew Research Center, 2009. However, students often maintain access to these technologies through elaborate efforts to conceal them from the policy enforcers. Earbuds are in adolescents’ ears when walking to school or on the bus. Their playlists frame and express their identities, becoming points of assimilation, connection, and difference (Campbell, Connell, & Beegle, 2007). Music is in all of the movies watched and all of the games played. Music influences how they feel and serves as the context for the development and expression of personal identity through genres they associate with and delineate the different communities they might belong to. Music is made, experienced, and felt everywhere in the life of an adolescent.

Quality of Interactions with Technology The portrait of adolescent life described here is perhaps no revelation to many teachers and parents who observe and experience it in schools, workplaces, and communities. However, it is not enough to simply bring these experiences into the classroom. Educators need to examine the qualities of interaction with these

316

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

technologies and identify what aspects of them could be harnessed for learning. Furthermore, the identification of these “ideas, values and collective histories” (Alexander, 2005, p. 2) provides the basis for a pedagogy that develops musicianship through technologically mediated experiences. Music and music-​ making exists as a personal, social, and cultural discourse for students and can drift between passive consumption and active making, and the ways music is made and consumed is enhanced and enabled by accessible technologies. These experiences also occur in informal environments outside schools, and teachers need to consider what happens when we institutionalize these informal learning experiences and what the ethics of “colonizing” these experiences involve. An example of learning from qualities of interaction can be observed in the Mobile Learning Kit (MiLK) project of the Australasian Cooperative Research Centre for Interaction Design (Polson & Morgan, 2007) using mobile phone technologies, text messaging, and a website. In this project, a “treasure hunt” metaphor was employed to teach studies of society and environment. Students discovered aspects of environmental knowledge through answering questions and traveling around an ecosystem and texting the answers to a database that tracked and kept score of their progress. Because the technology of using mobile phones was central to the learning process, students responded by being engaged, demonstrating learning achievements and suggesting that they felt comfortable using mobile phones for communication and that they could work collaboratively with peers to do this. The same exercise could have been done individually in the classroom with pen and marked by a teacher, but this would not have harnessed the personal, social, and cultural meanings gained by undertaking the task in context in this technologically mediated way. This project appropriated ways of learning and communicating taken from students’ informal learning experiences and framed school learning through a game and text messaging using mobile phones. Participants in this project observed that MiLK teaches teachers how we want to learn. This comment simply suggests that the games-​like qualities of experience are engaging, as are the social and collaborative nature of experiences. Furthermore, the use of expressive communication tools (texting on mobile phones and reflecting on blogs) added to the engagement and effectiveness of the learning experiences. In the same way that a treasure hunt game engages students with learning activity through technological mediation, so can collaborative music-​making. Utilizing the qualities of these experiences that are present in the lives of twenty-​first-​century adolescents can help engage students in school settings.

Technology Use Inside and Outside Schools There is, however, a clear disparity between how students use technology outside schools and how they can use technology inside schools. In our research across

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

317

many Western countries we have found that institutional policy constrains access to the internet (Dillon & Brown, 2009). Another major impediment to uptake of technologies is not access but that many teachers do not yet have the expertise or comfort to use these newly emerging technologies in meaningful ways in the classroom (Dillon, 2007a). Leong’s (2003) comparative study of education policy in Singapore, Australia, and Hong Kong suggests a supportive institutional policy combined with in-​service training and genuine access is necessary for change. Institutions tend to risk manage the use of technologies through policy and system constraints. In addition, teachers tend to develop comfort with and choose specific software they use in their own music-​making. A relational pedagogy requires teachers to understand and advocate for technologies and policies that will be supportive of students’ musical expression and learning needs. The difference in comfort level with technology between the teacher and student worlds is often quite wide. The perception of the teacher as “not technological” has an effect on teacher esteem and willingness to explore technologies used by students. The perception of students as “technologically” apt is contentious when we consider the depth of understanding of technology use. Today’s adolescents may have grown up digital, but many are not sophisticated users of these technologies with a deep understanding of their inner structures (Tapscott, 2008). Many adolescents simply use these technologies in the same ways their parents may have used TV, vinyl records, and landline telephones without a deep understanding of the underlying technology.

Musical Identities and Meanings The role of music in youth identity is a critical one. Moving this identity from the iPod at home or the guitar in the garage to in-​school contexts has ethical dimensions that must be considered by teachers. This is evident through considering how music can be used as a means of mediating relationships between cultures or demographics. The ethics implied in the appropriation of music and the consideration of music as a means of social control or as cultural colonialism articulates a tension that can be productive or unethical. While music-​making can provide a common ground between peoples, it can also be a battleground between subcultures. In recent research around informal learning that has manifested itself in the UK Musical Futures project, these kinds of ethical problems are approached by beginning with student-​led collaborative creative activity where students choose the music they wish to perform or record. Lucy Green (2008) refers to this approach as beginning with the delineated meanings of students’ musical interests. Giving students choice activates and recognizes the free exploratory and improvisational qualities of learning manifest in playful experimentation with musical ideas in composition, improvisation or, as with the

318

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

Musical Futures approach, through aural transcription for performance of cover versions. Green found that students engaged with repetition and even failure without boredom when meaning was inherent in music they liked. This illustrates a form of distributed knowledge where the knowledge and understanding valued by students is embedded within the musical style structure. The ethics of this kind of experience are complex, and the approach itself can easily be misinterpreted as a cynical pathway to “real music” or a valueless experience where musical knowledge and understanding may not be achieved. The ethical dimension of this approach is relational. It requires that a teacher develop a relationship with each student that acknowledges what she knows and can do, as well as what she brings to the classroom in terms of expertise, knowledge, and musicianship. Applying students’ informal learning strategies to learning with technology recognizes the students as young musicians with expressive agency, and shows that the teacher has a desire to build rapport with students, rather than simply direct and impose. The difficulty with this approach is the workload involved in managing relationships with students. It is the responsibility of the teacher to facilitate interactions among students so that their individual time is not exhausted.

Case Study: Students’ Experience with Music and Technology in Their Lives In this case study, groups of 25 primary/​elementary school students from four different schools, aged 11, worked with two secondary music specialists to produce recorded performances of songs that addressed the social issue of “bullying” (Dillon & Brown, 2010). Students worked in groups of 3–​4 in a lab of Apple iMac computers, while also using pen and paper at desks and on the floor to develop lyrics and a song structure. This hybrid blend of using electronic and nonelectronic technologies helped manage the use of technology against the quantity of students, while simulating how songs are composed in the real world using lyrical structures on paper and embodied work singing them in groups. Over a six-​week period, meeting for two hours each week, students moved between improvising with a piece of generative music-​making software—​jam2jam (see fig. 20.1)—​on the computers in their groups to create a groove for their lyric and song melody construction. They spent time identifying and deconstructing rap song structures and trying their drafts against their recorded jams. When the song structure and lyric was completed the students then found photos or made posters using image-​editing software to include in their performance. Students were able to take copies of the

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

319

Figure 20.1  “Stand up to Bullies” project.

picture files and movies home or back to their own school using memory sticks. This also enabled the students to practice at home or find new lyrical and visual materials to bring to the next class. While this was not required, many were so engaged with the activity that a great deal of new and more polished material was brought each week. Each group rehearsed a number of performances and then recorded the vocal part over the audiovisual jam as a live recording. In this case, the social aspects of music-​making were most apparent. The activity of songwriting and the ease of access of the improvisational and recording technology led to mature musical and lyrical development, while the process of redrafting lyrics provided an unexpected literacy dimension to the task. The students’ presentation to their parents and peers at a performance evening was affirming and added to the sense of worth students felt with their achievement (YouTube clips of these are available at www.youtube.com/​watch?v=sJHvwPUIkgo.) The following text is a sample of student lyrics: “You get pushed punched knocked around, you get pounded to the ground” (against images of cyber-​bullying with mobile phones and students being bullied). Chorus:  “Bullying no Waay-​ay-​aaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.” A participating teacher observed: The technology seemed to have disappeared in the process of learning, and the students moved between pen and paper lyric writing and highly engaged discussions in both the computer and floor space environments fluidly. . . .

320

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon We found it quite profound. It was the musical activity of songwriting and performance that constituted the engagement factor and the computer provided access to a high quality output (Interview with Author).

