The Application of Critical Pedagogy

to Music Teaching and Learning: A Literature Review

Frank Abrahams

Frank Abrahams is a professor and chair of the music education department at the Westminster
Choir College of Rider University in Princeton, New Jersey.

Music education in American schools often comprises activities in which children perform,
create, listen to, and evaluate music. While this may provide students with a basic experience in
music, we may not be reaching them with the significance that we desire. Critical pedagogy is
not a traditional music-teaching method, as it combines philosophy and pedagogy, theory and
practice. Unlike Orff, Kodály, or Dalcroze, there are no specific teaching techniques or
prescribed body of musical repertoire students must hear or perform in the classroom. There are
no required materials, such as instruments or tennis balls, and no prescribed scope and sequence.
Instead, “critical pedagogy is a way of thinking about, negotiating, and transforming the
relationships among classroom teaching, the production of knowledge, the institutional structures
of the school, and the social and material relations of the wider community, society and nation
state” (McLaren, 1998, p. 45). Critical pedagogy enables teachers to create a rich and varied
music program, but it does not prescribe a particular curriculum. Rather, it encourages learning
experiences that are multiple and liberating. Schmidt (2002a) notes that through critical
pedagogy, teachers may effect change that will transform music education.
The purpose of this article is to review the literature on critical pedagogy as it relates to music
teaching and music learning. It surveys the literature on the origins and history of critical
pedagogy and how critical pedagogy manifests itself in two relevant learning
theories—constructivism and experiential learning. Further, it suggests how music teachers may
apply this research to their own classroom music and ensemble teaching.

Philosophical Origins and History

Reacting against what he called the “banking concept” where teachers “deposited” knowledge
into the learning “accounts” of their students, Paulo Freire developed a pedagogy to teach
economically disadvantaged Brazilian adults to read. Freire documented his ideas in a landmark
publication titled Pedagogy of the Oppressed, first published in 1970. Freire’s book turns the
ideas and ideals of critical theory into a critical pedagogy so that teachers can implement the
philosophy into their classrooms. According to Rose (1990), “Freire maintained that teachers and
students are agents actively engaged in the process of constructing and reconstructing meaning”
(pp. 46–47).
Freire (1970) described three precepts that form a foundation for critical pedagogy. First he
argued that learners exist in a cultural context and as such must learn to reflect on their situation.
In this way Giroux (1988) posits that teachers and their students become “transformative
intellectuals,” and McLaren (2002) adds that education is always political where knowledge is
handed down (i.e., reproduced from teacher to student and therefore one generation to the next).
While this is not always a bad thing, the intention here is to guard against the perpetuation of a
society that does not acknowledge possibilities for growth and change.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 12

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

 Secondly, Freire (1970) taught that several conditions must result from instruction before one
can claim that learning has occurred. The first is the connection of “word to world.” Freire
argued that unless the learning facilitates a change in the student’s perception of reality, learning
has not occurred. Teachers, according to Freire, facilitate that connection by helping students to
draw on their own realities to create new possibilities. As Weiler (1988) explains, “One of the
most important pedagogical tenets for Freire was the need for teachers to respect the
consciousness and culture of their students and to create the pedagogical situation in which
students can articulate their understanding of the world” (p. 18). At the same time, teachers must
be self-reflective and seek to understand their own presuppositions, the ideological prism through
which external reality is sorted and understood (Freire, 1973). Thus, according to Rose (1990),
“both students and teachers must seek to understand the forces of hegemony within their own
consciousness as well as in the structured, historical circumstances in which they find
themselves” (p. 47).
Thirdly, Freire developed the concept of conscientization. He described conscientization as
the phenomenon that occurs in students with the realization that they “know that they know”
(1970, 1973). It is a powerful realization that takes them to a more critical level of consciousness
and adds a feeling of dimensionality to the learning experience. Freire (1970) himself defined
conscientization as “learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to
take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 17). Critical pedagogy is concerned not
only with the students and the change that occurs in them as a result of the learning, but also with
the change that occurs in the teacher. In critical pedagogy, not only do the teachers teach the
students, but the students, in turn, teach the teacher. This effects a transformation of both
students and their teachers. When this happens, Freire (1970) claimed that true and meaningful
learning has occurred. Allsup (1997) takes this further and states, “a fundamental purpose of
performing art forms, engaging with them, and trying to create them is to provoke some kind of
personal transformation” (p. 81). Duda, et al. (1999) outline Henry Giroux’s attempts to use
critical pedagogy to:

