Music and Music

Education in
People’s Lives
An OXFORD HANDBOOK of |
Music Education, Volume 1

EDITED BY

Gary E. McPherson’ |
Graham F. Welch
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2023 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

httos://archive.org/details/musicmusiceducat0000unse
MUSIC AND MUSIC
EDUCATION
INVPEOPLE’S LIVES
WP HARTI Le
ue
ee
wi
a ty

' Ne
MUSIC AND MUSIC
EDUCATION
IN°PEOPLE:S-EEV-ES

AN OXFORD HANDBOOK OF
MUSIC EDUCATION

VOLUME 1

Edited by
Gary E. McPherson
and Graham F. Welch

UNIVERSITY PRESS
 OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers

the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: McPherson, Gary E. |Welch, Graham (Graham F)
Title: Music & music education in people’s lives : An Oxford handbook of
music education, Volume 1/ edited by Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch.
Other titles: Music and music education in people’s lives
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2018] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017031711 |ISBN 9780190674434 (pbk. : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9780190674540 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Music—Instruction and study.
Classification: LCC MT1 .093 2018 |DDC 780.71—dc23
LC record available at https://Iccn.loc.gov/2017031711

35798642
Printed by Webcom, Inc., Canada
 CONTENTS

Contributors ix
Introduction to Volume1 xxiii

PART 1 MUSIC EDUCATION AND THE ROLE OF MUSIC IN PEOPLE’S LIVES

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

PART 2 CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE ACTION

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

28. Preparation, Perseverance, and Performance in Music: Views

from a Program of Educational Psychology Research 302
Andrew J. Martin
29. Music Therapy in Schools: An Expansion of
Traditional Practice 308
Katrina McFerran
30. Embracing New Digital Technologies: Now and into
the Future 312
Bradley Merrick
31. Challenges for Research and Practices of Music Education 315
Bengt Olsson
32. All Theoried Up and Nowhere to Go 319
Bennett Reimer
33. Make Research, Not War: Methodologies and Music
Education Research 323
Wendy L. Sims
34. The Preparation of Music Teacher Educators:
A Critical Link 326
David J. Teachout

35. Music and the Arts: As Ubiquitous and Fundamental as the Air
We Breathe 330
Rena B. Upitis
36. There Is Nothing Complex About a Correlation Coefficient 335
Peter R. Webster
37. Dewey’s Bastards: Music, Meaning, and Politics 339
Paul Woodford

Index 343
 mS mats
a vie
hee
fe een a ba

1p ;

a, it wad
™ =
oh,
a

Seo Saiae age

’ rou sh

+ 2 = : ei - A

# | See re a ci iT otstet)wh "5?

er on.
| re Fei beetey
7 Tn agen teehee
cae q Ms o—ree pee
= es
Leib sie cassov
if ‘yf ay ,
merevoke

| ; t o P :
“aM i ‘
te wth
a
it ey a, Sh

e r ia ~ ;

ee R i
aa = : m hie

1 s = “4

C al e

_— "
. +*
J ;

- ae 2

- ~—
a E ry

a - =

rs
ees st

FF lad
a -
<a i &
 CONTRIBUTORS
SCRSGRMC VSS SR ASAD ERO OEDRO CHO ENO CRO RDO CECemES HEE OH eDDeDee

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

(North Carolina), Brandon University (Manitoba), University of Toronto, and

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

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

Lucy Green is Professor of Music Education at the UCL Institute of Education,

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

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

Music Education Research Commission, and editor of the International Journal of

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

Diversity for UNESCO. Current activity is focused on policy formation and advo-
cacy in a broad range of music issues, including music education at all levels. He is
a Member of the Order of Australia.
Hakan Lundstrém has a long teaching experience at the Malmé Academy of
Music, Sweden, particularly folk music, world music, and popular music in the
music teacher program. As head of the institution and as a dean of the Malmé
Faculty of Fine and Performing Arts, he has played an active role in starting re-
search in music education and more recently artistic research. He has also served
as president of the International Society for Music Education. Specializing in eth-
nomusicology his thesis was on the music of the ethnic minority Kammu in Laos.
On-going research projects also include Japanese festival and popular music and
native music in Alaska. He has co-edited school song books and led a project on
intercultural music education including field studies abroad (Gambia) and work
with immigrant musicians. Another long-term project concerns conservatory edu-
cation and revitalization of minority music in Vietnam.
Raymond MacDonald is Professor of Music Psychology and Improvisation at The
University of Edinburgh. His ongoing research focuses on issues relating to im-
provisation, musical communication, music health and wellbeing, music education
and musical identities. His work is informed by a view of improvisation as a social,
collaborative and uniquely creative process that provides opportunities to develop
new ways of working musically. He runs music workshops and lectures interna-
tionally and has published over 70 peer reviewed papers and book chapters. He has
co-edited five texts, Musical Identities (2002) and Musical Communication (200s),
Musical Imaginations (2012) and Music Health & Wellbeing (2012), The Handbook
of Musical Identities (2016) and was editor of the journal Psychology of Music be-
tween 2006 and 2012. As a saxophonist and composer he has released over 60 CDs
and toured and broadcast worldwide. He has written music for film, television, the-
atre, radio and art installations and much of his work explores the boundaries and
ambiguities between what is conventionally seen as improvisation and composition.
Clifford K. Madsen, Ph.D., is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor in the
Center for Music Research in the College of Music at the Florida State University,
where he completed his doctorate and has been serving as a faculty member since
1961. His expertise is in experimental research in music and systematic observation
and analysis concerning teacher effectiveness. His research interests are in percep-
tion and cognition having done a good deal of research in intonation and teacher
effectiveness. Additionally he pioneered the use of the Continuous Response Digital
Interface (CRDI) to investigate aesthetic and emotional response to music. He is
widely published in many scholarly journals and has authored and/or co-authored
13 books. The sth Edition of his Teaching/Discipline: Behavioral Principles Toward a
Positive Approach was recently released in 2016.
Andrew J. Martin is Professor of Educational Psychology in the School of
Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. He is also President
xvi CONTRIBUTORS

of the International Association of Applied Psychology—Division 5 Educational,

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

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

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

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

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

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

education and disability. Publications are in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian,

Swedish, Greek, Japanese and Chinese.
Paul Woodford is Professor and former Chair of the Department of Music
Education at the Don Wright Faculty of Music, the University of Western Ontario.
His interests in philosophical, historical, sociological, and political issues affecting
the profession have led to many publications, including four books on the history
of music in Newfoundland and Labrador, a fifth book, entitled Democracy and
Music Education: Liberalism, Ethics, and the Politics of Practice (Indiana University
Press, 2005), contributions to The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada (1992), The
New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (2002), The Oxford
Handbook of Music Education (2012), The 111th National Society for the Study of
Education Yearbook (2012), The Child as Musician (Oxford, 2016), and co-editorship
of The Oxford Handbook of Social Justice in Music Education (2015). Formerly Co-
Chair of the Executive Committee of the International Society for the Philosophy
of Music Education from 2005 to 2007, Dr. Woodford is a member of the advisory
boards of the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, the British
Journal of Music Education, and the Philosophy of Music Education Review.
 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 1

Music AND Music EDUCATION

IN PEOPLE’S LIVES: AN OxFORD HANDBOOK
OF Music EDUCATION

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

striving to learn and to share the power and uniqueness of music with others. Music
education has the power to allow us all to reach our musical potential and max-
imize our birthright. We therefore encourage readers to draw on the extraordi-
nary 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 pub-
lishing the OHME in five new specialist volumes.
Now that all of the authors can see their contributions in the context of this
new volume, we hope that they will agree that our journey together continues to be
worthwhile. We hope, also, that our readers enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Gary E. McPherson and Graham F. Welch

Chief Editors
March 2017
MUSIC AND MUSIC
EDUCATION
IENESPE © PEE*“SoL IVES
 ras

D 1 ; y. ws
cd -
<I>
-

~~

4 oS
7s) a
sx
~ ) -
-_ - “=
Lo ¥ r 2
na it i - is
5 fa Sear a ee

= _—
5 i
m as .
fe
Me Sa
_ =
at
a wv

a t
*
‘ 2

a ~al
a
C-
a)
cs. -_

a _

- at
_ =
ee i
7 ——— 7%
7 A
< . ' e
hy - ©i
xe)
MUSIC EDUCATION
AWN DAE ROUGE
OF MUSIC IN
BEORCES EIVES

Part Editor
GARY E. MCPHERSON
AND GRAHAM E. WELCH
 CHAPTER 1

COMMENTARY: MUSIC
EDUCATION AND THE
ROLE OF MUSIC IN
PEOPLE’S LIVES

GRAHAM F. WELCH AND

GARY E. MCPHERSON

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

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

MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND

HUMAN DESIGN

An individual’s musical capabilities deepen and develop over time, particularly

when they are exposed to an appropriately nurturing environment, not least be-
cause of core characteristics in our human neuropsychobiological design, such
as those related to the brain’s neuroplasticity—the property by which new neural
connections are formed in response to experience (Kraus et al., 2014; Schlaug, 2015;
also Hodges & Gruhn, chapter 11). Musical behavior embraces many different brain
functions, such as perception, action, cognition, emotion, learning, and memory
(Pantev, 2009). Although the brain’s underlying neural architecture is conceived
as being modular—in the sense that different parts of the brain have relatively spe-
cialized functions—musical behaviors (as in musical performance) customarily in-
volve many different areas (modules) of the brain networked together (e.g°, Peretz &
Coltheart, 2003; Stewart & Williamon, 2008; Callan et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2006;
Kleber & Zarate, 2014; Schlaug, 2015).
Thus the enculturated accumulation of sonic experience and our ability to de-
tect patterns in this experience combine over time to allow us to fulfill our musical
birthright; that is, to be musical and to be able to communicate and interact musi-
cally with others. This is vividly portrayed in the following example of the musical
enculturation of a child in her first year of life:
Having been brought up in a home where both parents are musicians, Nelli had
a fair exposure to different kinds of music, even before she was born... . But,
from this somewhat extensive musical palette, Nelli had isolated just one tune as
her absolute favorite, even though she was eight months old; this was War’s “Low
Rider”! She's had a fair exposure to this song, being the opening theme for the
“George Lopez” show, a breakfast time sitcom broadcast in the U.S., where Nelli
spent the first winter of her life. At that time, Nelli could not even sit without
being supported by pillows, but as soon as the opening cow-bell and bass-line
were heard, she would first turn and look at you as if she was seeking assurance
that “this is really “it,” the time of joy,” and would then start bouncing at full
steam, and in admirable synchronization. Was it TV’s Lopez family’s happy faces
and colorful clothes? Was it Nelli’s “gestalt” to identify with a song that someone
COMMENTARY
5

would expect to enjoy over a cold cerveza in a beach bar in Acapulco? It is

impossible to know. But if you wanted to see Nelli bouncing on cue, you didn’t
even have to play the song after a while, you could simply hum the opening bass-
line from “Low Rider.” (E. Himonides, personal communication, April 4, 2011)

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

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

THE IMPACT OF EDUCATION ON MUSICAL

DEVELOPMENT, BIOGRAPHY, AND IDENTITY

Although being musical is integral to human design—believed to be because of our

evolutionary past in which communication in sound was critical to survival and repro-
duction (Mithen, 2009)—what counts as salient in our experience of music is framed
and shaped by sonic interactions within particular sociocultural contexts, as well as
being flavored by individual subjectivity, maturation, and biography. Early experience
of music in childhood can be a powerful formative influence for subsequent engage-
ment as an adult, not least because of an interweaving of emotion in such experience.
The following extended example offers an illustration of how diverse experiences came
together to shape one professional musician's early biography in a particular direction.