A student confided to the researchers at the performance evening that “bullying is not really a problem at our school,” but she loved writing songs. Parents recognized that their children could record a video clip and song, which was a source of pride. Many asked how they could continue engaging their children in this way. The focus for music learning was on creating and performing music. The teachers who participated in this project reported that the technology provided access to the process and amplified the quality of the creative product. As the focus was on the creative activity, the technology became “invisible” in the process. The teachers’ perspective on this suggests that learning how to use the technology often takes priority over an experience where the tool becomes one with the user in the act of expressive music-​making. This particular case demonstrates the importance of social meaning, alongside the inherent meanings defined by the process of songwriting production and performance. The traditional process of teachers wandering through groups to listen and engage in critical discussions fostered important relationships of trust. The students worked with the assistance of secondary music specialists in very focused and productive ways. The relationship between teachers and students showed that students valued the teachers’ expertise as music-​makers. What appeared to facilitate the delineated meaning was the access provided by the generative processes built into the design of the software and the authentic quality of the sounds (Dillon, 2007b). Unlike the seemingly chaotic and skill-​ demanding work with physical instruments and complex recording technology, these factors merge in the process of composing and performing the songs. Teachers’ esteem is important in the classroom, and the noise of instruments and group creative activity is often a reason for not doing such an activity. With computer-​based music-​making, which may be confined to headphones, the perception of “noisy chaos” is contained, and the “authority” of the technology adds to the teacher’s esteem and perception of control. But while the learning process revolved around group self-​directed activity, each group and each lesson had strict time schedules and show-​and-​tell sessions at the end of each class, with clear “what we need to have by next week” goals. There were minisessions where each skill was demonstrated, and the musicological analysis took place with students as colearners. Each session revolved around distinct musical compositional skills and improvisation sessions with the technology and around the technology to try new ideas. The technologies merged with the activity through the acts of exploring and improvising. Students were more able to reflect on these improvisations though re-​viewing a jam2jam video recording of the activity. The presence of a video artefact provided the opportunity for music to be present in the conversation and so that embodied understandings and audio-​visual knowl­ edge could be articulated.

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

321

The above description is an example of how an experience that in “real-​world” sessions might be perceived as difficult and chaotic can utilize technology as a scaffold to frame and structure experience in a more efficient way. This approach provided access to the goal of expressing an understanding of extramusical content. Bullying, how to recognize it, and what to do about it was the learning focus. However, embedded in this work was the development of musical skills of songwriting, rehearsal, and collaborative learning, ensemble, and improvisation and performance skills. These took place through an intrinsically engaging experience with peers. What engaged the students was the inherent meaning of the process. This became relevant because it embedded the real-​world experience of songwriting to a brief, or set of preexisting guidelines, and performance to an audience. Developmental pathways can also be activated when knowledge concepts are identified that are associated with these activities and their quality measured. At the core of the success of these experiences are two things: first, the relational framework between teachers and students and their peers that activates and makes the technology merge with the inherent musical process, and second, how the students engage with the technology and the compositional process. What this case exemplifies is how a music-​making experience where technology is used to mediate quality musical interaction affords access to experiences with learning beyond the music classroom.

Relational Pedagogies for Music and Technology A relational pedagogy begins with an understanding of how to create productive relationships among teacher and students, students and peers, and human engagement with technology. In the section that follows we examine how relationships are built and how we can honor the agency of students through relationships. We then provide strategies for facilitating student engagement through concrete examples drawn from recent research.

Building Relationships Traditional mouse-​driven computer interactions favor individual actions, while today’s touch-​based mobile applications afford social engagement as described by Ruthmann and Hebert in ­chapter 16 of volume 5 of this handbook. When examining the role of technologies in the classroom and in the lives of adolescents, educators should consider how online, nonpresent relationships affect student learning. Humans are shaped by their interaction with other people and things. Buber (1969) suggests that we are constructed by our relationships in “the education of character.”

322

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

So when considering virtual and online communication we need to ask what kind of people are being constructed by these interactions and how do these nonpresent experiences shape or educate character when the interactions may be absent of a physical presence or not in the same time. Heidegger (1977) and Brown (2007) suggest that we ask what technology reveals and conceals and account for these affordances in constructing experiences for learning. From our understanding of the collaborative nature of music experiences in bands, choirs, and ensembles we can suggest that musical practices can act as a counterbalance to nonpresent experiences and ground relationships in the present and social. Ensemble music-​making offers the opportunity for groups of students to work within a ritualized social framework of a rehearsal or performance. To harness this kind of collaborative learning and presentational performance with computers ordinarily involves work around a computer as an instrument for production, as well as performance. In our studies of adolescents’ meaningful engagement with computer and interactive performance technologies, we have observed that students’ meaningful engagement is experienced in personal, social, and cultural contexts (Brown, 2007; Dillon, 2007b; Ruthmann, 2007a). While it is clear that music connects and assures, there are moral and ethical responsibilities involved in how these qualities are applied. What is transferable across school, home, generations, and cultures is relationships and their structure and the power differentials implicit and explicit within them. Teachers can frame and facilitate relationships with and among students through a relational pedagogy that is inclusive, socially just, and culturally relevant, providing opportunities to engage with new music and technologies in ways that lead to lifelong learning.

Honoring Student Agency One important quality of all student learners, especially adolescents, is the desire to understand and to be understood (Blair, 2009). In many school environments this intrinsic quality can often be squashed or inhibited by school policies, curricula, or pedagogy. In many cases, teachers may not be aware of how our traditional processes of teaching may help or get in the way of our students’ agency as learners (Ruthmann, 2008). The needs of students as musicians and learners can be better met when their peers and teachers provide them with the space to understand their world and the opportunities to express themselves and feel heard. As discussed earlier, adopting a relational pedagogy is the start of this process. Implementing a process of understanding how students both experience music and use technology within that experience in and outside of schools is a next step to take. Technology both mediates and extends adolescents’ relationships with each other and the culture in which they live (Ruthmann, 2008). One way to begin making space for our students’ agency is to empower them to create their own contexts around the use of technology in the music classes. Often,

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

323

an initial activity is to lead the class through a lockstep process of how to use a piece of software or a particular technology, rather than starting with a student-​led exploratory experience. But our students enter our classrooms with a deep intuitive knowledge of music and music-​making. Many of them may already be more proficient at using sophisticated music technologies than the teachers, which can be intimidating. However, by starting with exploration, a teacher can learn a lot through observing the intuitive musicianship of his students (Ruthmann, 2007a).

Facilitating Student Engagement Technologies that activate and encourage social activity can provide access to intrinsically motivated and engaged learning. It is important to young people that their relationships can be extended beyond the present communications in school or community social occasions (Dillon, 2007b; Ruthmann, 2007a). The implication for learning and teaching is that learning experiences need to allow space for exploration in personal ways to gain confidence in communicating self to others. Social activity that draws on the youth need for collaborative exploration and “fooling around” with creative materials in an informal way with friends adds a unique sense of combined ownership to the work. In this case the individual creative process is subsumed by the collective output and pride in the relationships and the product. The relationship with a wider culture or subculture also provides affirmation of the individual’s and group’s ability to express something of the culture to the culture. Among internet applications, social media technologies can become invisible (Brown, 2007) to the transaction of music being shared. The music teachers in the jam2jam bullying vignette observed the merging of the music-​making process with the act of communicating and an affirmation of the students’ relationships with others. Examples of this can be found on SoundCloud.com and BandCamp.com for recorded music distribution, Noteflight.com for the sharing of staff notation scores, SoundTrap.com and Splice.com for digital audio projects, Scratch.mit.edu for computer music code, and in comments on YouTube, utilizing music video as one of the communicative transactions between people. These technologies provide a vehicle that facilitates this communication, extends it beyond local time and space, and provides an inclusive and interactive relationship with artists that mere commodity consumption did not afford. Now that a large body of music is downloaded and shared online, record companies and artists alike are creating new relationships with their fans, where the music becomes an artefact of that transaction (Brown, 2009). Acknowledging the role of technology in activating and extending these relationships and identifying a relational pedagogy that provides ethical ways of proceeding is needed to ensure that technology becomes a positive force in schools. Music-​making and musical artefacts have always actuated relationships between self, peers, cultures, and others (Dillon, 2007b). Ensemble music performance is the quintessential model for this

324

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

kind of cultural transmission and self-​affirmation of belonging. Digital technology simply provides extended access and a nonpresent and increasingly widespread and distributed context in which these transactions occur.