• create new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down

disciplines and creating interdisciplinary knowledge
• raise questions about the relationships between the margins and centers of power
in schools and concerns itself with how to provide a way of reading history as part
of a larger project of reclaiming power and identity, particularly as these are
shaped around the categories of race, gender, class, and ethnicity
• reject the distinction between high and popular culture so as to make curriculum
knowledge responsive to the everyday knowledge that constitutes peoples’ lived
histories differently
• illuminate the primacy of the ethical in defining the language that teachers and
others use to produce particular cultural practices (http://www.perfectfit.org/CT/
giroux2.html)

Critical Pedagogy and the Psychology of Learning

Critical pedagogy emerges from the synthesis of critical theory as a philosophical framework
and the applications of learning theory. Two learning theories in particular have greatly informed

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 13

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

critical pedagogy: constructivism and experiential learning. Constructivism—especially
sociotransformative constructivism (Rodriguez, 1998)—has much to offer. Since the early 1980s,
constructivism has enjoyed popularity in mathematics, social studies, and science education.
From a constructivist perspective, learning is a process by which students generate meaning in
response to new ideas and experiences they encounter in school. In this interpretive process,
learners use their prior knowledge and beliefs, which they store in memory as mental structures
(described variously by cognitive scientists as knowledge frameworks, schemata, mental models,
and personal theories) to make sense of the new input (Glasersfeld, 1995). As this suggests, the
knowledge children bring to school, derived from personal and cultural experiences, is central to
their learning. To overlook this resource is to deny children access to the knowledge-construction
process. In constructivism, the conventional empty-vessel metaphor of the learner yields to the
image of a builder who is constantly striving to construct meaning. Similarly, the traditional
belief that knowledge resides, intact, outside the learner gives way to an understanding that
information that is external to the student becomes knowledge for him or her only when he or she
gives meaning to it (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Only recently have researchers considered constructivist techniques in music classrooms
(Chen, 2000). Giambattista Vico, a Neapolitan philosopher of the 18th century, held that humans
can only clearly understand what they have themselves constructed (Shively, 1995; Yager, 1991).
This idea has direct connection to the notions in critical pedagogy that students construct their
own sense of reality and that, through instruction, that reality changes. Russian psychologist Lev
Vygotski (1978) acknowledged the social and cultural influences on learning. He wrote, “Human
learning presupposes a special social nature and a process by which children grow into the
intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88). In other words, sophisticated thoughts develop in
learners from interactions between significant individuals, what the critical pedagogues (Freire,
1970; Schmidt, 2001) call “dialoguing pedagogy.”
Piaget laid the foundation for experience-based learning when he encouraged teachers to plan
experiences that immersed children in an environment enabling them to explore, to manipulate,
to experiment, and to question. The critical theorist would add the following: to resist, to search
out answers, and to ask new questions for themselves (Fosnot, 1989; Ginn, 1995). In fact, a
central component in Piaget’s theory of learning and thinking was that learners construct their
own meaning. According to Sigel and Cockling (1977), Piaget asserted that for a child to know
and construct knowledge of the world, the child must act on objects. It is this action that
produces knowledge of these objects. For example, as students listen to music or sing songs, they
need to be encouraged and involved in dialogues with both the teacher and the other students.
Dialogue within a community engenders thinking (Fosnot, 1989). Not surprisingly, critical
pedagogy welcomes dialogue about music by all participants.
The notion that students construct their own learning resonates with the ideas and ideals of
postmodern thinking. By constructing their own meaning, students connect word to world and
expand their perceptions of reality, a goal central to critical pedagogy. Clearly, constructivist
strategies in the classroom will yield conscientization. However, constructivism primarily
focuses on the cognitive connections that happen as children make or construct their own
meaning. For critical pedagogy in music education, this is limiting. For music learning that
empowers, the pedagogy must also address feeling and action that are significant, sophisticated,
and meaningful to the students and teacher.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 14