Q. “Could you tell me a little bit about your background and how you got into
music in the first place?”
6 GRAHAM F. WELCH AND GARY E. MCPHERSON

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

The power of episodic memories of childhood musical experience in the for- ~

mation of musical identity is also evidenced in an interview with a professional jazz
saxophonist who described why he chose his particular instrument.
COMMENTARY
ee y

Q: “Why the saxophone?”

A: “Well the sax because I heard music on the radio that I liked. In fact, it
wasnt the radio, it was an eight-track tape in my grandfather's Rolls Royce . . .
Silver Shadow 2! [laughs]. See, I wasn't exposed to music when I was younger—
you know my parents didn't play instruments and didn't really listen at all. So
we had my grandfather's Rolls Royce for a few weeks . . . we had some long
journeys in it to the Isle of Wight, and he had some 8 track tapes in it—he had
Chicago (which I didn't listen to much) and he had Sinatra and it was [the]
first record with [the] Billy May Orchestra on the reprise record (that was his
own record label) and it was ‘Songs for Swinging Lovers; or ‘Swing Along with
Me'—something like that—and it has ‘Have You Met Miss Jones?} ‘Moonlight
on the Ganges, ‘Granada .. . but it was the first time Ireally listened to music—
and I would wait for this tape to go round, you know, to get to particular songs,
or Id try and find ‘Have You Met Miss Jones?’ and when wed get [in] the car
again . . . the first thing I'd do is try and get . . . or where's ‘Have You Met Miss
Jones’? I'm sure its after this one. . . . So I wasn't really listening to music, but
I just thought somehow that I wanted to play that music, because it made me
feel so good”
(interview with RG, saxophonist who began learning at age 19;
G. Owen, personal communication, June 30, 2008)

These biographical examples are commonplace in the narratives of professional

musicians (see Manturzewska, 1990; McPherson, Davidson, & Faulkner, 2012;
Creech, et al., 2008; Cleaver, 2009). Yet childhood experiences can also be pow-
erfully negative. A study in Newfoundland (Knight, 2010), for example, reported
on how a lifelong musical identity as a “nonsinger” was often the product of re-
ceiving inappropriate comments in childhood from others (peers or adults) at a
time when individuals were still developing their singing skills. In a survey of 197
Newfoundland adults, three-quarters of participants (72%) reported that their early
musical experience (whether positive or negative) had had a long-term effect on
their musical self-concept (p. 228). The author’s own mother provided a poignant
illustration of the longevity of a negative experience.
This journey began for me when I asked my dying mother one afternoon if she
had any regrets in life... . She did, and the answer that she gave was a disclosure
on her part and a revelation on mine. Mommy was 78, and quite weak, as she was
in the final stages of terminal cancer. When I posed this query about regrets, she
replied that she had led a charmed life, and had precious few regrets. The only real
regret was that she had been “a musical mute in a house full of birds.” My father
and all five of her children sang well. Mom revealed that she had been silenced
by a music teacher at school when she was seven and, ever since, she felt that she
could not sing. Newfoundland—Mom’s home from birth and her family’s for
several generations prior—has enjoyed a long, strong singing tradition amongst
its general population. From this common and expected cultural practice, she had
felt excluded and ashamed, virtually her whole life. (p. 2)
8 GRAHAM F, WELCH AND GARY E. MCPHERSON

The outcome of this disclosure was that the daughter (an accomplished choral
director) and her mother agreed that the mother should be taught to sing.
This was received with much hilarity, but as I persisted with gentle humor, she
actually acceded. Our treasured time together around her singing comprised
two main elements; I began to teach my mother to sing “in-tune,’ and she began
to share with me the memories, feelings and thoughts of her “nonsinging” life.
Within several days, my mother did learn to sing in-tune, to her amazement and
joy. (Knight, 2010, p. 2) 4

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

Unfortunately, such examples remind us that because of an inappropriate

human agency, not all music education is as positive and enabling as it*should be
(see further, O'Neill, chapter 9).

MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION

Notwithstanding the persistence of an erroneous bipolar conception in many

cultures of humanity as “musical”/"not-musical,” unless something negative
occurs to hinder progress, empirical evidence indicates that musical skills nor-
mally develop with age and experience and particularly so in a nurturing educa-
tional environment. An example is provided by a longitudinal study of children’s
singing from birth to age six years in Italy. The benefits of participation in an
extended program of musical activities for pregnant mothers and, subsequently,
the same mothers with their new babies, were evidenced in musical behaviors
appearing earlier than reported elsewhere in the literature, in terms of both the
children’s learning of song repertoire and their inventing of their own songs
(Tafuri, 2009).
COMMENTARY

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

100

@
2
90 R* 2= 0.82189
{

2 80 +
S
2
8 7)
tail
oH
=

5|
D
£
172)

®
N

E3 50-4
=

40 m

>a fe SSyl
ae Fy eke i ~tee 9 ‘eee ake operas
30

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Mean decimalized age

@ Non-SingUp G SingUp — Linear (Non-SingUp) Linear (SingUp)

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

Subsequently, visits to twenty primary schools were undertaken to observe and

extrapolate the characteristics of high-quality teaching of singing with children.
Analyses of the observational data revealed that learning was most likely where
¢ Pupils were actively engaged for a high percentage of time across the session
« The pupils’ voice was dominant within the session, either being expressed in
song or used to question, reflect and review their own progress
¢ The criteria for success were made explicit and reinforced thtoughout the
session
¢ Pupil performance was monitored and assessed, and musically informed
feedback instantly provided, with clear indications of how to improve
« Achievement was celebrated and valued and related to the criteria for success
« A suitably paced session was evidenced—such as a fast paced session that
built to a crescendo or a more intermittent pace that allowed space for
discussion
« Learning was placed within a wider context ofpupils’ lives, such as through
detailed discussion of the song’s lyrics (Saunders et al., 2011).
As another key message embedded in all sections of this volume, such research
data reminds us that, notwithstanding our individual idiosyncrasies as educators,
common features are evidenced when we are at our most effective in promoting
musical learning in others.

DISABILITY IN Music, DISABILITY AND MUSIC

The impact of education on musical development can be seen in various studies

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

visual metaphors of their attempts at vocal pitch matching in singing (http://www.

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

constructed as having some difficulty in singing “in-tune” and this interpretation

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

DEVELOPING A DESIRE TO ENGAGE

WITH MuSIC ACROSS THE LIFESPAN

Running parallel with studies on the issues above is a host of research on playing
a musical instrument or singing; something that countless millions of children
and adults around the world undertake formally or informally in various contexts
every day of each year. The evidence on formal learning of Western instruments
shows some interesting connections with other childhood leisure and recreational
pursuits, such as participation in a team sport, where playing for the “love of it”
has consistently been found to be a key ingredient for long-term participation and
success. By this we mean that successful musicians are often those whose musical
COMMENTARY 3

environment has exposed them to diverse opportunities and positive learning

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

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

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

Throughout their book, McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012) organize

the many varied transactions that they catalogue according to how learners can
come to feel competent or incompetent, connected or disconnected with others,
and autonomous in terms of being able to make personal choices and take respon-
sibility for their own learning or alternatively come to feel left out or under the
control of others. :

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

To summarize, this chapter has discussed several key themes. First, individual mu-
sical abilities deepen and develop over time when humans are exposed to an ap-
propriate nurturing environment. These experiences can be the result of formal/
nonformal learning environments, or various kinds of informal exposure to music.
In our daily lives, opportunities to learn music, to develop musically and to appre-
ciate music can present themselves in many varied ways. Second, we have explained
that music is basic to human design. Even so, musical experiences of any kind are
shaped not only by sonic interactions within particular sociocultural contexts, but
also by individual subjectivity, maturation, and individual life-events. Third, we
have seen that not all music education is positive or enabling, and that some people
report negative experiences that live with them throughout their lives. General
conceptions within the community that a person is musical or “nonmusical” are
COMMENTARY 15

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. Broadly speaking, being musically educated was defined in this chapter as

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

motivation to continue learning music? Ask some close friends or family

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

KEY SOURCES

McPherson, G. E. (ed.). (2016). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development.

and edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking mu-
sical ability, development, and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Welch, G. E, Howard, D. M., & Nix, J. (eds.). (2017). Oxford handbook of singing.
New York: Oxford University Press.

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

REFERENCES

Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice
in talent identification and development: Considering the role of psychology. Journal of
Sports Science, 22(5), 395-408.
Anderson, S., Himonides, E., Wise, K., Welch, G., & Stewart, L. (2012). Congenital amusia: is
there potential for learning? A study of the effects of singing interventions on pitch pro-
duction and perception of those with congenital amusia. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences, 1252, 345-353.
Berkowska, M., & Dalla Bella, S. (2013). Uncovering phenotypes of poor pitch singing: The
Sung Performance Battery (SPB). Frontiers in Psychology, 4: Article 714. doi:10.3389
fpsyg.2013.00714.
—_
COMMENTARY 17
a

Brown, S., Martinez, M. J., & Parsons, L. M. (2006). Music and language side by side in
the brain: A PET study of the generation of melodies and sentences. European Journal of
Neuroscience, 23(10), 2791-2803.
Callan, D., Kawato, M., Parsons, L., & Turner, R. (2007). Speech and song: The role of the
cerebellum. Cerebellum, 6(4), 321-327.
Cleaver, D. (2009). Storying the musical lifeworld: Illumination through narrative case
study. In M. Barrett & S. Stauffer (eds.), Narrative enquiry in music education: Troubling
certainty (pp. 35-56). New York: Springer.
Creech, A., Papageorgi, I., Duffy, C., Morton, E, Haddon, E., Potter, J., de Bezenac,
C., Whyton, T., Himonides, E., & Welch, G. F. (2008). Investigating musical perfor-
mance: Commonality and diversity amongst classical and nonclassical musicians. Music
Education Research, 10(2), 215-234.
Cuddy, L. L., Balkwill, L., Peretz, I., & Holden, R. R. (2005). Musical difficulties are rare: A
study of “tone deafness” among university students. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1060, 311-324.
Dalla Bella, S. (2016). Vocal performance in occasional singers. In G. E Welch, D. M.
Howard, & J. Nix (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. New York: Oxford University Press.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199660773.013.66.
Diamond, B., & Colton, G. (2007). Music in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland
and Labrador Studies, 22(1), 1719-1726.
Ericsson, K. A. (1997). Deliberate practice and the acquisition of expert performance: An over-
view. In H. Jorgensen & A. C. Lehmann (eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory
and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 9-51). Oslo: Norges musikkhogskole.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-R6mer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in
the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Hutchins, S., & Peretz, I. (2012). A frog in your throat or in your ear: Searching for the causes
of poor singing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1): 76-97. doi: 10.1037/
a0025064.
Kalmus, H., & Fry, D. B. (1980). On tune deafness (dysmelodia): Frequency, development,
genetics and musical background. Annals of Human Genetics, 43, 369-382.
Kleber, B., & Zarate, J. M. (2014). The neuroscience of singing. In G. F Welch, D. M.
Howard, & J. Nix (eds.), Oxford handbook of singing. New York: Oxford University Press.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199660773.013.015.
Knight, S. (2010). A study of adult “non-singers” in Newfoundland. Unpublished Ph.D. diss.,
Institute of Education, University of London.
Kraus, N., Hornickel, J., Strait, D. L., Slater, J., & Thompson, E. (2014). Engagement in com-
munity music classes sparks neuroplasticity and language development in children from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1403. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01403.
Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life-span development of professional
musicians. Psychology of Music, 18(2), 112-139.
McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking mu-
sical ability, development and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mithen, S. (2009). The music instinct: The evolutionary basis of musicality. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 3-12.
Ockelford, A., & Welch, G. EF. (2012). Mapping musical development in learners with the most
complex needs: The Sounds of Intent project. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (eds.),
Oxford handbook of music education (Vol 2, pp. 11-30). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pantey, C. (2009). Musical training and induced cortical plasticity. Annals of the New York
Academy of
Sciences, 1169, 131-132.
18 GRAHAM FE. WELCH AND GARY E. MCPHERSON

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

eee ee eee eee eee ee ee ee 2 ee ry

PEROT DEH T HOE ETT EE HEHE DED HET OH OT RTE OEE e HED EF EONS

MUSIC’S PLACE
IN EDUCATION

WAYNE D. BOWMAN

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

WHY SHOULD MUSIC BE PART OF THE

EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN?