An Example of Relational Pedagogy in Practice New developments in online social music technologies can be leveraged to build relationships, honor students’ intuitive musicianship, and engage them in the ways they use these technologies outside of schools. As part of our work investigating the challenges and affordances of teaching music with technology in schools, we observed a music teacher in the United States who used Noteflight.com, a new social music notation website, with his middle and high school students. Rather than formal lessons on music notation, he gave the students the Noteflight.com URL and asked them to work in small groups to compose a piece of music inspired by the study of an abstract visual artwork. The students had to study the artwork and then, without a tutorial on Western music notation or how to use Noteflight, they embarked on a process of exploring the software. By starting with this process and using the artwork as the structural inspiration for the composition, the teacher took on the role of learner, observing how they were using the software, how they were gaining musical inspiration from the artwork, as well as a sense of their intuitive musicianship and musical understanding. Through this process of making space to observe and learn from his students, he was surprised to discover that most of the students in the class were quite fluent with notation . . . much more than he had anticipated. Before the project began, he shared that he had planned on designing an initial composing experience around a simple ABA musical form and limiting the composition to a set number of bars and rhythmic durations. However, he felt that if he began at that prototypical starting point, he might not challenge some students or could overchallenge others, potentially starting the class off negatively. As composing continued, the teacher noticed that the students had a much more sophisticated understanding of music, array of compositional techniques, and notational fluency than he had assumed prior to beginning. Some students had taken private instrumental lessons or had formerly participated in school ensembles. Because this was his first year teaching these students, he was unaware of their prior notational and musical experiences. He chose to begin with a structured composing context that was open enough for students to reveal their prior musical understandings. As the composing task was organized as a group experience, the less experienced students learned from the more experienced, and all were able to make a contribution to the end product. Over several class periods, individual students within the groups were able to access, modify, and contribute to their online scores at home and

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

325

view and listen to the emerging compositions of other groups. As groups began to finish the compositions, the teacher would ask to listen and to share what aspects of the artwork they chose to express through notation and why they chose certain musical techniques. The teacher was also able to listen to the developing compositions, some with very late-​night entries by students, from his personal computer at home. When the compositions were finished, they were shared among the class and posted to the class website for sharing with others at school and beyond. Through analyzing the online compositions and observing the students’ work at school, the teacher had much more assessment information on the interests and capabilities of his students than if he had chosen to do the ABA composition as the starting point. He was then able to follow up with projects for the students taking into account their input and interests. He implemented a pedagogical approach where his relationship with the students and their music was at the center, through creating a space where students could explore and share their intuitive understandings of music in and outside of school. Starting from the students’ musical creations, he built a relationship with them by giving them initial license to explore and express themselves in a social setting through online technologies they were familiar with. He honored their agency as musicians by designing a free but structured environment for their musical and social collaboration at their level of interest and capability. His curricular approach and choice of technology enabled students to continue their in-​class engagement with the composing experience outside school through the Noteflight.com website. This engagement was extended through the posting of the interactive composition online for viewing and commenting by the rest of the class, the school, parents, and the community (fig. 20.2 is an example of a

Figure 20.2  Example of a composition posted on Noteflight.com.

326

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

composition; more are available at http://​web.me.com/​prhsfapa/​Site/​Art-​Infused_​ Composing.html).

Ethical Ways of Proceeding Indigenous Australian scholar Martin Nakata (2002) describes the interface of cultural knowledge as a site where activity occurs and suggests that that activity was necessarily a point of tension. Essentially he advocates the perspective that if there is no tension, then one party is in a position of dominance and potentially quietens the activity. Music teachers grow to recognize the ideas of tensions between students, teachers, environment, and indeed technologies as providing challenges that can be beneficial or inhibit the development of learning. We can also describe musical knowledge as a dialectic tension between analytical and intuitive knowledge (Swanwick, 1994). In community music and schools, music can act as a metaphorical “common ground” between people and cultures (Dillon, 2007a). Music and musical practices have embedded cultural values and knowledge that represent how creators and their associated cultures value musical expression. The ethical dimensions of these transactions between cultures and people through music-​making experiences require an engagement with these tensions that respectfully considers all factors. The concept of repertoire and its representations in the technology of staff notation frame and filter musical knowledge and experience in ways that can conceal the essence of that knowledge. Music technology in schools affects our practice, but as a process it has potential to democratize the environment for learning. Alongside the question of affordances of technology we need to consider the ethical dimensions of the appropriation of music, including what the musical practice and musical knowledge affords. To do this we consider ways of knowing by examining underlying structures and assumptions of musical knowledge.

Enabling and Framing Music Education Practice through Technology We have mentioned jam2jam, a software-​based instrument that employs computer-​ assisted processes to create music. As researchers involved in both the design and pedagogical development of the jam2jam software, we perceived something quite unique about how technology can enable and frame practice in music education. Musical knowledge is embedded within the interface for students to discover, and access to complex transformations is afforded because the software instrument provides expressive dimensions with very little experience and through exploratory

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

327

or improvisational activity (in personal, social/​ensemble contexts and in using the technology as a performance medium). If we view jam2jam experiences as similar to music notation we can see that staff notation clearly frames musical knowledge and enshrines cultural values. Furthermore, the structures of musical practices for ensembles further frame how we interpret and learn music. What we are suggesting here is that how music is represented, the cultural values embedded within the representation, and the practice of making music in groups provide a clear framework for how to make music. What technologies like jam2jam add to this is not unlike the technology of the piano roll, which provides access to complex music-​making with the simple gesture of pedaling feet. For jam2jam, however, this music-​making practice focuses on improvising with musical objects collaboratively and provides a means for more complex learning. With jam2jam, the interface design directly embedded musical elements such as volume, timbre, pitch organization/​scale structures, duration, and tempo. This decision embedded Western values within the system, but the pitch, instrument timbres, and rhythmic grooves remained culturally fluid because we could insert files or samples in any style from anywhere in the world. When working with Indigenous communities in Australia, for example, the musical common ground was generally hip-​hop, reggae, and country (Dillon & Brown, 2010). These styles, when chosen by students, had the capacity to express urban youth counterculture and narratives about relationships to place. The computer, with sampling and sequencing software, also became a common ground for forming relationships among students, teachers, and community.

Accessing Ways of Knowing and Doing Furthermore, music technology seemed to provide access to distributed and situated knowledge. Distributed knowledge was available through group practices and situated knowledge through the musical style and the local interpretation and narrative structure and language. Access to best practice through Web 2.0 and social media innovations like YouTube and Wikipedia, for example, provides compelling musical examples and an opportunity for musicological analysis (Ruthmann, 2007b). From a learning perspective, access to this knowledge is not about storage but about how we synthesize it and determine its quality and relevance. While web technology provides access to a library of musical examples filtered by search engines, the learning opportunity with these technologies involves understanding the techniques of musicological analysis to comprehend the music experienced. This requires a more democratic perceptual framework than elemental systems, which are rooted in Western structures of aural perception. It is here that

328

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

we can draw on techniques used in professional music production. Producers listen to music with a time and space framework for aural perception. They listen to the texture and timbre of the music in relation to linear time. The representations of these sounds can be examined by looking at spectral representations of waveforms. The technology affects the ways knowledge is represented, and we can draw on multiple modes/​systems of representation to store, communicate, and amplify thought. Technology affords different lenses on the phenomenon of sound through audio and visual representations. In this transaction it is not how we access knowledge, but understanding what our relationship is to this musical knowledge that in turn leads to an understanding of who we are and of our common ground (Dillon, 2007a). This requires viewing ourselves as evolving musicians grounded in a history and an experiential practice with values and habits that we draw on to engage with music-​making.