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

 Experiential learning, particularly as articulated by Bernice McCarthy (1987, 2000) provides a
teaching model that considers critical feeling and critical action. McCarthy’s (1987) model,
called 4MAT, considers student and teacher learning styles and provides a framework for lessons
that acknowledge the children and their teachers for who they are. Specifically, the model places
children and their teachers into a comfort zone for at least one quarter of the total learning
experience. Focusing on conceptual learning, which is consistent with the tenets of critical
pedagogy, McCarthy suggests that learning activities alternate between concrete and abstract or
holistic modes of perception and process. This strategy facilitates a whole-brain learning
experience. She suggests a cycle of learning that engages children in experiences that facilitate
critical action and critical feeling. While students have the opportunity to construct knowledge,
they also have the opportunity to act and to reflect on those actions. Teachers are also engaged in
the learning as they continually assess the learning experiences in real time. That is, the
assessment is ongoing, allowing for refocusing at multiple points throughout the learning
experience.
Using McCarthy’s model, Abrahams and Head (1998) developed a general music-lesson
model based on the theme that music communicates a message. Using guided imagery, students
imagine the most beautiful place they have ever been and write a brief descriptive paragraph. The
classmates share paragraphs and then select a CD from their personal audio collections that
evokes memories of their special place. The teacher then offers a presentation on Brahms and his
Requiem. Students listen to a recording of the fourth movement, “How Lovely Is Thy Dwelling
Place.” The teacher poses the following problem: If you were going to compose a piece
describing your favorite place, what might it sound like? In cooperative groups, students engage
in dialogue to create a rubric to evaluate such pieces. Using the technology in the music
classroom, they compose their pieces. They then perform for each other, critique, revise as
appropriate, and then present their compositions in an evening recital for parents.
Ensemble conductors can adapt the model as well. Miles (1997) provides suggestions for
teaching “Snakes” by Thomas Duffy to a young band. As adapted for the McCarthy model, a
band director might begin by playing the recording of Thomas Duffy’s “Snakes.” The conductor,
as provocateur, asks the players what snakes might be associated with the different instruments.
Students list the various snakes and instruments. The conductor then invites a reptile expert from
the local zoo to visit the band class and give a demonstration that shows the different snakes
portrayed in the music. Students color code each “snake” as found in their individual parts. The
students then play and rehearse the piece. During this process, they may discuss issues of
dynamics and phrasing with their neighbor, and then with the ensemble as a whole. They may
suggest alternatives for dynamics and phrasing. Then, student conductors come to the front of the
band and conduct the different alternatives. The conductor moderates a dialogue and they come
to closure. After a practice performance, students critique themselves and their presentation of
the pieces. They then present “Snakes” in concert.
Critical pedagogues encourage children to gain the courage to grow by acting on their
freedom. As members of contemporary society, young people typically assume the role of an
audience of passive consumers (Allsup, 1997). To counter this role, teachers may design
activities that will propel students forward and motivate them to explore, investigate, and identify
the possibilities. According to Regelski (1998), critical pedagogy provides “a telling critique of
the techno-rationality of methodolatry and of the ideological agendas involved in the leading

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 15

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

name-brand methods” (p. 16) such as Kodály, Orff, Dalcroze, or Gordon. Giroux (1983) urges
teachers to be critically conscious of (a) who and what they are, (b) how they fit into the larger
scheme of society and culture, (c) their historical genesis, and (d) their critical role as a
gatekeeper of cultural meanings, values, attitudes and behaviors. This implies that critical
teachers come to know their students; to analyze dominant relations in schools in terms of their
origin and how they are sustained, and to recognize the differences between their world and the
world of the students.