This is, for many, “the” big question in music education—a burning issue in need
of an answer that establishes a compelling place for music at the heart of all educa-
tional processes. I shall begin consideration of this question in the time-honored
philosophical tradition of questioning the question and the assumptions on which it
appears to be based. I do this in order to tease out other questions and assumptions
that may ultimately be more useful and informative.
20 WAYNE D. BOWMAN

Although it is not uncommon to see the question posed this way, note that it tends
to narrow rather significantly the range of appropriate answers: what is anticipated
or desired are responses that are unequivocal and definitive— “knock-them-dead”
accounts that are irrefutable, universal, and largely unqualified. The question takes
as given that music should be a part of the education of all children, and seeks help
in defending that position. Because it does not ask whether music should be a part
of the education of all children or under what circumstances, it.precludes answers
that are negative or provisional or contingent: answers to the effect that perhaps
music shouldn't be a part, or that it should be a part only if certain conditions are
met. Since qualified answers like these are the kind I favor (for reasons I will explain
shortly), I suggest that a more useful way of posing the question might be to ask
something more along the lines of “Under what circumstances might music warrant
a place in the education of all children?” In other words, When should it be a uni-
versal part of education? Or perhaps, more directly and simply still, Should music
be part of the education of all children? This question invites philosophical inquiry
rather than advocacy, an important distinction that I will address in due course.
Another troubling feature of the question posed is its unelaborated reference to
education. It is probably a safe to assume that “education” here is intended to mean
something like “formal, compulsory schooling.” However, since the two are not syn-
onymous and since much that goes on within the context of formal schooling is not
particularly “educational” in the sense I understand that term, I am a little uncom-
fortable with the apparent implication that music should invariably and necessarily
be a part of it. Formal schooling is generally reserved for things that are deemed
essential to becoming full participants in a culture or society, or to things that we
have good reason to believe will enable people to live their lives to the fullest. We
turn to formal and required instruction, in other words, when there is reason to
think that without such instruction people will be seriously disadvantaged, or their
human potentials will be stunted in ways we as societies are not prepared to accept.
To argue the importance of music education is not quite the same as arguing that
musical instruction be a required part of schooling.
It is also rather important to note that the question posed is not asking why
(or, as I have suggested, how or if) musical experience is humanly important or
valuable. Instead, it is asking us to indicate how music’ value rises to the level of
something that must be addressed through compulsory instruction. The question is
not why we love music, then, or why we think music is important. There are many,
many things that are crucial to human life and living that are not taken up in formal
compulsory schooling, either because of the difficulty of teaching them effectively
in such settings or because they are learned quite effectively informally—through
processes of enculturation and socialization. Since almost all children learn to speak
their mother tongue by being immersed in a culture where it is spoken, for instance,
schools do not typically devote precious resources to teaching children to speak and
converse. The question about music, then, is this: of the many, many things that
make it an important and potent force in individual and social life, which of these
require formal instruction in order to flourish? If people can be shown to develop
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 21

passable or functional musical abilities without benefit of formal compulsory in-

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

that prepare people for futures that are, strictly speaking, unknowable. If music is
to be taught in ways that prepare students to be full participants in musical cultures
that are still in the process of being created, we very much need instruction that is
educational in nature: instruction that imparts to students the capacity to reshape
themselves, to create for themselves modes of musical engagement that may bear
little resemblance to those that typify present and past practices. Education is, in
short, a process that prepares people for unknowable, unpredictable futures. The
chief goal of education, as John Dewey (1983, p. 402) insisted, is “to protect, sustain,
and direct growth”: and growth is, by its very nature, fundamentally unpredictable.
If education has this distinctive meaning and seeks to fulfill this particular role,
what shall we call instructional processes that are devoted to developing highly
specific, predictable outcomes—the familiar kind of music teaching whose means
are specifically designed to enable success in existing musical practices? I suggest
the term “training” In short, teaching that seeks to develop habits, attitudes, and
dispositions that support the open-ended process of growth is educational in na-
ture; teaching directed to concrete aims and objectives is training.
It may be objected that this makes of education a very fuzzy concept. To that
I can only respond that such “fuzziness” appears to be crucial to endeavors that are
creative or educational, and seeking criteria that are utterly clear risks reducing ed-
ucation to training. Designating criteria for growth, as Richard Rorty (1989) once
argued, “cut[s] the future down to the size of the present” (p. 201). It’s not unlike,
he continued “asking a dinosaur to specify what would make for a good mammal
or asking a fourth-century Athenian to propose forms of life for the citizens of a
twentieth-century industrial democracy.” |
My intent is not to declare “education” the sole legitimate aim of musical in-
struction, or to suggest that training is utterly antithetical to (and invariably inferior
to) education. Both are essential, if for different reasons; they serve complementary
ends, neither of which is dispensable. Difficulties arise, however, when we neglect
the distinction I am trying to draw here and wrongly assume that all music teaching
is cut from the same cloth—that all music teaching is by definition educational.
There is an etymological basis for this unfortunate conflation of education with
training, as Craft (1984) and others have pointed out. The English word “educa-
tion” actually has two different Latin roots: educare, to train or to mold; educere, to
lead out or draw out. Educare involves the preservation of knowledge and tradition,
prepares the young to fit into existing circumstances, and sees learners as recipients
or consumers of knowledge. Educere involves preparing new generations for the
inevitability of change, prepares the young to create solutions to problems yet un-
known, and sees learners as creators or producers of knowledge.” Thus we find asso-
ciated in a single term two remarkably divergent understandings of “education” that
involve two very different kinds of teaching and two very different kinds of learning
outcome. As Bass and Good (2004) point out—and although they refer to schooling
in general, their comments apply with remarkable precision to school-based music
education—“education that ignores educare dooms its students to starting over each
generation. Omitting educere produces citizens who are incapable of solving new
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION o2

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

RECONSIDERING THE QUESTION

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

despite its undeniable pleasures and many desirable attributes, it just doesn't rise to
the level of an educational necessity. Perhaps what it currently seeks to deliver, de-
spite its obvious pleasures and attractions, is not really essential to becoming a fully
functioning participant in modern social life.
Or perhaps music’s exclusion from the so-called educational core stems at least
in part from legitimate perceptions that music taught as educare is not particularly
compatible with the broad aims of education—and that it is therefore not some-
thing everyone requires, but rather an enjoyable option some may wish to pursue.
Perhaps it is felt that the technical training typical of middle and senior years in-
struction does not serve the ambitious aims of education. Perhaps what we should
be pursuing is not so much universally required musical experience, then, as expe-
rience and instruction of a particular kind—a kind more fully and more discernibly
congruent with genuinely educational ends.
Perhaps, then, the most defensible answer to this why-question is a qualified
“That depends.’ The reasons music should be part of every child’s education depend
fundamentally on one’s understandings of education, of music, of the ways these
come together in “music education,’ and how the success or failure of this union
is to be gauged. Before we can argue persuasively that musical instruction is some-
thing that should be required of everyone, we must carefully address the nature and
value of music, of education, of music education, and of the kind of instruction con-
gruent with such fundamental considerations. Perhaps it is mistaken, then, to think
that we can affect large-scale changes in educational policy until we have examined
more thoroughly and critically what we are advocating.
Disturbing assertions like these will be greeted impatiently by those who be-
lieve that music education's most urgent need is to “get on” with the formulation of
“policy.” However, I believe such lines of inquiry are responsible; and if you'll bear
with me I hope to show you why. I believe that musical instruction of certain kinds,
musical instruction that meets carefully considered musical and educational ends,
is something to which every child indeed has a right, something that comprises a
vital part of any education worthy of the name. However, the provision of instruc-
tion in, exposure to, or experience with music—regardless of the ends to which
they demonstrably contribute—are not educational necessities. Within the context
of education, music and instruction are vehicles: they are means to ends that may be
helpful, constructive, educative, and therefore highly desirable; but they may also be
harmful, destructive, and miseducative.'
To suggest that music is a vehicle whose educational value is a function of its
contribution to certain ends is to call into question an article of faith among many
musicians and music educators: the comforting notion that music’s value is “in-
trinsic” or “inherent.” Music has no “inherent” value, I submit: no value of a kind
that assures worthwhile educational outcomes regardless of the ways it is taught
or experienced or learned. Thus, if music education seeks a secure and prominent
place within general compulsory education it must earn it by demonstrating the de-
livery of the expected educational goods, showing (not just asserting) that it makes
educationally desirable and durable differences in people's lives. In other words,
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 25
oe ee es

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

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

Wuart Is Music’s ROLE IN

PERSONAL/EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

Because neither music nor education are monolithic entities with single natures
or values, I doubt very much that a case can be made convincingly that music has
a single specifiable role, either in education or in personal development. However,
that puts negatively a point that is better stated positively: rich musical experience
may contribute to a broad range of important educational aims; it is replete with
potentials for personal development. It is sometimes argued that we should avoid
claims like this because they sound too desperate, or because other endeavors can
be shown to address them more effectively and reliably than music. Leaving aside
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION a7,

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

The case for music’s people- and world-making power has been obscured
by the (largely Western) notion of music as an “autonomous” entity, music as a
“thing” or collection of things with value all its (their) own. On this view, music's
connections with things outside “itself” things like people's habits, or dispositions,
or inclinations to act—are largely utilitarian, extramusical concerns. The focus of
genuinely musical study, on the autonomist view, is music “itself” or music “alone,”
and things like music’s role in the formation of personality and society are more
appropriately addressed in disciplines like psychology and sociology. However, this
marginalizes what may be educationally most distinctive about music: its remark-
able power to engage the unified human body-mind; its power to create collectivity
and intersubjectivity through what Keil (Keil & Feld, 1994) calls participatory con-
sciousness; its capacity to develop action habits and character that are personally
and culturally beneficial.
Music's most promising educational contribution from the perspective I am
proposing here is not what we know or feel about it, and not the facility with which
we are able to execute particular musical tasks, but who we become (both personally
and collectively) through musical engagements. Making music together involves
highly refined ethical sensibilities—concern to act rightly, appropriately, and re-
sponsibly in circumstances that are fluid, never wholly predictable, and ever subject
to change. An important part of what musical action offers to develop is the habit of
changing habits when circumstances warrant, and the ability to discern when and
where such changes are necessary. These crucial capacities are not so much things
people know or possess as they are dispositions to act—responsibly, responsively, in
light of what John Dewey (1916, p. 373) called ends-in-view. While these capacities _
do not consist of knowledge that is logically or technically deployed, they are highly
rational, highly valuable, and essential to living well in a human world: They stem
not from what one knows or feels so much as from the kind of person one is.
This kind of know-how is practical in nature: not practical in the sense of
being “workable” or convenient or easily incorporated into endeavors in which
one may be engaged, but rather in its concern for the kinds of action that consti-
tute successful engagement in the practice at hand. Practical know-how asks how
“rightness” is best understood in circumstances that are action-embedded, and
whose full meaning, because it is ever emerging, can only be known retrospectively.
Educationally oriented musical engagement is deeply concerned with acting rightly
in light of situational variables that are intricately intertwined, variable, and related
to one another in many complex ways. Musical engagements in which such features
are salient develop the kind of habits and character capable of thriving in uncertain
circumstances. These are, I submit, tremendously valuable educational assets.
To become musically educated, on this view, is to develop capacities for the
kind of judgment that is deployed in vivo, on the fly, in response to the demands
of uniquely emerging circumstances. This is know-how that cannot be separated
from one’s character, that cannot be encapsulated in a code or formula, that cannot
be dispensed in prescribed ways, yet is essential to navigating the ever-shifting
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 29