Engaging with Tensions of Difference The ethics of relational pedagogies involves engaging with the tensions of difference through employing two principles. First, one needs to seek a musical common ground between people as a process that acknowledges the technologies’ limitations and filters. Second, the music itself needs to be examined as an expressive phenomenon through a culturally inclusive perceptual lens of sound in time and space, and an evaluation of the capacity of the music to be a common ground. In the case of developing the generative scenes in jam2jam, these styles were usually created by representatives of the particular culture or subculture. What we have learned from this is that when we invite others who have embodied cultural values to our classrooms to share their craft, we act as a gateway to broader musical experience (Bresler, 2004). None of us is an expert in all musical forms, but we do have an understanding that making and sharing music is common across cultures and times. When we engage with unfamiliar music we risk appropriating and filtering it by both our practices and our technology. Staff notation versions of many aural/​oral cultures testify to this. In jazz we know that “swing” is understood as embodied knowledge and print representation filters that feeling and sound.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have highlighted the complexities of teaching adolescents in today’s technologically mediated world and provided descriptions of relational pedagogies in action among teachers, adolescents, their music, and their

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

329

technologies. Our examples illustrate how educators in schools can begin to bridge the gap between school music and the music that young people are creating and engaging with through technology. We have shown how technologies can reveal and conceal possibilities for learning and engagement, as well as how and where students can make meaning and engage with music through technology. A relational pedagogy established within technology-​mediated environments is easily transferable beyond technology settings. Building relationships, honoring student agency, and designing intrinsically engaging musical experiences within an ethical frame can be applied to nondigital technology music settings, such as choral and instrumental ensembles, primary classrooms, and college studios. Music and its creation and performance is a human act, and when we make music or enter into a relationship with others to make music we engage in recognizing and celebrating humanity. Expressive music-​making itself offers an opportunity to engage with relationships between students and their peers, students and teachers, and students and the wider community and to be a vehicle for activating learner agency. Technology can extend, enhance, and frame these very human relationships, providing opportunities to recognize humanity and to be human ourselves through making music.

Reflective Questions

• Where is music and technology in your life? • Where is music and technology in your classroom? • Where do children make meaning with music and technology? • What possibilities for learning and teaching are revealed and concealed by the technologies used in the context of school classrooms? • What have you learned by observing your students make music with technology? • Have you changed your pedagogy as a result of these observations? How?

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the support for this project by the ACID through the Cooperative Research Centre Program of the Australian Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Thanks to Tony Beatrice for giving us a window into his classroom. This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Steven C. Dillon, who passed away in 2012.

330

S. Alex Ruthmann and Steven C. Dillon

KEY SOURCES Brown, A. R. (2014). Music technology and education:  Amplifying musicality. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Dillon, S. (2007). Music, meaning, and transformation. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Finney, J., & Burnard, P. (eds.). (2007). Music education with digital technology. London: Continuum Press. Ruthmann, S. A. (2008). Whose agency matters? Negotiating pedagogical and creative intent during composing experiences. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 43–​57. Ruthmann, S. A., & Mantie, R. (eds.). (2017). Oxford handbook of technology and music education. New York: Oxford University Press.

WEBSITES jam2jam Software and Social Network: http://​www.jam2jam.com/​. Music Experience Design Lab: http://​musedlab.org/​. Noteflight Social Music Notation Software: http://​www.noteflight.com. SoundTrap Social Digital Audio Production Software: http://​www.soundtrap.com/​. Scratch Programming: http://​scratch.mit.edu/​.

REFERENCES Australasian Cooperative Research Centre for Interaction Design (2009). Network jamming: Play together online. Australasian CRC for Interaction Design, http://​www.acid. net.au/​index0b83.html?option=com_​content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=134 [accessed September 30, 2010]. Aitken, V., Fraser, D., & Price, G. (2007). Negotiating the spaces: Relational pedagogy and power in drama education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(14), http://​ www.ijea.org/​v8n14 [accessed September 28, 2010]. Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning:  Notes on emerging pedagogy. Paper read at Education, Culture and Cognition: Intervening for Growth, International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology Tenth International Conference, at University of Durham, UK. Blair, D. V. (2009). Learner agency: To understand and to be understood. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 173–​187. Bresler, L. (ed.) (2004). Knowing bodies, moving minds. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Brown, A. (2007). Computers in music education: Amplifying musicality. London: Routledge. Brown, H. (2009). Awash in a sea of possibilities: Anchoring a 21st century music business. In E. Mackinlay & B.-​ L. Bartleet (eds.), Musical islands (pp. 264–​ 288). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Technology in the Lives and Schools of Adolescents

331

Buber, M. (1969). Between man and man (trans. with introduction by Ronald Gregor Smith). London: Fontana. Campbell, P. S., Connell, C., & Beegle, A. (2007). Adolescents’ expressed meanings of music in and out of school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(3), 220–​236. Dillon, S. (2007a). Maybe we can find some Common Ground: Indigenous perspectives, a music teachers’ story. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36 (Supp.), 59–​65. Dillon, S. (2007b). Music, meaning and transformation. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Dillon, S., & Brown, A. R. (2009). Jamskölan09: An international workshop and symposium on arts education through network jamming with generative media. Brisbane: Australasian Cooperative Research Centre for Interaction Design. Dillon, S. C., & Brown, A. B. (2010). Access to meaningful relationships through virtual instruments and ensembles. Paper presented at the International Society for Music Education 2010 Seminar of the Commission for Community Music Activity, Open University of China, Hangzhou. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technologies and other essays (trans. William Lovitt). Harper and Row: New York. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school. London: Ashgate. Leong, S. (ed.) (2003). Musicianship in the 21st century: Issues, trends and possibilities. The Rocks, NSW: Australian Music Centre. Nakata, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface:  Underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and information systems. Paper presented at the 68th International Federation of Library Association Council and General Conference 2002, Glasgow. Pew Research Center (2009). Teens and mobile phones over the past five years: Pew Internet looks back. http://​www.pewinternet.org/​Reports/​2009/​14-​-​Teens-​and-​Mobile-​Phones-​ Data-​Memo.aspx [accessed September 11, 2010]. Polson, D., & Morgan, C. (2007). MiLK: The mobile informal learning kit. Collaborating to design successful mobile learning applications. Brisbane, Australia: Australasian CRC for Interaction Design. Retreived from http://​www.acid.net.au/​images/​polson_​morgan_​ mlearning.pdf [accessed January 8, 2017]. Ruthmann, S. A. (2006). Negotiating learning and teaching in a music technology lab:  Curricular, pedagogical and ecological issues. Unpublished doctoral diss., Oakland University, Rochester, MI. Ruthmann, S. A. (2007a). The composers’ workshop. Music Educators Journal, 93(4), 38–​44. Ruthmann, S. A. (2007b). Strategies for supporting music learning through online collaborative technologies. In J. Finney & P. Burnard (eds.), Music education with digital technology (pp. 131–​41). London: Continuum Press. Ruthmann, S. A. (2008). Whose agency matters? Negotiating pedagogical and creative intent during composing experiences. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 43–​57. Swanwick, K. (1994). Musical knowledge:  Intuition, analysis and music education. London: Routledge. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital. New York: McGraw-​Hill.

Index

A accessibility for learners, 123–​125 acculturation/​enculturation generally, 200 explained, 161 out-​of-​school learning experiences, 115 youth culture, 248 acoustic cranial nerve, 41, 44 adolescence generally, 217–​329 analysis as part of creativity, 297 analytical categories for music education, 223 approaches of practice, 280–​281 assessment, 257–​276, 304 assessment data, 268, 269 auditing learning vs. improving learning, 263 and college preparation, 258 criteria, 270, 271 declarative knowledge vs. procedural knowledge, 270 informal learning, 272 knowledge types in music education, 270 learning vs. doing, 270 legitimization, 266 measurement, 260 and music pedagogy, 270 objectivity vs. subjectivity, 267, 268 opportunity-​to-​learn standards, 259 reliability, 266 “teaching to the test,” 269 assumptions regarding music education, 222, 223 auditing learning vs. improving learning, 263 authenticity of music, 241, 242, 246–​250 classification of, 227 classroom creativity, 295–​312 analysis as part of, 297 assessment, 304 concentration as element of thought, 300 creativity, 295 in different research traditions, 296–​301

divergent thinking, 299 flexibility as part of, 297 fluency as part of, 297 illumination as stage of thought, 299 imaginative thinking, 296 incubation as stage of thought, 299 insight as element of thought, 300 necessary environment for, 298, 303 new creativity, 296 originality as part of, 297, 298 pedagogical creativity, 307 practices, 304–​305 preparation as stage of thought, 299 product of creativity, 301, 304 risk-​taking, 303 romantic process, 299 selection and development of activities, 307–​308 sensitivity as part of, 297 separation as element of thought, 300 setting the stage, 299 stages of creative process, 300 student creativity, 297, 303 synthesis as part of, 297 systemic process, 299 teaching creativity, 302–​304 time for, 303 traditional creativity, 296 verification as stage of thought, 299 withdrawal as element of thought, 300 college preparation, 258 community music facilitators, 277–​294 approaches of practice, 280–​281 benefits and challenges, 286–​288 conscientization, 281 evaluation and quality assurance, 287 facilitation, 280 illustrations of practice, 282–​286 as interventionists, 278 methods of practice, 280 musicians-​in-​residence, 279