Critics of Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is not without its critics, although few comment on music education
specifically. Prominent in the mainstream of those who criticize critical pedagogy are C. A.
Bowers (1982, 1987) and Kenneth Strike (1989). They argue that the critical pedagogues have
abandoned Marxist theory, which provided the original tenets of the pedagogy, and accuse
Apple, Bowles and Gintis, Giroux, McLaren, and others of being idealist and liberal. Bowers
(1987) makes similar claims in his critique of Freire’s work, accusing Freire of “revisionist
liberalism”— a notion that Freire himself denied.
Several critics like Liston (1988) focus on the ethical dimension of critical pedagogy,
claiming that schools contribute to the reproduction of an unjust system. Stanley writes, “While
he [Liston] claims a general sympathy with the aims of critical pedagogy, he is concerned that the
problems he has illuminated could result in the failure of this movement” (p. 119). Not
surprisingly, McLaren, Giroux, and others object. Burbules and Kantor (1999) focus on the work
of Apple and question Apple’s attention to the production of culture at the expense of the
political factions present in schooling. Liston (1985, 1986, 1988) and Dale (1986) agree.
Knight and Pearl (2000) recognize the importance of culture as a powerful influence on youth
but claim that while the critical theorists and critical pedagogues have acknowledged this, they
offer no productive results. They write, “the approach of critical pedagogy is distressingly similar
to that of traditional educators. Whereas one tells about the glories and wonders of ‘our
democracy,’ the other tells of its imperfections and oppressiveness. They are equally boring” (p.
206). Citing Giroux they continue, “Critical pedagogy has discovered popular culture and,
unsurprising, found it corrupted by all-powerful all-encompassing hegemonic influences”
(Giroux, 1994, as cited in Knight & Pearl, 2000, p. 205). “Popular culture is no more
empowering than schooling; it generates no important knowledge; it makes no case for
persuasive leadership; it divides more than unifies; and it tends to be dystopic” (p. 205).
Regarding curriculum, they are severe when they write, “Whatever its other merits, critical
pedagogy has been unable to slow the advance of an ever more alienating and mind-numbing
curriculum … [because] it proposes virtually nothing new as an alternative” (pp. 200–201).
Knight and Pearl point out weaknesses of critical pedagogy to assess learning when they claim
“nothing in critical pedagogy is testable. It is not derived from practice, nor does it inform
practice. It can inform neither short-term tactical improvements nor long-range strategic
restructuring” (p. 221).
A very different critique is raised by Ellsworth (1989) who states that the application of the
techniques and goals of critical pedagogy “produced results that were not only unhelpful, but
actually exacerbated the very conditions we were trying to work against, including Eurocentrism,
racism, sexism, classicism, and ‘banking education’” (p. 298). Ellsworth believes that the