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

EDUCATING IN MUSIC AND EDUCATING

THROUGH MUSIC

There is a tremendous difference between educating in and educating through

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

more substantial than presumptions. To distinguish more clearly between these two
complementary functions, I suggest we call instruction within music “training” and
that we reserve the term “educating” for musical instruction’s broader and more es-
sential life-serving functions.
In training, one develops and refines the skills and understandings neces-
sary to achieve clearly specified outcomes. We train fighter pilots, welders, X-ray
technicians, and the like. We may also train animals, but we do not tend to consider
them educated as a result of such processes. Training involves preparation for spe-
cific tasks, and because it lends itself to systematicity and precise repetition we are
generally very good at it. On the other hand, educating—conceived as the kind of
teaching and learning that have growth as their ultimate aim—involve capacities
that are less easily prescribed, dispensed, or measured: capacities like creativity, and
the ability to make appropriate choices in unanticipated or novel circumstances.
What distinguishes training from education is not the intelligence or the so-
phistication of the skills and knowledge involved. Rather, in training we know the
way and the circumstances in which the skills at hand will need to be deployed: the
outcomes of instruction and their use are predictable and relatively stable. Therefore,
we can focus primarily on developing and refining capacities of a particular, rela-
tively standardized kind. We need not worry pgelenss cit about the consequences
of training, because the ends it exists to serve are “given.”
Training is a crucial instructional function: the process of developing appro-
priate action habits. No one, I assume, would want to be operated on by an un-
trained surgeon. And most of us prefer trained pets to wild ones. To suggest as
I am that training differs in fundamental ways from educating is not to argue that —
educating in music is simple, mindless, or misguided. It is only to urge that it involves
different kinds of instructional assumptions, interventions, and strategies from
educating through music, and that we need.to resist equating the two. Education
and training are different processes serving different purposes. The circumstances
they require to thrive are quite distinct from one another. Where the conditions
optimal to training become our sole concern (as they frequently do, for instance,
in instructional “method”) we may inadvertently create learning environments that
threaten the processes and outcomes I have suggested we call “educational.” Where
musical skills and knowledge exhaust the range of instructional concerns we explic-
itly pursue, we train rather than educate.
This is not a distinction without a difference. It matters what music educators
understand music education to mean, and how it differs from instruction devoted
‘to training. It is a distinction, in other words, with practical consequences. For
instance, we sometimes characterize the preparation of future music teachers as
music teacher training; and training is indisputably an important component in
such preparation. However, trained music teachers are not necessarily well prepared
to engage in musical instruction that is educational in nature. They are well pre-
pared to deliver instruction of specified kinds to students of certain kinds in partic-
ular situations, but they are less well prepared to modify or adapt their strategies as
circumstances warrant, or in ways that go beyond an immediate skill/training focus.
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 31

Effective training requires delimitation, specificity, and systematicity—attributes

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

How Do THE GOALS OF MusIc EDUCATION

ALIGN WITH THOSE OF GENERAL
EDUCATION?

In light of my comments about the distinctions between education and training, my

response to this question should come as no surprise. The goals of music education
and those of general education do not align automatically, necessarily, or invariably.
Since the phrase “music education” is so often equated with “musical instruction,’
32 WAYNE D. BOWMAN

this should give us pause: not all music instruction is educational; indeed, music
instruction of certain kinds may even subvert the aims of education. However,
it is equally clear that these goals may align if we take seriously the distinctions
among teaching, training, educating, and learning. It all depends, and there are no
guarantees; but that, too, is the nature of education.
A fuller response to this question about alignment involves attention to several
additional concerns, not least the question whether school-based music instruction
should seek alignment with the goals of general education as they are actualized
in contemporary schooling. At issue here is whether formal schooling as typically
undertaken is itself educational—a rather heretical notion, to be sure, but one that
warrants consideration. Many of the systems, priorities, and values of contempo-
rary schooling are more conducive to training than to education as I have urged
it be understood. Many of the instructional and curricular practices of schools are
better suited to ends like conformity and “fitting in” than to the ethical discernment,
independent thought, and creative dispositions rightly expected of education. It is
all the more crucial, therefore, that music educators distinguish between the goals
of schooling and those of education. Where the practices of schooling are at odds
with the life-enhancing aims of education, music education’s role might better be
conceived as compensatory or corrective than supportive."
In fact, music education's relationship to the goals of general education needs to
be both corrective (in the sense of remediating or countering educationally inappro-
priate instructional assumptions and practices) and supportive (in the sense that it
is seen to contribute to the fundamental aims of education). Since the list of subjects
claiming curricular legitimacy far exceeds available time and resources, it is neces-
sary to show both that musical instruction is congruent with the aims of general
education and that it addresses them in ways that are distinctive. There are two sets
of circumstances under which music’s role in general education is compromised: in
one, music fails to contribute to education’s general aims distinctively—there is no |
compelling reason for music rather than, for example, another of “the arts”; in the
other, its contribution is so utterly distinct that its commonality with other educa-
tional endeavors is not discernible.
There are valid grounds for claiming special status for music, but “special” must
not be taken to mean “utterly unique.’ Claims to music’s uniqueness and intrinsic
value are often accompanied by convictions that music is self-evidently or self-
sufficiently educational—“educational” in ways that “just are” and require no ra-
tionalization or explanation. It is but a small additional step from such convictions
to the kind of no-holds-barred advocacy that promises anything and everything in
an effort to generate continued or increased support for musical instruction—and
an equally small step to anything-goes practice in which any and all instructional
efforts involving music are presumed worthwhile. Musical instruction must con-
tribute distinctively to the aims of education, but its contribution must still be rec-
ognizably educational.
A secure place for music in formal schooling thus depends on an intricate
balance between its “special” status or distinctness and its discernible contribution
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 33

to educational goals. Absolute difference is irrelevance. Thus, music’s inclusion

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

ADVOCACY: How CAN WE JUSTIFY

MusIc’s ROLE IN EDUCATION IN WAYS
OTHERS UNDERSTAND?

When others are not responsive to or supportive of our aspirations as music

educators, we tend to blame them: to conclude that they do not understand, and to
search for better, more persuasive arguments. But the misunderstanding is at least
partly our own. Where musical instruction and curricula are poor fits to the aims of
general education and the institutional practices devoted to their pursuit, advocacy
efforts will not improve our lot. We need to work to make instructional practices in
music more congruent with truly educational aims. At the same time, we need to
become more extensively engaged in efforts to assure that the understandings of ed-
ucation on which schooling is based are congruent with musical and instructional
practices that take seriously their educational commitments.
34 WAYNE D. BOWMAN

School-based educational practice has become ever more “technicized,’ driven

by concerns for things like clarity, predictability, transparency, efficiency, and ac-
countability. As education has given way to training (as educare has replaced
educere), music instructional practices have followed suit: the life-enhancing skills
and capacities a musical education seeks to serve have been replaced by the rules,
formulas, sequences, and prescriptions of instructional method. In gravitating to-
ward these music instruction has unwittingly come to neglect the educational ends
it is especially well suited to address.
As the significance of music’s contributions to general education have become
less and less apparent, music educators have found it increasingly necessary to re-
sort to advocacy: arguments designed to persuade others of the importance and in-
tegrity of current practices. This strategy addresses symptoms rather than the cause
of music education's plight (Bowman 2005, 2010). Instead of critically examining
and revising instructional practices, working to assure their alignment with edu-
cational goals, and rather than investing in the revision or renewal of educational
goals, advocacy resorts to political persuasion: efforts to convince skeptical others,
by any means possible,to support existing instructional habits.
However, secure and durable advances in music’s educational status will be
achieved only by reaching common understandings of the aims and processes
of education; the natures and values of emerging musical practices; the intricate
connections among all these; and the conditions necessary for their realization.
The process is far more complicated than persuading others to accept our point of
view, to support our values, or to endorse without change our customary musical
practices. We must accept the limitations and the fallibility of our current habits,
beliefs, and practices, and commit to making needed changes. Instead of winning
support for established practices, beliefs, and resources—instead of undertaking to
show others the error of their ways—we must accept that people's perceptions of
music education and their reluctance to support it often stem from shortcomings of
our own: from failures to change with changing times.
This is not to say there is no point to advocacy, but rather that advocacy efforts
must be carefully linked to the contingencies of practice, and committed as deeply
to. making necessary adjustments as to winning greater resources and support.
Advocacy claims that take the form “Music does X” seldom stand up to critical
scrutiny because “music itself”—if it even exists—does nothing. Because people's
responses to advocacy claims are almost invariably shaped by implicit recogni-
tion of their contingency, “speaking to others in ways they understand” requires
that we accept responsibility for modifying our own actions and understandings
at the same time. To proceed as if “they just don’t get it” is a strategy eventually
doomed to failure. People are not stupid. Speaking to them in “ways they under-
stand,’ then, must be balanced by efforts to achieve better understandings of our
own, understandings that acknowledge the evolving musical and educational needs
of a twenty-first-century world. The missionary zeal of advocacy efforts must be
balanced by fuller awareness of the enormous responsibilities that attend such
claims, and must be matched by determination to modify customary practices.
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 35
ee
8

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

REFLECTIVE SN OSE

1. If schooling is not generally designed to provide instruction in things that

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

1. Ihave chosen to interpret and address these particular questions—originally suggested

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

posed them as they appear here, and for three reasons. First, I believe these ways of
phrasing the questions are common and representative. Second, posing them this way
is revealing and therefore analytically useful. And third, asking them in this particular
way helps demonstrate the philosophical importance of (1) choosing words carefully,
and (2) questioning questions.
. Bass and Good (2004) point out that educere is in short supply in societies where
“school has been thought of as a system to prepare well-behaved citizens and good
workers” (p. 3). In such situations, students have few meaningful opportunities to
question and create: “A culture has been established that is remarkably resistant to
change. When new teachers or administrators enter this culture, they are pressured
from every side to conform to the cultural norm. If the culture cannot change them
it attempts to drive them out. Generally, it is successful in one of the other of those
endeavors” (p. 4).
. Although I have chosen not to pursue it here, one might well ask: why restrict the
question just to “children”? Why the apparent presumption that music (or education,
for that matter) are here for solely or primarily the young?
. Surely this is among the reasons for the crucial distinction between “music specialist”
and “music education specialist” status. Being musical, or having been musically
trained, is not sufficient to professional status in music education. This presents,
I know, a major challenge to the way music education is conceived in many parts of
the world, as well as the way it is most often conceived by professionally prepared
musicians in North America. It is, however, a challenge that must be confronted if
music is ever to reach its potential as a full partner in education.
. Nor, I hasten to add, does anything else. In other words, this claim is not specific to
music. The ideas of “intrinsic” or “inherent” value are, I submit, ideological ploys
that serve to privilege certain views by exempting them from criticism and debate—
claiming, in effect, that they are a priori rather than constructions.
. An example of the latter, noneducative “use” of music—and there are many—is
musical instruction that inadvertently teaches students that music is something for
which they have no real talent. In such cases, music study compromises self-worth and
curtails continuing musical engagement.
. Indeed, music instruction all too often consists of such imposition, proceeding on the
belief that since music’s value is inherent, any kind of instruction will do, or is good
enough.
8. I explore these distinctions in Bowman (2002).
9. If the sole or primary measure of music’s contribution to education is the pleasure it
affords, there is no pressing need for professionally qualified instruction.
10. One possible answer to this question appeals precisely to music’s many valences—its

potential to educate on numerous different levels and in many various senses at once.
Perhaps, on this view, one might argue that expertly guided musical experience is a
multipurpose educational tool, by way of contrast to other areas of endeavor that are
more single-purpose. Although this argument has definite merit (and is potentially
distinctive to music), it is not a very useful guide for instructional or curricular choices.
ante Or perhaps more accurately, concerns like these have become the domain of
disciplines like sociology and therapy—to the detriment, I would argue, of the music
education profession’s understanding of music’s broadly educational potential.
12. This is not the place to pursue this issue in detail, but appeals to “feeling” are among
what Alperson (1991) aptly describes as attempted “enhancements” to “aesthetic
cognitivism.’ Claims to “cognized feeling” or “feelingful cognition” as the basis for
MUSIC’S PLACE IN EDUCATION 37