334Index adolescence (cont.) process consultancy, 280 workshops or laboratories, 279 workshops or laboratories, classrooms as, 281 composing, 271 concentration as element of thought, 300 conscientization, 281 content classification and interaction, power and control transmitted by, 230 content standards, 259 creative process during, 300 creativity, 295 cultural inclusiveness, 328 curriculum, 225 curriculum content, 222–​240 declarative knowledge vs. procedural knowledge, 270 democracy in music education, 232–​237 content classification and interaction, power and control transmitted by, 230 education disparities, 232 framework for pedagogic democratic rights in music education, 235 perpetuation of status quo, 234, 237 rights of students, 223, 232 technology and, 326, 327 discursive gap and change in music education, 230–​232 divergent thinking, 299 diversity of musical stimuli, 226 ensembles as counterbalances to digital experiences, 321 environment necessary for developing creativity, 298, 303 ethics, 317, 318, 325, 328 evaluation, 287 vs. assessment, 258, 259 as crucial aspect of education, 225 “extra curricular” music, 223 facilitation, 280, 322, 323 “flavors” and biases, 228 flexibility as part of creativity, 297 fluency as part of creativity, 297 formative assessment, 261–​263 framework for music education analysis, 233 framework for pedagogic democratic rights in music education, 235 framing, explained, 227 games-​like qualities of experience, 316 globalization, effect of, 242 government intervention in teachers’ work, 223

high stakes assessments, 258 identification of creativity in different research traditions, 296–​301 illumination as stage of thought, 299 illustrations of practice, 282–​286 imaginative thinking, 296 incubation as stage of thought, 299 informal learning, 226, 229, 272 in-​service training, 317 insight as element of thought, 300 institutional policy constraints, 316 “instructional discourse” (ID), 230 interaction with effects of action or agency of actors in educational field, 230 interfaces between learning, teaching, and curriculum, 222–​240 interventionists, 278 knowledge types in music education, 270 learning vs. doing, 270 legitimization, 266 limitations and filters, 328 macro (state) level of education, 230, 237 measurement, 260 meso (school) level of education, 230, 237 methods of practice, 280 micro (classroom) level of education, 230, 237 mixed messages in, 228, 229 motivation, 223 musical practices outside of school, 223 musicians-​in-​residence, 279 mutual learning approach, 314 neoliberal agenda for education, 223 new creativity, 296 objectivity vs. subjectivity, 267, 268 opportunity-​to-​learn standards, 259 originality as part of creativity, 297, 298 pedagogy and assessment, 270 as crucial aspect of education, 225 pedagogical creativity, 307 pedagogic discourse, 228, 231 peer-​assessment, 265 performance standards, 259 portfolio assessment, 265 postmodernism, 242 power relationships, 227 power to influence change, 237 practices, 304–​305 preparation as stage of thought, 299 “process consultancy,” 280 product of creativity, 301, 304

Index publication of assessment results, 269 qualities of interaction, 315 “real music,” 318 real-​world musical experiences, 241, 242 “regulative discourse” (RD), 231, 232 relational pedagogies, 313, 321–​325 reliability, 266 rights of students, 223, 232 risk-​taking, 303 romantic process, 299 selection and development of activities, 307–​308 self-​assessment, 265 sensitivity as part of creativity, 297 separation as element of thought, 300 “setting the stage,” 299 social justice distributive injustice, 232 education disparities, 232 and social change through education, 223 social structures of, 230 standards, 258, 259 status quo, 234, 237 student agency, 322 student creativity, 297, 303 subculture battlegrounds, 317 summative assessment, 260, 261, 263, 264 synthesis as part of creativity, 297 systemic process, 299 teacher inexperience, 316, 317 teacher power to effect change, 234 teaching creativity, 302–​304 teaching to the test, 269 technology, 313–​331 culturally inclusive examination of music, 328 democratic perceptual framework, 327 democratization of learning, potential for, 326 ensembles as counterbalances to digital experiences, 321 ethics, 317, 318 ethics of relational pedagogies, 325, 328 facilitating student engagement, 322, 323 games-​like qualities of experience, 316 in-​service training, 317 institutional policy constraints, 316 limitations and filters, 328 mutual learning approach, 314 qualities of interaction, 315 “real music,” 318

335 relational pedagogies, 313, 321–​325 student agency, 322 subculture battlegrounds, 317 teacher inexperience, 316, 317 youth identity, 317 time, sufficiency of, 303 “totally pedagogised society,” 236 traditional creativity, 296 “trainability,” 236 verification stage of thought, 299 withdrawal element of thought, 300 workshops or laboratories, 279, 281 See also youth culture adult-​as-​state power, 245 advertising, 244 age 0–​5. See infancy and early childhood 5–12. See primary school 12–18. See adolescence agency defined, 126 primary schoolchildren, 126, 127, 199, 200 in youth culture, 243, 251 amotivation. See motivation antischool parody songs, 107 articulation, 124 artifact analysis, 83 arts integration, 143, 144 arts partnerships in generalist classrooms, 187, 188 See also community music facilitators arts-​to-​arts approaches, 148 assessment of composing, 271 content standards, 259 country-​by-​country comparison, 259 vs. evaluation, 258, 259 formative, 261–​263 “high stakes,” 258 peer, 265 performance, 271 portfolio, 265 publication of results, 269 in secondary classroom, 257–​276 self-​assessment, 265 standards for, 258, 259 summative, 260, 261, 263, 264 vs. testing, 259 test scores, 268, 269 uses and purposes, 259, 260 validity of, 266

336Index athletic and other community events, 198 audio-​or audio-​visual media, 13 auditory intelligence and learning, 107, 115, 116 aural-​oral learning, 107, 115, 116 authenticity, 246–​250 B babbling, 45, 79, 82 babies. See infancy and early childhood “badges of honor”, 247 bands and orchestras, 196–​213 behavior, 84 “big ideas” and “big understandings,” 149, 150 bimusical experiences, 172 body groove, 109 body movement children moving to music, 10, 109 inseparability from music, 108, 109, 114, 115 multimodal (aural-​visual-​kinesthetic) activities, 13, 110, 115, 116, 163, 164 stepping and swaying, 109 See also dance and choreography brain development and function in infancy and early childhood, 19, 30, 31, 41, 47, 50–​52, 65 language-​processing structures, 50 C capitalist societies corporate stake in youth culture, 246 marketing of repetitious commodities to passive consumers, 244 caregiving, 11 casual learning. See informal playing and learning CDs (compact discs) sources of repertoire, 110 See also DVDs children ages 0–5. See infancy and early childhood children ages 5–12. See primary school children ages 12–18. See adolescence choreography. See dance and choreography chronobiology, 31 clapping games, 105 classification assessment standards certificating aspects of attainment, 258 explained, 227, 228 knowledge classification, 220 transmission of power relationships by, 227, 228

classroom learning in adolescence classroom creativity, 295–​312 as inauthentic, 247 micro (classroom) level of education, 230 interactive processes of learner-​centered classroom, 208, 209 class system. See social class cognitive best practices, 182, 188 cognitive neuroscience. See brain development and function cognitive skills. See metacognitive skills collaboration collaborative composing by students, 126 between community music facilitators and schools. See adolescence to create meaning, 30–​31 among teachers, 147 commercial music advertising and marketing of repetitious commodities to passive consumers, 244 commercial strand of musical participation, 64, 65 communications technology. See technology communicative musicality, 77 community bands, 198 community music facilitators generally, 277–​294 approaches of practice, 280–​281 benefits and challenges, 286–​288 classrooms as workshops or laboratories, 279, 281 conscientization, 281 evaluation and quality assurance, 287 facilitation, 280 illustrations of practice, 282–​286 as interventionists, 278 methods of practice, 280 musicians-​in-​residence, 279 “process consultancy,” 280 compact discs (CDs) sources of repertoire, 110 See also DVDs complementarity, 145–​146 comprehensive approach, 141–​159 compulsory instruction. See holistic learning computer technology. See technology concerts, 20–​21 consumerism, 244 contextual learning generally, 123–​125