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 16

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

negative effects of critical pedagogy can be traced to the failure of critical pedagogues “to launch
any meaningful analysis of or program for reformulating the institutionalized power imbalances
between themselves and their students, or of the essentially paternalistic project of education
itself” (p. 306).
Ellsworth’s critique is important to critical pedagogy for music education in that she attacks
the very teaching strategies that this pedagogy advocates for classroom music. For example, she
expresses concern with the notion of teachers teaching students and students teaching teachers. In
her view, having teachers become more like their students by highlighting the teacher’s need to
learn about the student’s reality and knowledge is faulty. She points out that the teacher’s desire
to bring the students up to the teacher’s level of understanding implies a level of superiority on
the part of the teacher that is problematic and seemingly in conflict with the tenets of critical
pedagogy. Ellsworth notes that there are students who have had experiences that enable them to
understand racism (or other forms of oppression) in ways that the teacher may never fully grasp.
From Ellsworth’s perspective, our understanding of oppression and domination will always
remain shaped and constrained by our personal biographies (Stanley, 1992, p. 140). R. Colwell
(personal communications, 2003) concurs when he says with tongue in cheek that music teachers
will not acknowledge that the students are oppressed. Instead, music teachers will want to
convince us that they are the ones who are truly oppressed.
Regarding dialoguing pedagogy, Ellsworth (1989) is equally outspoken in claiming that
classrooms actually preclude the sort of dialogue critical pedagogues propose. Specifically, she
writes that the dynamics of subordination present in all classrooms prevent dialogue from
yielding any sort of emancipation or liberation. For music education, this is an important
concern. Just how much dialogue should be in the music class at the expense of music making?
Do we want students doing it or talking about it? Those are fundamental concerns.

Critical Pedagogy and Music Education

While it is important to acknowledge these voices of critique, there is nevertheless
considerable value in the critical pedagogy approach for music education. McCarthy (2000)
writes that education can only be effective if the learning is associated with a creative act, thus
exercising the critical comprehension of the experience. Since schools are cultural and political
spheres, they actively engage in the production of both cultural and societal norms, values,
knowledge, and language. As such, it becomes necessary to examine music in education and, in
particular, the role of music education in the formation of cultural ideals, attitudes, practices, and
behaviors (Rose, 1990). According to Giroux (1983), schools are social sites with dual
curricula—one overt and formal (the one that is tested), the other hidden and informal (as the
extension of hegemony). Thus, if music education is to enable and empower students to be
informed and critical thinkers and active, reflective creators of their own cultural history, then it
must look to both the implicit and explicit, the internal and external understandings, meanings,
and practices of music in education. According to Rose (1990), “it is only through the process of
developing a critical consciousness of music education that we can truly comprehend both the
powers and possibilities of change, transformation and emancipation that are inherent within
music as an art form and within music in education” (p. 26). Critical pedagogy seeks to identify
possibilities in the classroom by offering schema to connect word to world and by unyieldingly

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 17

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

advancing an agenda of transformation. It broadens the tenets of critical theory beyond the realm
of critical thinking through problem posing and dialogue.
Elliott (1995) expanded on Christopher Small’s idea that music was not a noun, but rather a
verb, and opened the door for critical pedagogues to consider the notion of “critical action” in the
music classroom. Elliott paved the way for teachers to discard trivial standard music making
(Elliott calls “musicing”) such as random composing or improvising. Schmidt (2002b) extended
Elliott’s conception of music as action when he suggested that music was not only a verb, but
also a verb of power, and opened new conduits to connect music (i.e., word to world). This gave
critical pedagogues license to engage in music making with children that was not only critically
active and mindful, but also critically emotive. Since music reflects thought and emotion
(Langer, 1953; Meyer, 1957) it is as empowering as it is powerful, and as such, music provides
the tools of language whereby emotion can be expressed in nonverbal ways. In this manner music
connects to the realities of both individuals and communities who search for social change
(Schmidt, 2002a).
Regelski (2004) suggests several models to teach music from an action or praxial (Elliott,
1995) perspective. Applying critical pedagogy for music education that integrates these ideas
with the ideas and ideals of the critical theory (Freire, 1970, 1973, 1998), constructivism
(Rodriguez, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978), and experientialism (McCarthy, 1987, 2000), an eight-step
lesson model emerges (Abrahams, Jenkins & Schmidt, 2002). The steps are defined in Table 1.
A teacher can apply the model to a general-music lesson that introduces the instruments of the
orchestra to very young children. The lesson might begin with children using crayons and
drawing paper to create a portrait of the members in their family (step 1). Students share their
drawings as the teacher engages them in dialogue, asking the children to explain who the people
are and how they are related to each other (step 2). Students might then be divided into groups
and charged with the planning of a birthday party that will include the families of each person in
the group. Children discuss what each family will contribute to the group event, including what
music each family might bring to play at the party. Children are prompted to find music that
represents each of their individual families (step 3). Students from the middle or high school
orchestra visit the class and demonstrate their instruments. The teacher suggests that the various
instruments also belong to families. Together they listen to Peter and the Wolf (step 4). Next,
students can try out the instruments and try to classify them according to similar characteristics.
Each group generates a list of their findings (step 5). Children are given cigar boxes, Quaker Oats
boxes, rubber bands, soup cans, beans, etc., and challenged to invent and build a new instrument.
They use their instruments to accompany songs they have learned in class (step 6).
Students and their teacher assess the performances. How appropriate were the instruments as
accompaniments? What changes or revisions might be made to make either the performance or
the instruments better (step 7)? Finally, to close the lesson, students and their teacher attend a
dress rehearsal of the middle school or high school orchestra. After the rehearsal, the students
play their invented instruments for the orchestra members (step 8).