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

REFERENCES

Alperson, Philip. (1991). What should one expect from a philosophy of music education?
Journal of Aesthetic Education 25, pp. 215-42.
Bass, Randall V., & Good, J. W. (2004). Educare and educere: Is a balance possible in the ed-
ucational system? Educational Forum 68 (Winter), 161-68.
Bowman, W. (2002). Educating musically. In Richard Colwell & Carol Richardson (eds.), The
New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (pp.63-84). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bowman, W. (2005). To what question(s) is music advocacy the answer? International
Journal of Music Education 23(August), 125-29.
Bowman, W. (2005). Music education in nihilistic times. Educational Philosophy and
Theory (Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia). Special Issue.
The Philosophy of Music Education: Contemporary Perspectives, 37(1) (February), 29-46.
Reprinted in David Lines (ed.), Music education for the new millennium: Theory and prac-
tice futures for music teaching and learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.
Bowman, W. (2010). Critical comments on music and music education advocacy. Music
Forum 16(April), 31-35.
Craft, M. (1984). Education for diversity. In M. Craft (ed.), Education and cultural pluralism
(pp. 5-26). London & Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1983). The middle works of John Dewey (1921-22). (Ed. Jo Ann Boydston)
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
James, W. (1899). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’ ideals.
Boston: George Ellis.
Keil, C., & Feld, S. (1994). Music grooves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 CHAPTER 3

INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVES

MARIE MCCARTHY

Music educators internationally are united by a common purpose: to engage chil-

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

FORMATION OF AN
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

The rich international dialogue that is in place today was made possible by the
valiant efforts of music educators in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 39

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

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

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

DEFINING THE SPACES OF

Music EDUCATION

In the second decade of the twenty-first century, the term “music education” is used _
in a variety of ways across countries and continents. It describes contexts in which
music teaching and learning occurs, degree programs that prepare music teachers,
and the professional organizations that serve to advance the cause of music in edu-
cation. The term is also used in relation to the journals and magazines that promote
music education and disseminate research, the conferences and events where music
educators come together to share their experiences and practices, and the field of
research that addresses a myriad of topics rooted in the practices of music teaching
and learning.
In many places, such as Finland and Italy, the term is used to refer to music
in general education as part of compulsory schooling, as distinct from schools of
music or music programs in the community. In others, it stands for the school sub-
ject itself. A second set of meanings revolves around “music education” as meaning
that which takes place in general education, as well as in “any setting or process in
which music is learned or taught” (Australia), for example: “any activity of music
teaching and learning, formal or informal” (Greece), or “learning to play an instru-
ment (e.g. pull-out programs in the regular school day, private instruction, Local
Education Authority programs), and community music” (England).
The presence of music in educational systems is often hidden by the manner
in which it is embedded in the formal language of curriculum. The most frequent
instance of this occurring is the case of music education as arts education. Such
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 41
eee

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

STATUS OF MUSIC IN EDUCATION

The status of music in public education is influenced by a wide variety of economic,

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

Furthermore, there is a gulf between what is stated in educational policy con-

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

Music EDUCATION ADVOCACY

There is evidence of a significant increase in the number of agencies and groups

participating in arts advocacy in recent years. Formal music education advo-
cacy movements began in the United States with the Music Educators National
Conference in the 1960s (Mark, 2002), and the organization has since provided ad-
vocacy models for other countries (Lindemann, 2005). For example, when ISME
began its advocacy campaign in the 1990s, it drew inspiration from MENC’s advo-
cacy initiatives. Subsequently, ISME national affiliates became active in advocacy
_ efforts—Societa Italiana per ’Educazione Musicale (SIEM) in Italy and Associacao
Brasileira de Educacao Musical (ABEM) in Brazil. In countries such as Mexico,
where there is no professional organization of music educators, without such a
lobbying group, advocacy is not strong. In these contexts, related organizations
often serve in the role of advocates, for example the Latin American Forum for
Music Education (Foro Latinoamericana de Educacién Musical [FLADEM]) or ge-
neral education organizations in Central America.
The need for advocacy is not limited to countries that are establishing music
in public education or developing a music education professional presence. In
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 43
A a rr cr

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

El Sistema is a publicly financed, voluntary sector string music education program

in Venezuela. Its founder, José Antonio Abreu, has been recognized internationally
for his vision for music education and the success of the program that began with
11 students in 1975 and now reaches more than 250,000 children who participate in
instrumental education programs in Venezuela. The majority of the children come
 44 MARIE MCCARTHY

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

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND REFORM

The status of music as a school subject is reflected in the way it is presented in a

curriculum document. It may appear within an arts curriculum, as a subject for
a national examination, or in the form of multiple curricula, such as that found
in the standards for general, choral, and instrumental music in the U.S. National
Standards for Music Education. A national curriculum can serve to set standards,
_ provide unity of purpose across states and provinces, create a framework and ge-
neral guidelines for local educational agencies, serve as an examination syllabus,
or highlight the importance of certain goals such as literacy, creativity, diversity, or
inclusion.
The creation of a national music curriculum occurs within varying institu-
tional contexts and collaborative arrangements, depending in part on the size of
the country, the structure of the educational system, the relationship of national
(federal) and local (provincial, territorial) levels, the infrastructures of arts and
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 45

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

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

WHOSE Music IS SCHOOL MUSIC?

Of all the overarching trends and patterns of development in music education in-
ternationally in the past half century, the question of whose music belongs in the
school curriculum has been played out across all professional contexts, from policy-
making and standards setting to pre-K to 12 and teacher education curriculum,
from professional development programs and conferences to research agendas.
What motivated this robust discussion? The answer is complex, since it involved an
interplay of political, social, cultural and technological changes that impacted the
very paradigms on which the profession functioned for over one hundred years. An
overview of these changes would include the civil rights movement in the United
States inspiring other oppressed peoples to fight for freedom, unprecedented mi-
gration of peoples across continents, with ensuing demographic changes in school
populations, and the emergence of new democracies in postcommunist and post-
colonial societies. The expansion of mass media and telecommunications and the
effects of globalization on people's access to, preference for, and participation in
music are also central to the calls for reform.
In what ways did these monumental influences impact music in education?
Although the answer is context specific, for the purpose of this discussion I will
focus on a topic that seems to cross several of the aforementioned changes and link
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES | 47
a ee

with a central question when planning curriculum—whose music is included in

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

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

developing educational materials (see Nettl, chapter 6). Furthermore, the promo-
tion of national identity is not limited to the inclusion of folk or traditional music
in the curriculum. Contemporary classical and popular music are also integral to
the formation of identity. The inclusion of a diverse range of musical genres, then,
from those representing the student population and school community to a broad
spectrum of musical genres, is a priority.
When popular music is included, it is typically found in the curriculum of the
secondary school. Genres of pop music used in the curriculum often include local
music—African pop in South Africa or Canto-pop in Hong Kong. In Finland, pop-
ular music instruments are used increasingly in instrumental music tuition in music
schools. The Musical Futures project based in the United Kingdom is an initiative “to
find new and imaginative ways of engaging all young people, aged 11-18, in mean-
ingful music activities.’ (http://www.musicalfutures.org). The goal of informalizing
and personalizing music pedagogy that is at the heart of the project aligns well with
efforts in traditional music education to bridge the worlds of school music and music
that influences students’ preferences and their motivation to participate.
The expansion of music repertoire in recent decades brought to the surface a
number of challenging questions about transmitting music founded on aesthetics
different to those of Western music. Such music typically has different functions
in society, is orally transmitted, and is unfamiliar to the majority of teachers in
Western schools. Moreover, each musical practice or genre has its own historical
roots, meanings, and international cultural profile, factors that come into play when
one country appropriates its own or another's music for the purpose of using it in
the school curriculum.
A considerable body of research on the use of world music in the curriculum
over the past two decades reveals interesting patterns about the complex interac-
tion of music, culture, and education. Southcott and Joseph (2007) point out that
Indian culture was presented in stereotypic ways under colonial rule in Australia
until recently, when educators began to engage with more authentic intercultural
understandings. Writing on the Hong Kong curriculum, Ho (2007) concludes that
because of complications between Hong Kong and mainland China due to colonial
presence in the past, there is a dominance of Western and global musics over tradi-
tional Chinese and local cultures in the curriculum.
Efforts to introduce Western teachers and students to music of other cultures
take a variety of paths. Campbell (2001) and Emmanuel (2005) report on the im-
pact of immersion internships in Native American and urban cultures, respectively,
on the skills and dispositions of prospective music teachers. Chen-Hafteck (2007)
concludes that multicultural music can motivate learning when it provides novelty
and interest, is relevant and meaningful, and is based on a student-centered curric-
ulum, while Hennessy (2005), after describing a project to establish taiko drumming
in southwest England, argues that “there is clearly something compelling about the
unfamiliarity, the otherness of such musics which motivates us” (p. 218). Meanwhile,
the cultural familiarity of mariachi for Mexican children is seen by Clark (2005) as
instilling pride in cultural heritage.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 49