Index collaborative creation by primary schoolchildren, 127, 131–​134 in school settings, 128–​136 by students, 125 compositional process, 127 frameworks for, 136 groundwork for, 128 holistic qualities of, 123 holistic qualities of musical works and musical experience, primary schoolchildren, 124 impact on development, 168–​170 knowledge construction processes of, 122 learner agency as core issue in, 127 multidimensional experiential gestalts, 124, 136 peer invention as, 134–​136 peer scaffolding, 128 phenomenological view of, 122, 136 primary school, 123–​125, 128, 131, 134 scaffolding, 122, 123, 127–​134 simultaneously thinking aloud, 129 social constructivist theories of, 122, 123, 136 cooing, 45 creativity in primary school, 108 of young children, 75–​93 criticality, 251 critical thinking. See metacognitive skills cross-​cultural music generally, 160–​177 definitions, 161 fieldwork-​based experiences, 172 globalization fueled by technology and media, 161–​164 primary schoolchildren, 160–​177 real-​life encounters with music, 168–​170 repertoire, 165, 166 in teaching and learning styles, 167, 168 web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 youth culture and adult teachers, 250, 251 culture acculturation. See acculturation/​enculturation diversity, impact on development generally, 160–​177 bimusical experiences, 172 definition of culture, 161 fieldwork-​based experiences, 172 frameworks, 162, 170 globalization fueled by technology and media, 161–​164 personal and intercultural exchanges, 171 in primary schoolchildren, 160–​177

337 real-​life encounters with music, 168–​170 repertoire, 165, 166 in teaching and learning styles, 167, 168 web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 of education, 33 ethnomusicology, 83 youth culture vs. cultures of youths, 244, 246 See also cross-​cultural music; social values curriculum adolescence, 222–​240 primary school, 141–​159 cyberspace. See Internet D dance and choreography infants moving to music, 10 integrated arts programs, 144 kinesthetic learning, 111 universal human need, 26–​27, 31, 32, 35 See also body movement DAP (developmentally appropriate practice), 69 degree classification, assessment standards certificating aspects of attainment, 258 deliberative learning, 62–​66 democracy in education, 232–​237 democracy in music education, 232–​237 content classification and interaction, power and control transmitted by, 230 education disparities, 232 framework for pedagogic democratic rights in music education, 235 perpetuation of status quo, 234, 237 rights of students, 223, 232 technology and, 326, 327 developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), 69 dialogue and interview method, 83 diction. See articulation digital discs. See DVDs (digital versatile/​video discs) digital technology. See technology disciplinary primary school curriculum, 142, 148 diversity, impact on development generally, 160–​177 bimusical experiences, 172 definition of culture, 161 ethnomusicology, 83 fieldwork-​based experiences, 172 frameworks, 162, 170 globalization fueled by technology and media, 161–​164 personal and intercultural exchanges of music experience, 171

338Index diversity, impact on development (cont.) primary schoolchildren, 160–​177 real-​life encounters with music, 168–​170 repertoire, 165, 166 in teaching and learning styles, 167, 168 web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 See also indigenous and world music DVDs (digital versatile/​video discs) distant or virtual teaching, 102 informal music learning, 110 for smarter babies and children, 13, 22 sources of repertoire, 110 See also CDs dyslexia, 50 dyslexia in infancy and early childhood, 51 E early childhood. See infancy and early childhood ears development in fetus, 76 See also hearing, sense of educational message systems, 225 education/​care strands, 66, 67 elementary school. See primary school emotional illness, 33 empowerment, 251 enculturation. See acculturation/​enculturation engagement. See identity, development, and engagement ensembles. See youth orchestras environmental sound experiences, 46–​49 equal opportunity. See democracy in education ethnomusicology, 83 experts community music facilitators. See community music facilitators visiting artists, 248 exploratory behavior, 81, 89 “extra curricular” music, 223 eye impairments, 50, 51 F Facets Model of music curriculum, 151 facilitators. See community music facilitators family/​home strand, 63, 64 feedback, 18 fetal responsiveness to music, 5, 6, 21, 22 interventions for, 13, 14 prenatal memory, 44 fieldwork-​based experiences, 172 “fivefold curriculum”, 142

“folk pedagogy”, 248 form as interactive dimension of music, 124 frameworks cultural diversity, impact on development, primary schoolchildren, 162, 170 for music education analysis, 233 primary school, 108, 136, 147 framing, 227 frequency, 43 G gender, 106, 107 generalist classrooms generally, 178–​195 arts partnerships, 187, 188 cognitive best practices, 182, 188 creating, 184 definition of, 178 learning centers, 186, 187 listening, 183 moving, 184, 185 pedagogy and best practices for, 181, 182 playing, 185, 186 professional relationships, 187, 188 repertoire, 182 social best practices for, 182, 188 student-​centered best practices for, 182, 188 general music, 98 generative organizers, 150–​152 gestalts, 124 “ghettoized” minorities, 249 globalization effect of, 242 fueled by technology and media, 161–​164 goals instrumental music, 199, 202 primary school instrumental ensemble learning and performance, 199, 202 pleasure of making music together in the moment, 113 government intervention, 223 H harmony, 124 hearing, sense of aural-​oral, holistic, and multimodal learning, 107, 115, 116 ears. See ears multimodal (aural-​visual-​kinesthetic) activities, 13, 110, 115, 116, 163, 164

Index hearing loss, 51 high school years. See adolescence holistic learning, 107, 115, 116 adolescence, 227, 307 primary school. See primary school home strand of musical participation, 63, 64 hybridity, 146 I ID (“instructional discourse”), 230 identity, development, and engagement ages 0–5. See infancy and early childhood ages 5–12. See primary school ages 12–18. See adolescence democratic education, 232–​237. See also democracy in education imitation. See observation and imitation IMP (intrinsic motive pulse), 28 implicit knowledge and learning, 62 improvisation, 32, 33 income stratification “good” musical development, 67 See also social class indigenous and world music ethnomusicology, 83 See also cross-​cultural music “industrialization of music”, 245 infancy and early childhood generally, 3–​93 absolute and relative pitch processing, 8 alteration or acceleration of musical development, 22 artistic expression of musicality, 26–​39 audio-​or audio-​visual media, 13 babbling, 45, 79, 82 brain development and function, 19, 30, 31, 41, 47, 50–​52, 65 chronobiology of human musicality, 31 cognitive benefits of music, 13 commercial strand of musical participation, 64, 65 communicative musicality, 26–​27, 77 communicative musicality as universal need in, 26–​27 concerts for caregivers, expectant mothers, and infants, 20–​21 cooing, 45 cooperation to create meaning, 30–​32 creative engagement with domain of music, 75–​93 critical reexamination of orientating concepts and categories, 60 “culture of education,” 33

339 deliberative learning, 62–​66 developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), 69 diversity and multiplicity of settings and ways of learning in music, 58–​74 dyslexia, 50, 51 education/​care strands of musical participation, 66, 67 emotional illness, 33 enhanced perceptual flexibility, 5, 53 environmental sound experiences, 46–​49 expectations of mothers and teachers for skills progress, 16 exploratory behavior, 81, 89 family/​home strand of musical participation, 63, 64 feedback, 18 forms of vitality, 29 frequency, 43 gaps in research-​based information, 60 “good” musical development, 66, 67 hearing loss, 51 implicit learning, 62 improvisation, 32, 33, 77 intention in learning, 62 interventions, 13–​22 intrinsic motive pulse (IMP), 28 introduction, development, climax, and resolution, 29 invented songs, 83 language and vocabulary development, 27, 40–​57, 85 music instruction for delayed language development, 50, 51 parallel development of musical and language, 52, 53 reciprocal influence of music on language development, 49–​52 lesson records, 19 listening skills for sharing feelings and interests, 28 long-​term outcomes, 19 lullabies, 9, 48 meaning-​making, 75–​93 memory of music and speech, 44 moving to music, 10 “Mozart effect,” 22 musical interventions, 13–​22 musicality and musical art, 31 musicality and music culture, 26–​39 musical parenting, 70 narrative, 28, 29 neighborhood strand, 67, 68 “noise”-​making, 44