Conclusions
Critical pedagogy for music education acknowledges that teaching and learning music is
socially and politically constructed. It advocates a shift in the power relationships within the
music classroom by suggesting that teachers and students teach each other. This pedagogy not

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 18

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

only engages children in critical thinking through problem posing, problem solving, and
dialoguing, but it also engages children and their teachers in critical action by a mindful (Gates,
1999) production of culture (Apple, 1982; Giroux, 1985), especially when students compose
original musical compositions.
Critical pedagogy for music education yields transformative experiences for both students and
their teacher. It nurtures critical feeling in the act of reproducing culture (Bourdieu, 1977) by
expressing music through composition, improvisation, and performance and also in analyzing
and evaluating music and music performances. Most importantly, the strategies suggest
possibilities for new ways of thinking about and conceptualizing music and musical experiences
in both the classroom and rehearsal hall. In so doing, Critical pedagogy for music education
breaks down the walls between the teacher’s music and the student’s music, moving everyone
from what is to what ought to be.

Table 1. Eight Steps for Applying Critical Pedagogy

Step 1: Honoring Their World
Step 2: Sharing the Experience
Step 3: Connecting Their World to
the Classroom
Step 4: Dialoguing Together
Step 5: Practicing the Content
Step 6: Connecting Word to World
Step 7: Assessing Transformation
Step 8: Acknowledging
Transformation
Teacher engages the students in problem solving by
creating an experience that presents a need to know.
Students and their teacher process the experience. They
share feelings and reflect.
Teacher connects the experience using comparable
concepts from the other arts, culture, or student out-of-
school experiences.
Teacher presents the lesson content. Students gather
the evidence they need to solve the problem.
Teacher provides students with an opportunity to
practice the content. A homework assignment or quiz
might be included at this step.
Teacher invites students to find alternative solutions
and new ways to use the information presented.
Students have the opportunity to create something new.
Students and their teacher reflect and evaluate the work
completed. An assessment rubric may be applied at this
step.
Students and their teacher celebrate the new learning
through presentation, exhibition, or some other form of
demonstration.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 19