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

RENEWING THE CULTURE OF PEDAGOGY

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

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

to effect change, especially the quality of professional development at pre- and in-
service levels of teacher education.
The power of particular methodologies in defining pedagogy cannot be
underestimated. The widespread and enduring influence of pedagogues such as
Guido d’Arezzo, Pierre Galin, or John Curwen and the universal use of methods
and approaches founded in the twentieth century such as Dalcroze, Kodaly, Orff,
and Suzuki attest to the manner in which a method can take,root, be adapted in
different cultural contexts, and become embedded in pedagogy. Music educators
report widespread use of Orff and Kodaly, while others emphasize that an eclectic
approach is found most frequently or that instruction does not depend on main-
stream methodologies. Some respondents refer to pedagogical approaches that
have been developed and are popular within a national context—John Paynter and
Murray Shaffer in Argentina, Chile, and Jamaica, Edgar Willems in Brazil, Veronika
Cohen in Israel, and Violeta Hemsy de Gainza and Ana Lucia Frega in Argentina.
There is a call for pedagogies that embrace the changing manifestations of mu-
sicianship (Leong, 2003) and accommodate the transmission of music from diverse
genres and traditions (Campbell, 2005). Furthermore, pedagogy must function
around a more student-centered approach versus a traditional authoritarian view
of music teaching, and it must accommodate learner expectations in a technologi-
cally mediated world and move toward “transformative music engagement” for the
learner (see O’Neill, chapter 9). .
Authors from five continents representing musical theatre, jazz, classical and
indigenous music have confronted the issues, trends, and possibilities of musi-
cianship in the twenty-first century (Leong, 2003). The breadth of vision shown
by authors as they expand the very idea of musicianship in contemporary society
is noteworthy.’ A common thread running through several of these’ transforma-
tive views is the role of creativity. McMillan (in Leong, 2003) boldly predicts that
“creative activities, long marginalized but now mandated in the curricula of many
students throughout the world, will be embraced for the means by which they can
equip our future generations with the opportunity to sing their song, hopefully with
a personal voice” (p. 194). Gould (in Leong, 2003) reminds the reader that in a time
of such change and possibility, “for some in music that will demand a quantum shift
in teaching and learning methodologies” (p. 87).
There is evidence of emerging pedagogies that align with these calls for re-
form and expansion of pedagogical vision. The Musical Futures project in the
United Kingdom addresses the gap between formal and informal music educa-
~ tion at the secondary level. The development of Community Music as an academic
field presents pedagogical models that are of interest to school music educators
(Koopman, 2007). Music educators internationally are confronting the limitations
of Western pedagogy in the context of teaching diverse musics that are rooted in
different worldviews and transmission practices. Intercultural music education,
O'Flynn (2005) writes, “will draw on a variety of performing and learning practices,
in addition to a wide range of beliefs and values that are pertinent to the musical
systems in question” (p. 191). The dialogue conducted in the Cultural Diversity in
 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 51
a
e ee SE
ae

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

PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS AND

FORUMS FOR RESEARCH

As professional organizations in music and music education developed in the late

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

Europe, and North America were served by numerous forums for sharing their re-
search in journals and professional meetings. The number of journals, including
online journals, founded since 1990 has increased and diversified in scope and
function, with some journals founded in countries other than the United States
(e.g. Music Education Research, Research Studies in Music Education).
Just as the status of music education varies across cultures and continents,
there is also considerable variation in the state of research in various coun-
tries. In a special issue of Psychology of Music titled “Mapping Music Education
Research: International Perspectives,’ Welch (2004) writes:
[I]t would appear that relatively “young” research cultures exist for music
education in South America and Hong Kong. The researchers report that they
are adapting and transforming western (often English language-based and
primarily northern hemisphere) research perspectives in order to make sense of
music education in their own localities. Nevertheless, the diversity exhibited in
the research overviews from Scandinavia, Germany, the USA and Australia are
a reminder of the breadth within these more established research traditions and
also of how priorities and “significant questions” can shift between and within
generations, as well as between countries. (p. 270)

The developed research profiles of countries such as Australia, Canada, England,

Germany, and the United States are rooted in strong national associations, doctoral
programs, well-established journals, and conferences to disseminate research, and
in some cases the opportunity to be awarded grants from government and other
agencies to fund research projects. Where no organization of music educators
exists, the infrastructure for research is underdeveloped or nonexistent, for example
in Mexico or South Africa, Lithuania or Israel. In these and other countries, re-
search is conducted within undergraduate and graduate degree programs or faculty
projects at the tertiary level.
Of the South American countries, research is most developed in Argentina and
Brazil. Several factors influenced these developments, including the contributions
of music educators who completed doctoral degrees abroad and returned to
their home countries, the founding of the National Association for Research and
Graduate Studies in Music (ANPPOM) in 1988, and ongoing exchanges with music
educators in Britain since the 1980s (Hentschke & Martinez, 2004). Leadership is
provided by ABEM, which organizes regional and national meetings and publishes
a journal, Revista da ABEM.
Some countries are continuing to build a research profile linked to a music
education organization or third-level institution. The Greek Society for Music
Education, established in 1997, promotes research through a biennial Panhellenic
conference and an annual refereed journal, Musical Pedagogics. Several research
groups exist in Finland, supported by the Finnish Society for Music Education
SuomenMusiikkikasvatusseura, the Finnish Journal of Music Education, published
by the Sibelius Academy, and the Nordic Network for Research in Music Education.
Playing a similar leadership role, the Hong Kong Institute of Education publishes
the Asia-Pacific Journal for Arts Education.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 53
a

Traditions of music education research are changing. First, there is an increase

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

SHAPING THE FUTURE OF

Music EDUCATION

International perspectives in music education are founded on and dominated by

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

education is undergoing a crisis of identity in relation to several dimensions of

its practices. By a crisis of identity, 1mean that assumptions about and traditions
of formal music education are being challenged and interrogated in light of fun-
damental changes rooted in several related factors. They are political ideology,
expanding global consciousness, communications and technology, educational
priorities, the knowledge base about human functioning, and interactions that
occur among all of these realities in the twenty-first century.
Music education occurs both inside the school and in partner organizations
and institutes outside the school. How will these sites of music education, of which
school music is but one, albeit an important one, interact to strengthen overall
access to music education? How will interaction and collaboration among partners
lead to hybrid models that provide high-quality and comprehensive programs that
are resonant of community needs and resources? Might such collaborative models
facilitate intergenerational music education and situate music learning in a lifespan
context? In such a scenario, and with more stakeholders invested in local music
education, the advocacy lobby will likely have greater agency in policy-making. In
countries where music education in beginning to find a foothold in public educa-
tion, how will educators learn from the legacy of formal music education in devel-
oped countries?
A second area of identity crisis is the placement of music within arts educa-
tion in many educational systems. In countries where music has a developed cur-
ricular identity such as the United States, this proves to be a challenge since the
interactions between the professional worlds of music, art, dance, and theatre edu-
cation are minimal, and music teachers typically do not identify themselves as arts
teachers. At the other end of the scale are countries where the first entry of music
into the official curriculum is through an arts requirement. And in between are
contexts such as Australia, where music has a strong curricular status and profes-
sional history and at the same time is presented in the curriculum within a group of
arts subjects. Given that UNESCO and national governments recognize music as an
arts subject, it would seem wise to capitalize on that reality and forge relationships
with teachers of other arts and their professional organizations. The challenge will
be to maintain a separate curricular status and disciplinary identity for music in an
era of increasing interdisciplinary thinking in education.
A third source of identity crisis is accommodating alternative pedagogies
within the practices of traditional, time-honored European methodologies.
Notions of teacher-centered pedagogy and music literacy are challenged as tech-
~ nology and constructivist paradigms of learning assume a role in instruction, and
where proficient levels of musical accomplishment do not depend on knowledge
of Western notation. Expanding the notion of musicianship and ways of being
a musician is essential to resolving this dilemma. Related to this tension is the
breakdown of the school music canon of repertoire and the entry of popular and
nontraditional musics into the spaces of classroom music. Musical values and ped-
agogical traditions are challenged, giving way to a more socially and culturally
inclusive curriculum.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 55

The global-local dialectic created by the forces of globalization is yet another

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. What role is assigned to music education in the primary and secondary

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

.I wish to express my gratitude to scholars who provided valuable -perspectives on

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

KEY SOURCES

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

1. I refer to sources such as Music education: International viewpoints—A symposium

in honour of Emeritus Professor Sir Frank Callaway (Comte, 1994); Music education
in international perspective: National systems (Lepherd, 1995); Musical development
and learning: The international perspective (Hargreaves & North, 2001); Musicianship
in the 21st century: Issues, trends and possibilities (Leong, 2003); Toward a global
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 57
eal

community: The International Society for Music Education 1953-2003 (McCarthy,

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

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

REFERENCES

Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in
. education. New York: Waxmann Miinster; Berlin: Miinchen. ‘
Bresler, L. (ed.) (2007). International handbook of research in arts education. Parts I and II.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Burnard, P., Dillon S., Rusinek, G., & Sather, E. (2008). Inclusive pedagogies in music
education: A comparative study of music teachers’ perspectives from four countries.
International Journal ofMusic Education, 26(2), 109-126.
Campbell, P. S. (2001). Lessons from the Yakama. In The Mountain Lake reader: Conversations
on the study and practice of music teaching (pp. 46-51). Murfreesboro, TN: Middle
Tennessee State University.
Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally. New York: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, P. S. (ed.) (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges
for the 21st century. Queensland, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
Chen-Hafteck, L. (2007). In search of a motivating multicultural music experience: Lessons
learned from the Sounds of Silk project. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3),
223-233. .
Clark, S. (2005). Mariachi music as a symbol of Mexican culture in the United States.
International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 227-237.
Comte, M. (ed.). (1994). Music education. International viewpoints—A symposium in honour
of emeritus Professor Sir Frank Callaway. Nedlands, Perth: Australian Society for Music
Education.
Cox, G., & Stevens, R. (eds.). (2017). The origins and foundations of music educa-
tion: International perspectives. 2d. ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
El Sistema. (July 1, 2010). Retrieved from http:// www.el-sistema film.com/el_Sistema
[accessed November 11, 2016].
Emmanuel, D. T. (2005). The effects of a music education immersion internship in a cultur-
ally diverse setting on the beliefs and attitudes of pre-service music teachers. International
Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 49-62.
Freed-Garrod, J., Kojima, R., & Garrod, S. (2008). Policy and practice in music educa-
tion: Elementary education through an integrated arts approach in two cultural contexts,
Canada and Japan. In C. C. Leung, L. C. Yip, & T. Imada (eds.), Music education policy
and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 25-40). Aomori, Japan: Hirosaki
University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (eds.) (2001). Musical development and learning: The inter-
national perspective. London and New York: Continuum.
Hennessy, S. (2005). Taiko South West: Developing a “new” musical tradition in English
schools. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 217-226.
Hentschke, L., & Martinez, I. (2004). Mapping music education research in Brazil and
Argentina: The British impact. Psychology of Music, 32(3), 357-367.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 59
ciel

Ho, W-C. (2007). Students’ experience of music learning in Hong Kong’s secondary schools.
International Journal of Music Education, 25(1), 31-48.
Hull, B. J. (2004). Fact sheets on music education in seventeen countries. Reston,
VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education.
Jank, W. (2009). Moving in a field of conflicting forces: Problems of music education policy
in Germany. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 14-21.
Kertz-Welzel, A. (2008). Music education in the twenty-first century: A cross-cultural com-
parison of German and American music education towards a new concept of interna-
tional dialogue. Music Education Research, 10(4), 439-449.
Koopman, C. (2007). Community music as music education: On the educational potential of
community music. International Journal of Music Education, 25(2), 151-163.
Leong, S. (ed.) (2003). Musicianship in the 21st century: Issues, trends e& possibilities.
Sydney: Australian Music Centre.
Lepherd, L. (ed.) (1995). Music education in international perspective: National systems.
University of Southern Queensland Press.
Leung, C. C., Yip, L. C., & Imada, T. (eds.) (2008). Musie education policy and implementa-
tion: International perspectives. Aomori, Japan: Hirosaki University Press.
Lindemann, C. A. (2005). Editor’s comments. In special focus issue on Advocacy for Music
Education. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 91-94.
Mark, M. L. (2002). A history of music education advocacy. Music Educators Journal,
98(1), 44-48.
Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and
games. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1993). The birth of internationalism in music education, 1899-1938.
International Journal of Music Education, 21, 3-15.
McCarthy, M. (1995). Canticle to hope: Widening horizons in international music education,
1939-1953. International Journal of Music Education, 25, 38-49.
McCarthy, M. (1999). Passing it on: The transmission of music in Irish culture. Cork,
Ireland: Cork University Press.
McCarthy, M. (2004). Toward a global community: The International Society for Music
Education 1953-2003. Nedlands, Perth: International Society for Music Education.
Murao, T., & Wilkins, B. (2001). Japan. In J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds.), Musical de-
velopment and learning: The international perspective. London & New York: Continuum.
Musical Futures. http://www.musicalfutures.org/news [accessed November 11, 2016].
O'Flynn, J. (2005). Re-appraising ideas of musicality in intercultural contexts of music edu-
cation. International Journal of Music Education, 23(3), i91-203.
Sarmast, A. Founder's message. http://www.anim-music.org/founder.html [accessed
November 11, 2016]
filmi: A fusion of western and Indian cul-
Southcott, J., & Joseph, D. (2007). From empire to
tural practices in Australian music education. International Journal of Music Education,
25(3), 235-243.
Tucker, J., & Bowen, C. A. (2001). Music education in Jamaica and the Commonwealth
Caribbean. Prepared for UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_
ID=19570&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html {accessed November
11, 2016].
UNESCO. (1955). Music in education: International conference on the role and place of music
in the education of youth and adults. Paris, France: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2006). Road map for arts education. Publication based on proceedings of World
Conference on Arts Education: Building Creative Capacities for the 21st Century, Lisbon,
60 MARIE MCCARTHY