340Index infancy and early childhood (cont.) pedagogical theory and practice, 69 perception of temporal relations, 9, 10 perceptual organization of sounds, 44 pitch absolute and relative pitch processing, 8, 9 perceiving pitch relations, 7, 8 and rhythm discrimination, 43 play vs. learning, 22, 31 inherent motives, 31 play songs, 9, 11, 13, 48 pride, 32 programs for parents and infants, 13–​22 protoconversations, 27–​30 pulse, 28 quality, 28 reactive learning, 62 repetition and variation, 81, 90 responsiveness to music, 5–​25 “ritual healing practices,” 27 Russian dolls model of musical development, 42 shame, 32 singing, 11, 48, 49 distinction between singing and speech, 45, 46 empathetic interaction between parents and children, 70 lullabies, 9, 48 play songs, 9, 11, 13, 48 song-​learning development, 52 song-​making to regulate behavior, 84 singing as part of caregiving, 11 sociocultural activities, 61–​70 sophisticated musical art, 31 spectrum of emotions, 29 spontaneous chanting, singing, and instrumental play, 79, 80 supporting and promoting musical creativity, 88–​90 Suzuki music programs, 14, 18–​19 teaching and learning, 31–​33 theater productions, 34 timbre, 43 timing, 43 “tritone paradox,” 51 vocalization, 44–​46 “musical babbling,” 79, 82 vocal play, 45 informal playing and learning adolescence, 226, 229 primary school, 106–​110, 200–​206 instructional design, 109

“instructional discourse” (ID), 230 instrumental music primary school generally, 196–​213 agency, role of, 199, 200 bands for athletic and other community events, 198 choice and collaboration, 202–​204 formal instruction, 197–​199 fostering “musical say,” 207–​209 goals, 199, 202 informal and natural learning, 200–​206 informal strategies in formal settings, 204–​206 interactive processes of learner-​centered classroom, 208, 209 “knowledge-​building communities,” 206, 207 mediational role of teacher, 199 metacognitive thinking skills, 205 oral/​aural learning, 200, 203, 204 peer-​directed, 206, 207 peer groups, 202–​204 role of singing in, 204 scaffolding, 199 school bands, 198, 199 social consciousness development, 206, 207 social nature of music, 200, 201 technology as source of musical culture, 201 Western band model, 198, 199 integrated arts, 144 integrated curriculum, 143 integrity, 146 interdisciplinary curriculum, 141–​159 Internet web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 See also technology interventions, 13–​22 intradisciplinary relationships, 148 intrinsic motive pulse (IMP), 28 invented songs by children, 83 iPod technology. See technology J juxtaposition, 146, 148 K karaoke, 110, 112 kinesthetic learning multimodal (aural-​visual-​kinesthetic) activities, 12, 110, 115, 116, 163, 164 primary school, 108, 109, 114, 115

Index knowledge-​building communities, 206, 207 knowledge construction, 122 partitioning of knowledge into subjects, 142 L language and vocabulary development in infancy and early childhood, 27, 40–​57, 85 in primary school, 153 learner agency. See agency learning centers, 186, 187 learning goals. See goals lesson records, 19 listening in generalist classrooms, 183 for sharing feelings and interests, 28 literacy. See language and vocabulary development M marketing, 244 meaning-​making, 75–​93 media allowing children to maintain traditions in new and flexible ways, 111 consumerism, 244 in primary school, 110–​112 virtual teachers, 111 youth culture, 244–​246 mediation, 199 melody, 124 memory mnemonics and notation, 167 of music and speech, 43, 44, 50, 77, 79 relative pitch information, 8 message systems, 223 metacognitive skills generally, 12, 15, 152, 181 primary schoolchildren, 205 middle school years. See adolescence “mixed messages”, 228, 229 mobile applications. See technology modeling, 108 motherese, 200 motivation, 223 Mozart Effect, 22 multidimensionality, 145 multimodal learning, 107, 115, 116 music authenticity of, 241 commercial advertising and marketing of repetitious commodities to passive consumers, 244

341 commercial strand of musical participation, 64 cross-​cultural, 160–​177 culturally inclusive examination of, 328 “extra curricular,” 223 general, 98 instrumental, 196–​213 metadimensions of, 124 “real music,” 318 undemanding, 245 musical acculturation. See acculturation/​ enculturation musical “badges of honor,” 247 musical behavior. See behavior musical identity, development, and engagement. See identity, development, and engagement musical instruments. See instrumental music musical interventions, 13–​22 musical meaning, 27, 170 See also identity, development, and engagement musical memory. See memory music classrooms. See classroom learning music education analytical categories for, 223 assumptions regarding, 222, 223 democracy in, 232–​237 discursive gap and change in, 230–​232 framework for pedagogic democratic rights in, 235 knowledge types in, 270 music facilitators. See community music facilitators music-​learning authenticity in youth culture, 248 music learning contexts, creating in primary school, 121–​140 music specialists, 98–​99 N neighborhood strand, 67, 68 neoliberal agenda, 223 newborns. See infancy and early childhood new contexts, 232–​237 See also democracy in education noise-​making, 44 novice vs. adept players, 107 O observation and imitation, 108 online spaces. See Internet; technology

342Index oral intelligence. See auditory intelligence and learning orchestras, 196–​213 outside of school adolescent musical practices, 223 dichotomy between in-​and out-​of-​school learning, 109 playground learning, 106–​109 P parenting, musical, 70 partnerships with community music facilitators. See community music facilitators in generalist classrooms, 187, 188 peer teaching, 113, 208 perceptual organization of sounds, 44 performances, 20–​21 peripheral musical participation, 107 permeability, 145 personal agency defined, 126 See also agency phenomenological view, 122, 136 pitch, 124 play vs. learning, 22 playground learning, 106–​109 playground learning, 106–​109, 112–​116 pluralism. See democracy in education popular music marketing of repetitious commodities to passive consumers, 244 primary school, 110–​112 and youth culture, 245 postmodernism, 242 power relationships, 227 premature infants, 15 prenatal responsiveness. See fetal responsiveness pride, 32 primary school generally, 95–​213 antischool parody songs, 107 arts integration, 144, 149, 150 arts partnerships, 187, 188 arts-​to-​arts approaches, 148 athletic and other community events, 198 aural-​oral, holistic, and multimodal learning, 107, 115, 116 bimusical experiences, 172 body groove, 109

choice instrumental ensembles, 202–​204 repertoire, 106–​108, 114 clapping games, 105 cognitive best practices, 182, 188 coherence within arts education, 143 collaboration among teachers, 147 collaborative composing by students, 125, 126 complementarity, 145–​146 comprehensive approach to music curriculum, 141–​159 contextual learning, 123–​125, 134 alterations and edits, 134 collaborative composing by students, 125 collaborative creation creating collaboratively in school settings, 128–​136 peer invention, 134–​136 peer scaffolding, 128 prior experience, 131–​134 compositional process, 127 cultural diversity, 168–​170 frameworks, 136 framing musical experience to create accessibility for learners, 123–​125 groundwork, 128 holistic qualities of musical works and musical experience, 123, 124 learner agency as core issue in, 127 music ideas as gestalts, 124, 136 phenomenological view of learning, 122, 136 processes of constructing knowledge, 122 scaffolding, 122, 123, 127–​134 simultaneously thinking aloud, 129 social constructivist theories of learning, 122, 123, 136 subtle suggestions from teachers, 131 time, sufficiency, 128 cultural diversity, impact on development generally, 160–​177 bimusical experiences, 172 definition of culture, 161 fieldwork-​based experiences, 172 frameworks, 162, 170 globalization fueled by technology and media, 161–​164 personal and intercultural exchanges of music experience, 171 real-​life encounters with music, 168–​170 repertoire, 165, 166 styles of teaching and learning, 167