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

References
Abrahams, F., & Head, P. (1998). Case studies in music education. Chicago: GIA.
Abrahams, F., Jenkins, L. J., & Schmidt, P. (2002). Jubilate: A music curriculum for the
adolescent soul. Unpublished Manuscript, Rider University.
Allsup, R. E. (1997). Activating self-transformation through improvisation in instrumental music
teaching. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 5(2), 80–85.
Apple, M. W. (1982). Education and power. Boston: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (1988). Redefining equality: Authoritarian populism and the conservative
restoration. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 167–184.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: University Press.
Bowers, C. A. (1982). Review of ideology, culture and the process of schooling. Educational
Studies, 13(3/4), 420–22.
Bowers, C. A. (1987). Toward a post-liberal theory of education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Burbules, N., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Reflections, differences,
and limits. In T. Popkewitz & L. Fenler (Eds.), Critical theories in education, pp. 45–66.
New York: Routledge.
Chen, C. (2000). Constructivism in general music education: A music teacher’s lived experience.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.(UMI No. 9971045).
Dale, M. (1986). Stalking a conceptual chameleon: Ideology in Marxist studies of education.
Educational Theory 36(3), 241–257.
Duda, C., Garza, R., Stacavich, L., Yang, S-K., & Williams, L. (1999). Rage and hope. Retrieved
June 8, 2003, from http://www.perfectfit.org/CT/giroux2.html
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths
of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.
Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learnings; A constructivist approach for
teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gates, J. T. (1999). Action for change in music education: The Mayday Group agenda. In M.
McCarthy (ed.) Music education as praxis: Reflecting on music-making as human action,
pp. 14–25. College Park: University of Maryland.
Ginn, W. (1995). Jean Piaget: Intellectual development. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from
http://129.7.160.115.INST5931/PIAGET1.html
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. Boulder: Westview Press.
Giroux, H. (1985). Pedagogy and the politics of hope. Boulder: Westview Press.
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. South
Hadley, MA: Begin Garvey.
Giroux, H. (1994). Disturbing pleasures: Learning popular culture. New York: Routledge.
Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London:
Falmer.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 20

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

Knight, T., & Pearl, A. (2000). Democratic education and critical pedagogy. The Urban Review,
32(3), 197–226.
Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and form: A theory of art. New York: Scribner.
Liston, D. P. (1985). Marxism and schooling: A failed or limited tradition. Educational Theory,
35(3), 307–12.
Liston, D. P. (1986). On facts and values: An analysis of radical curriculum studies. Educational
Theory, 36(2), 449–64.
Liston, D. P. (1988). Capitalist schools: Explanations and ethics in radical studies of schooling.
New York: Routledge.
McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right and left-mode
techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel.
McCarthy, B. (2000). About teaching: 4MAT in the classroom. Wauconda, IL: About Learning,
Inc.
McLaren, P. (1998). Che: The pedagogy of Che Guevara: Critical pedagogy and globalization
thirty years after Che. Cultural Circles, 3, 29–103.
Meyer, L. B. (1957). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miles, R. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching music through performance in band. Chicago: GIA.
Regelski, T. A. (1998). Critical theory as a basis for critical thinking in music education. In
Studies in Music from the University of Western Ontario, Vol. 17. pp. 1–19. London,
Ontario (Canada): University of Western Ontario.
Regelski, T. A. (2004). Teaching general music in grades 4–8: A musicianship approach. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresitance: Toward socio-transformative
constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 589–622.
Rose, A. M. (1990). Music education in culture: A critical analysis of reproduction production
and hegemony. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. (UMI No.
9020464).
Schmidt, P. (2001). The applications of a dialoguing and problem posing pedagogy for the
teaching of history and philosophy of music education to graduate music education
majors: An action research. Unpublished masters thesis, Westminster Choir College of
Rider University, Princeton.
Schmidt, P. (2002a, September). Music education as liberatory practice: Creating new
frameworks for learning music through a Freirian perspective. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Paulo Freire Institute, Los Angeles, CA.
Schmidt, P. (2002b, October). Looking for a broader road: College music education curriculum
through social lenses. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mayday Group, Columbus,
OH.
Shively, J. L. (1995). A framework for the development and implementation of constructionist
learning environments for beginning band classes. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
Sigel, I., & Cockling, R. (1977). Cognitive development from childhood to adolescence: A
constructivist perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 21

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015

Stanley, W. B. (1992). Curriculum for utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in
the postmodern era. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Strike, K. A. (1989). Liberal justice and the Marxist critique of education. New York:Routledge.
Villegas, A. M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: a coherent
approach. New York: State University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: Gender, class and power. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin and Garvey.
Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science education.
The Science Teacher, 58, 52–57.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer, 22

Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GUELPH on March 7, 2015