March 6-9, 2006. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/CLT/

pdf/Arts_Edu_RoadMap_en.pdf [accessed November 11, 2016].
Welch, G. EF (2004). Coda. Mapping music education research in the UK. Special
Focus: Mapping music education research: International perspectives. Psychology of Music,
32(3), 268-271.
 CHAPTER 4
COO MOM a Gade eee adn n eras enrereecensagseesreressere
PHM R eee e enw er emer re eeereeereseeerneeeerberene

MUSIC EDUCATION
PHILOSOPHY

1 2 odlp otdg
GO

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

to assure ourselves and others (e.g., parents, administrators, communities, and

governments) that we understand (1) why music is valuable for people to learn
in formal and informal music teaching situations; (2) what is best to teach (e.g.,
musical skills and understandings, and/or “appreciation,” and/or civic and social
dispositions, or something else?); (3) how we ought to engage people of all ages and
dispositions in educative, ethical, and moving encounters with music and musical
experiences; (4) where, when, how much (and so forth) to teach; and (5) how we
know when music education has succeeded in enabling people to achieve music's
most important values? /
These are all philosophical questions. Why? Because what we commonly label
“music,” “education,” “music education; “musical experience,’ “music appreciation,’
» « » «

“talent? “teaching, “learning? “curriculum, “assessment”—all these, and many

more—are what philosophers call “essentially contested concepts” (Gallie, 1956).
Essentially contested concepts are ambiguous, abstract, and value-laden terms that
resist conclusive definitions and scientific verification. Thus, whether or not people
claim a general or sophisticated understanding of music, or education, or how music
education should be conceived and taught, and regardless of whether it’s possible to
provide rational explanations for privileging one concept of these constructs rather
than another, explanations will always be open to a wide range of interpretations,
applications, dialogues, and debates.
For example, what do music teachers mean and intend when they design
lessons to “teach musical creativity”? What counts as “musical” and what is “crea-
tivity’? Is there a difference between “creating” music and composing it? If so, what?
If teachers lack logically valid concepts of music, teaching, and creativity, how can
they possibly “teach creativity”? Is a composition-based music curriculum better
than a performance-based curriculum, or a music history-based curriculum? Why,
or why not? And what do we mean by “music listening” in formal educational
settings—do we mean “aesthetic perception; embodied music listening, listening
to “classics,” iPod-listening, or listening while we perform? Is “just listening” while
we exercise, drink wine, or dance to hip-hop “legitimate” listening that we ought
to teach-for? From another perspective, how can we be certain that qualitative and
quantitative studies of (say) music teacher education, musical experience, music
assessment (and so on, ad infinitum) are valid, reliable, and useful unless were sure
that researchers begin their work with logically warranted understandings of these
concepts? In summary, how can we be confident that “music” is being taught and
learned comprehensively and ethically, with/for the benefit of students of all kinds,
unless we have assurances that the decisions and actions of school music teachers
and community music facilitators are based on rigorously reasoned beliefs and
principles that will guide (consciously and unconsciously) why, what, and how they
carry out their responsibilities?
Unfortunately, some music educators’ pedagogical assumptions, beliefs, and
concepts are unjustified and “reason-less.”” Some teachers’ beliefs rest on mere
commonsense, unreflective experience, indoctrination, or poor textbooks, rather
than careful, rational, and critically reflective thinking. Thus, music teaching and
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 63

learning is sometimes misguided, unethical, or “mal-practiced” Being a profes-

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

Music EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY:

OUTLINING THE FIELD

Notwithstanding the seminal writings of philosophers and musicians in ancient

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

students, and scholars about fundamental concepts, conceptions, controversies,

principles, and practices in school and community music education. Of course, it's
impossible to provide a truly equitable accounting of this literature, let alone a com-
prehensive discussion. Space is restricted, and choices require exclusions, which
means that somebody will always be more or less offended. But there is nothing to
be done about this, and there is nothing we can do to identify individually all the
music education philosophers who have and are making enormous contributions
to the field. That said, following below is an incomplete accounting of a very size-
able literature, beginning with journals that contain the works of many fine thinkers
I cannot credit formally.
‘Two music education research journals, both of which originated in the 1990s,
privilege philosophical research: Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education
and Philosophy of Music Education Review. On a continuum ranging from journals
that publish philosophical articles more and less frequently, several come to mind
immediately: Journal of Aesthetic Education; Music Education Research; Research
Studies in Music Education; Gender Research in Music Education; International
Journal of Music Education-Research; Visions of Research in Music Education;
Nordisk musikkpedagogisk forskning, Arbok; British Journal of Music Education;
The Finnish Journal of Music Education; International Journal of Community Music;
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education; Australian Journal of Music
Education; Diskussion Musikpddagogi; and Zeitschrift fiir Kritische Musikpddagogik.
Importantly, most editorial boards today are much more willing to consider philo-
sophical submissions than before 1990, when positivistic research reigned supreme.
The Oxford Handbook of Music Education Philosophy (Bowman & Frega, 2012) is a
highly welcome and notable addition to the field’s literature. Two previous music
education research handbooks (Colwell, 1992; Colwell & Richardson, 2602) include
important chapters related to philosophical method and the role of philosophy in
research, curriculum, and instruction.
Numerous books have played a significant role in the advancement of MEP since
the mid-1950s. Whether partly or wholly concerned with philosophical perspectives
on the nature and value of music education and its cognates, a necessarily selec-
tive list might include Human Values in Music Education (Mursell, 1934), Education
for Musical Growth (Mursell, 1948), Foundations and Principles of Music Education
(Leonhard & House, 1959), Basic Concepts in Music Education (Henry, 1958), A
Philosophy of Music Education (Reimer, 1970, 1989, 2003), Aesthetics: Dimensions
for Music Education (Schwadron, 1967), Didaktik der Musik (Alt, 1968), A Basis
for Music Education (Swanwick, 1979), Musical Knowledge: Intuition, Analysis
and Music Education (Swanwick, 1994), Music Matters: A New Philosophy of
Music Education (Elliott, 1995), In Search of Music Education (Jorgensen, 1997),
Philosophical Perspectives on Music (Bowman, 1998), Der schwankende Boden der
Lebenswelt: Phanomenologische Musikpddagogik zwischen Handlungstheorie und
Asthetik (Vogt, 2001), Transforming Music Education (Jorgensen, 2003), Democracy
and Music Education: Liberalism, Ethics, and the Politics of Practice (Woodford,
2005), Music Education for Changing Times (Regelski & Gates, 2010), What’s So
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY . 65
SS EE ees

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

PHILOSOPHY Is...?

Professional philosophers have divergent views on what counts as “philosophy.”

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

and notwithstanding problematic concepts of philosophy, it seems reasonable to

argue that our best efforts to prepare future music educators and music education
philosophers must include some rationally justifiable concept of what philosophy
is and how philosophy should be carried out, and how philosophy can contribute
to effective and ethical teaching. If so, then we need some basic criteria for under-
standing what philosophy is. But where do we start? Let's begin by unpacking some
common uses of “philosophy.”
When laypeople use “philosophy,” they often use it in the ‘‘weak” sense—as
a synonym for an opinion, assumption, belief, or faith (Regelski, 2010a). For ex-
ample: “My philosophy is that (i.e., I believe) school music is just for the talented”;
‘I’m convinced (i.e., my philosophy is) that when someone is composing creatively,
they are creative”; “My philosophy is (i.e., my opinion is) that learning an instru-
ment teaches kids discipline’; “My professor has written a book, so I know (i.e.,
I trust) that she’s right about the values of standardized testing in music.”
Again, these direct and indirect uses of “philosophy” are weak (or simply wrong)
because they associate philosophy with uncritical thinking and/or blind faith in fal-
lible authority figures and contested concepts (e.g., talent, creativity, discipline, and
testing). Several unfortunate consequences follow from weak notions of philosophy.
For example, people who accept weak notions tend to assume that they're justified
in holding their opinions or “philosophies” because one person's opinions are just
as good as any others, regardless of logic or evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately,
however, if everything counts, then nothing counts. So how do we proceed to dis-
tinguish between weak and strong concepts of philosophy? Let’s tackle this question
by following some simple “first steps” that philosophers (in the strong sense) might |
follow (in much more depth than I have space for here) to sift and sort helpful and
less helpful insights. A simple first step would be to scan various dictionaries; a
second step would involve historical perspectives on the meaning of philosophy;
a third step would involve unpacking philosophy etymologically. Let's follow these
steps and continue with a few more.
If we consult contemporary dictionaries, as aa philosophers have done (e.g.,
Stroll, 2009, p. 115), we find six possible definitions of philosophy (see: “What phi-
lasophy means to me,’ 2006):
¢ The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge,
or conduct
¢ Any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy,
and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study
« A system of philosophical doctrine: e.g., the philosophy of Spinoza
¢ The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular
branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting
them: e.g., the philosophy of science
¢ A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs
¢ A philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of
troubles or annoyances
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 67
ee"