Index in teaching and learning styles, 168 web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 curriculum, 141–​159 dichotomy between in-​and out-​of-​school learning, 109 difficulty levels and notions of relative difficulty, 108, 113, 114 disciplinary curriculum, 142, 148 duality between task-​related concerns and expressive or socioemotional concerns, 126 Facets Model of music curriculum, 151 fieldwork-​based experiences, 172 “fivefold curriculum,” 142 formal instrumental ensemble learning and performance, 197–​199 frameworks, 108, 147 contextual learning, 136 impact on development, 162, 170 framing musical experience to create accessibility for learners in, 123–​125 gender identity, 106, 107 generalist classrooms, 178–​195 arts partnerships, 187, 188 cognitive best practices, 182, 188 creating, 184 definition of generalist, 178 learning centers, 186, 187 listening, 183 moving, 184, 185 pedagogy and best practices, 181, 182 playing, 185, 186 professional relationships, 187, 188 repertoire, 182 social best practices, 182, 188 student-​centered best practices, 182, 188 “general music,” 98 generative organizers for interdisciplinary projects, 150–​152 globalization fueled by technology and media, 161–​164 goals instrumental ensemble learning and performance, 199, 202 as pleasure of making music together in the moment, 113 holistic learning, 108, 113 holistic qualities of musical works and musical experience, 123, 124 hybridity, 146 imitation of experienced peers, 108

343 informal learning, 106–​110, 200–​206 instructional design based on five principles of informal learning, 109 instrumental ensemble learning and performance, 196–​213 bands for athletic and other community events, 198 choice and collaboration, 202–​204 formal instruction, 197–​199 fostering of “musical say,” 207–​209 goals, 199, 202 informal and natural learning, 200–​206 informal strategies in formal settings, 204–​206 interactive processes of learner-​centered classroom, 208, 209 “knowledge-​building communities,” 206, 207 mediational role of teacher, 199 metacognitive thinking skills, 205 oral/​aural learning, 200, 203, 204 peer-​directed, 206, 207 peer groups, 202–​204 role of agency in, 199, 200 scaffolding, 199 school bands, 198, 199 singing, role of, 204 social consciousness development, 206, 207 social nature of music, 200, 201 technology as source of musical culture, 201 Western band model, 198, 199 integrated arts, 144 integrated curriculum, 143 integrity, 146 interactive processes of learner-​centered classroom, 208, 209 interdisciplinary curriculum, 141–​159 intradisciplinary relationships, 148 juxtaposition, 146 kinesthetic learning, 108, 109, 114, 115 knowledge-​building communities, 206, 207 language arts/​literacy, 153 learner agency as core issue in, 126, 127 learning centers in generalist classrooms, 186, 187 listening in generalist classrooms, 183 mass-​mediated popular music, 110–​112 mediational role of teacher, 199 metacognitive thinking skills, 205 Morin’s Web and Brainstorm Model of music curriculum, 155 movement, inseparable from music, 108, 109, 114, 115

344Index primary school (cont.) multicultural curricula, 110 multidimensionality, 145 multimodal activities, 110 music ideas as gestalts, 124 music learning contexts, 121–​140 music specialists, 98, 99 novice vs. adept players, 107, 108 oral/​aural learning, 200, 203, 204 peer groups, 202–​204, 206, 207 peripheral participation, 107 permeability, 145 personal agency, 126 phenomenological view of learning, 122, 136 playground learning, 106–​109 bringing out of school learning into the school, 112–​116 issues prompting reconsideration of traditions associated with in-​school learning, 113 predisciplinary thinking, 147 process-​based approaches to interdisciplinary projects, 152–​153 processes of constructing knowledge, 122 professional relationships in generalist classrooms, 187, 188 real-​life encounters with music, 168–​170 related arts, 144 repertoire choice of, 106–​108, 114 communal ownership, 108 generalist classrooms, 182 impact on development, 165, 166 repetition, predictability, and rhythm, 105 responsibility for learning, 106 resuming from beginning, 108 reworking of material, 108 risk-​taking, 126 role of agency in, 199, 200 Russell-​Bowie Syntegration Model, 151 scaffolding contextual learning, 122, 123, 127–​134 instrumental ensemble learning and performance, 199 shared responsibility for learning, 106, 107 singing, 204 social best practices in generalist classrooms, 182, 188 social consciousness development, 206, 207 social constructivist theories of learning, 122, 123, 136

social nature of music, 200, 201 social synchrony, 105 starting age for formal education, 98 stepping and swaying, 109 student-​centered best practices in generalist classrooms, 182, 188 styles of teaching and learning, 167 technology children using technology with ease and confidence, 188, 189 in curricula, 110 as source of musical culture, 201 thematic organizers for interdisciplinary projects, 150–​152 topical organizers for interdisciplinary projects, 150–​152 true arts integration, 144 typologies of interdisciplinary curricula, 149, 150 values represented by presentational music, 113 virtual teachers, 111 ways of learning inside and outside classroom, 102–​120 web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 works-​based approaches to interdisciplinary projects, 153–​155 process-​based approaches, 152–​153 producers of culture vs. passive recipients, 245 protoconversations, 27–​30 pulse, 28 intrinsic motive pulse (IMP), 28 See also rhythm R racialized youth, 249 radio as source of repertoire, 110 RD (regulative discourse), 231, 232 reactive learning, 62 “realness” of music or performance, 246–​250 real-​world musical experiences, 241, 242 records of lessons, 19 refugee children, 111 regulative discourse (RD), 231, 232 relational thinking, 146, 148 repertoire communal ownership, 108 generalist classrooms, 182 impact on development, 165, 166 primary schoolchildren, 106–​108, 114, 165, 166 repetition primary schoolchildren, 105 very young children, 81, 90

Index rhythm, 124 risk, 243 risk-​taking, 126 ritual healing practices, 27 Russell-​Bowie Syntegration Model, 151 Russian dolls model, 42 S scaffolding contextual learning, 122, 123, 127–​134 instrumental ensemble learning and performance, 199 school (meso) level of education, 230 school music classrooms. See classroom learning self-​esteem generally, 247, 298 self-​identity. See identity shame, 32 shared responsibility, 106, 107 singers and singing infants and young children, 11, 48, 49 primary school, 204 skills learning instrumental music. See instrumental music listening skills for sharing feelings and interests, 28 metacognitive skills. See metacognitive skills social class, 67 social constructivist theories of learning, primary schoolchildren, 122, 123, 136 social networking. See technology social values through education, 223 primary school, 113. See also culture best practices in generalist classrooms, 182, 188 social consciousness development, 206, 207 social nature of music, 200, 201 social synchrony, 105 very young children, 61–​70 See also culture software. See technology sophisticated musical art in young children, 31 specialists primary school, 98–​99 See also experts special status for music in education, 217 spontaneous chanting, singing, and instrumental play in young children, 79, 80 See also informal playing and learning state (macro) level of education, 230

345 stereotypes, 249 student-​centered best practices, 182, 188 T teachers, 234 technology and adolescent learners. See adolescence children using technology with ease and confidence, 188, 189 in primary school, 110–​112 as source of musical culture, 201 virtual teachers, 111 See also Internet teen years. See adolescence television, 110 tempo, 124 temporal relations, 9, 10 texture, 124 theater productions, 34 timbre, 43, 124 “totally pedagogised society”, 236 “trainability”, 236 tritone paradox, 51 true arts integration, 144 U undemanding music, 245 V value of musical experience, 113 vernacular musicianship. See popular music virtual teachers, 111 vision dyslexia in infancy and early childhood, 50, 51 multimodal (aural-​visual-​kinesthetic) activities, 12, 110, 115–​116, 163–​164 visiting artists, 248 vocabulary. See language and vocabulary development vocal and choral music. See singers and singing W web-​based cultural interactions, 172, 173 works-​based approaches, 153–​155 world music ethnomusicology, 83 See also cross-​cultural music Y youth culture generally, 241–​256

346Index youth culture (cont.) adult-​as-​state power, 245 agency in, 243, 251 authenticity of music, 246–​250 classroom as inauthentic, 247 construction of cultures of youths, 246 criticality, 251 cross-​cultural exchange and dialogue, 252 vs. cultures of youths, 244, 246 dual functions of education, 242, 243 education and, 243 empowerment as guiding ideal, 251 “folk pedagogy,” 248 “ghettoized” minorities, 249 “industrialization of music,” 245

link with adult-​run media industry, 243 media, 243, 244–​246 musical “badges of honor,” 247 “music-​learning authenticity,” 248 popular music, 245 producers of culture vs. passive recipients, 245 racialized youth, 249 “realness” of music, 246–​250 role of music in youth identity, 317 stereotypes, 249 undemanding music, 245 visiting artists in classrooms, 248 See also adolescence youth orchestras, 196–​213