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

Malcolm, 1967): “What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you
is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of
logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions
of everyday life?” (p. 39). Stroll (2009) combines these themes: “Philosophy is the
strong liking for knowledge of what is true or right, coupled with just judgments as
to action; sagacity, prudence, or common sense” (p. 117). Clearly, then, philosophy
(properly understood) is not idle speculation; philosophy is “a tool for the clarifica-
tion of meaning .. . philosophy allows one to understand more clearly and decide
important issues” (Regelski, 2010a, p. 6).
In terms of music teaching and learning, I suggest that an unexamined profes-
sional life is not worth living or pursuing. An unexamined professional life is poten-
tially damaging and dangerous because what teachers do in each and every moment
of teaching involves the well-being of people—children, young people, and adults.
Put another way, MEP not only informs us, it “forms” our habits of teaching effec-
tively, wisely, ethically, and compassionately—philosophy, done well, informs and
forms our ways of living and working fully. As such, MEP should never be optional
in music teacher education; it should be fundamental and central.
Critchley (2010) tackles philosophy from another angle by asking, “What is a
philosopher?” He answers by invoking Socrates's comparison of a philosopher and
a lawyer. In Greek times, says Critchley, lawyers were compelled to prepare and
present their court cases in a very short amount of time, which led to errors and
ethical lapses. In contrast, “the philosopher is the person who has time or who takes
time” (p. 1) to think carefully, examine issues from all sides, over time, and draw
logically balanced conclusions. In short, to philosophize is to “take your time” in
order to reflect rigorously. Another characteristic of truly professional philosophers
is that they tend to ignore academic cliques and eschew the approbation of their
peers. Thus, some people often belittle philosophers for their aloofness, their indif-
ference to symbols of popularity, and their impatience with the status quo. Shand
(2009) adds another important perspective when he emphasizes that doing philos-
ophy requires thinking “in a determinedly open minded way, with no holds barred;
think, as one might say, to the limits” (p. 4). This can be difficult. The natural incli-
nation is to “salute” the latest trends, embrace the ideas of venerable “authorities,”
_ and/or overlook the weaknesses in one’s own sources and theories.
Summarizing to this point, people tend to use “philosophy” in three basic
ways. First, many people “philosophize” from time to time as part of their everyday
lives: that is, people often puzzle over their decisions, ideas, beliefs, relationships,
and actions and the actions of others. Let’s call this “everyday philosophy.’ In a
stronger sense, some people are disposed (because of an inquisitive or educated dis-
position) to think about their lives, actions, and professions with more than a usual
amount of care and rational reflection, which we might call “informal philosophy”
Third, there's the “capital-P” or scholarly sense of philosophy, as carried out by aca-
demic philosophers. Let’s examine the latter in more detail.
An understanding of “capital-P” philosophy starts by acknowledging “that
some ways of thinking about things are more defensible or justified, when assessed
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 69
————————
eens

by the merits of the arguments for and against them, than others” (Shand, 2009,
p. 3). While this may seem too obvious to mention, it’s not obvious to those who
assume that “a philosophy” is synonymous with an opinion or a viewpoint, or that
everyone is entitled to their own opinions, or that one view is as good as any other.
Shand calls these assumptions “intellectual nihilism” (p. 3). Implicit in these notions
is the belief that there are no criteria for assessing a debate, dialogue, or philosoph-
ical argument as good, bad, or valid. But this overlooks one of the most unique
attributes of human nature—our ability to reason our way to good decisions about
what is best to think and do. This is not to suggest that we should “reason” as if
we were “brains alone.” Excellent philosophers do not remove themselves from the
world, nor do they deny their emotional and embodied selves. Still, rationality is
at the core of what serious philosophers do. Without logical thinking, the door is
open to an “anything-goes” mindset. Stated differently, what does philosophy have
to offer music education if music education philosophers eschew reason and logic?
Unfortunately, as in all fields, some authors of MEP books, articles, and “critical”
commentaries undercut the potential values of their work by (a) committing var-
ious fallacies—i.e., errors in reasoning, of which there are more than 100 (Angeles,
1981, p. 95), that ignore the structures and rules of logical validity—and/or (b) by
substituting unsubstantiated opinions for carefully evidenced arguments. What
remedies are there? In addition to granting MEP a central place in music teacher
education, music educators would benefit from (for example) studying the work
of today’s leading philosophers of education and/or music (e.g., Nel Noddings,
Jane Roland Martin, David Carr, Joseph Dunne, Paulo Freire; Jenefer Robinson,
Kathleen Marie Higgins, Stephen Davies, Theodore Gracyk, Philip Alperson, Noél
Carroll, Jerrold Levinson, Peter Kivy, Jeanette Bicknell, etc.). These thinkers (among
several others) provide excellent models of how to formulate logical and warranted
arguments about the nature and values of education and music and how to effec-
tively challenge and “repair” fallacious arguments in the writings of others.
Of course, formulating new arguments, identifying fallacies, and challenging
existing philosophies can be difficult for many reasons. Aside from the demands of
doing philosophical work, being critically reflective can have serious professional
and personal consequences (consider the price that Socrates paid). As Jorgensen
(1992) warns, we should not be surprised that “doing philosophy in music edu-
cation may sometimes be disturbing, uncomfortable, even painful” (p. 98) for
philosophers and critics alike. However, says Jorgensen, although “the critique that
philosophy brings and the vision it offers may be destructive of complacency,’ the
process of challenging claims and assumptions is well worth the price for people
seeking deeper understandings (p. 99), including philosophers, critics, and the
critics of critics.
Given the above, we see the wisdom of Bowman’s words: “the trick is to recog-
nize the fallibility of logic and reason, and their potential abuses (intentional and
unintentional), without renouncing them altogether” (W. Bowman, personal com-
munication, July 28, 2010). Which brings us to another major question: How, more
specifically, do philosophers actually do philosophy? Not surprisingly, philosophers
 7O : DAVID J. ELLIOTT

differ in their views on “philosophical method.” This lack of consensus can be

attributed to the fact that ways of doing philosophy are always influenced by per-
sonal dispositions, allegiances, and the historical and intellectual ethos of a given
time and culture (Regelski, 2010a). Nevertheless, it is Ue to make several basic
points with reasonable assurance.

PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD

In The Practice of Philosophy, Rosenberg (1984) states that philosophy is a process

of developing arguments for and against concepts, claims, theories, and beliefs,
whether these concepts and claims belong to oneself or others. In philosophy, the
term “argument” refers to a series of statements that present a philosopher's reasons
for his or her beliefs. “In the clearest sort of case; says Rosenberg, “one of these
statements will be tagged as the intended conclusion, expressing the target belief
which requires support . . . the conclusion is what is argued for; the premises are
what is argued from” (p. 12). Intervening statements link premises to conclusions by
means of careful logic (deductive, inductive, analogical, etc.), as well as evidence,
authority, and/or precedents. The philosopher’s aim is to “warrant”— to justify,
support, or defend—the statements that he or she makes for his or her conclusions.
Evidence, authority, and precedents include a range of logical and relevant public
knowledge including pertinent arguments by other philosophers, past and present,
the conclusions of experts in related fields, and, when applicable, quantitative and
qualitative data. Clearly, when consulting and drawing on various kinds of evidence
to warrant their arguments, philosophers must evaluate carefully the validity of this
evidence.
Implicit in everything I’ve suggested so far are the fundamental issues of lan-
guage and concepts. That is, in the process of creating or criticizing arguments,
philosophers must be vitally concerned with the ways they employ language to or-
ganize and articulate their concepts and critique the arguments and concepts of
others. As Shand (2009) says, “concepts may be considered as the building blocks
of articulate organized thought. Without them .. . it would not be possible to think
about anything, because to think about something is to apply a concept to it” (p. 5).
Enter “conceptual analysis.” Put simply (very simply), conceptual analysis
_ means breaking down ideas, concepts, and arguments into their constituent parts
to clarify their logical structure. It means dissecting the elements and assumptions
underlying concepts, premises, arguments, claims, and conclusions—one’s own and
others’—to understand a particular philosophical issue in which concepts are in-
volved. Beaney (2009) adds that conceptual analysis is “a process of isolating or
working back to what is more fundamental by means of which something, initially
taken as given, can be explained or reconstructed” (p. 1). (The previous step-by-
step examination of “philosophy” is a tiny example of conceptual analysis). In a
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 71

little more detail, the process of conceptual analysis—applied to one’s own or

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

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

PHILOSOPHICAL PARADIGMS

In the broadest sense, analytic philosophy is an umbrella term for diverse types of
.twentieth-century conceptual analysis. Although Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle en-
gaged in basic forms of conceptual analysis (as did Kant and many others, in a
variety of ways), “analytic philosophy, as philosophers name it today, dates back
100 years or so to England, where its originators (e.g., Russell, Carnap, Frege, Moore)
employed extremely abstract, symbolic-mathematical forms of logic. To take a tiny
example, the simple tautology “All bachelors are unmarried” would transform to
this in analytic philosophy: “x((Fx & Gx) > Gx).” This approach to philosophy swept
Western university philosophy departments, where it dominated until the 1950s or
so, and it is still present in some. Analytic philosophy is almost entirely absent from
the history of MEP, with the possible exception of Fiske’s (1990) Music and Mind,
which makes some use of analytic techniques.
Although he was initially and profoundly influenced by Russell and his
colleagues, Wittgenstein challenged the excesses of traditional analytic philosophy
and departed radically from this approach when he and his followers (e.g., Ryle,
Austin) initiated a transition to a more concise form of analysis that became known
as ordinary language philosophy. Wittgenstein’s work was also resporisible for the
development of quietism, which evolved from his concern for linking philosophical
thinking to the social world and eschewing analytic philosophy’s artificial languages
(e.g., symbolic logic), which quietists view as the source of needless diversions,
complications, and confusions. Quietist philosophers ask, “Is X a real philosophical
or practical problem, or is it simply a pseudo-problem that arises from confusing
language or misguided thinking?” Quietists aim to extinguish philosophical fires
before they start, thereby restoring intellectual “peace and quiet.”
In the philosophy of music, excellent examples of ordinary language philosophy
include Higgins’s (1991) analyses of Langer’s (1942; 1953; 1966) philosophy of music
and Kivy’s (1980) concept of musical expression; Bicknell’s (2005) discussion of the in-
_ terpretation of songs; and Sparshott’s (1994) extensive analysis of musical “aesthetics.”
Examples of conceptual analysis in music and MEP include Bowman's (1998) study
of numerous philosophies of music (2010); Jorgensen’s (2002) analysis of the concept
of curriculum; Regelski’s (2006) examination of music appreciation; Elliott’s analyses
of social justice (2007b) and performativity (2007a); and Vogt’s (2003) probe of the
assumptions underlying any attempt to develop a philosophy of music education.
Jorgensen (1992) makes a key point: overall, she says, “there has been relatively
little analytic philosophy” (in the broadest sense of the term) in music education
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 73

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

Not surprisingly, there are strong criticisms of postmodern dispositions and

forms of argument, both inside and outside music education. Fundamentally, as
Best and Kellner (1991) point out:
the interest in postmodern theory ultimately derives from fascination with our
present moment, with the current social situation in which we find ourselves
and its often surprising developments and events. Yet in articulating the new,
postmodern theory . . . tends to degenerate into sloganeering and rhetoric
without any systematic or comprehensive theoretical position. ... Theory itself is
“post-modernized; adapting to the speed, fashions, superficiality, and fragmented
nature of the contemporary era. Theory thus becomes a hypercommodity, geared
to sell and promote the latest fashions in thought and attitudes. (p. 140)

Postmodern music education philosophizing can be problematic when it

emulates synoptic procedures. In music education, some (but not all) postmodern
publications favor downloading the ideas of celebrated postmodern and quasi-_
postmodern theorists and philosophers, including, for example: Baudrillard, Butler,
Derrida, Deleuze, Delpit, Foucault, Freire, Giroux, Guattari, Lyotard, and Marcuse.
Another term for postmodern “method” in music education is what Regelski (2010a)
calls “lens-ism” or “perspectivism.’ In this variation on the synoptic approach, some
postmodernists (but not all) aim to “problematize; “trouble, or “worry about”
various aspects of music pedagogy “through the lens” of a particular postmodern
theorist. Generally speaking (but not always), postmodern perspectives on music
education are less concerned with topics related to the sonic-artistic natures and
values of music, musical experience, music-making and listening, musical under-
standing (and so on) and more concerned with how instruction and curriculum
function to embody and/or remedy abuses of power, race, gender, social justice, and
so forth. There is no doubt whatsoever that these are hugely important issues that
music education scholarship has largely failed to examine in the past. But in terms
of philosophical processes, the difficulty with “troubling” any issue through a spe-
cific lens is that “lenses” always have theoretical and normative blind spots. Thus,
analyzing an aspect of music education through the lens of a specific theorist causes
some philosophers to overlook what their chosen theorist/theory does not say, or
what critics of their chosen lens have to offer. For example, when philosophers
of education and music education promote Freire’s critical pedagogy, they some-
times omit to include other philosophers’ critical perspectives on Freire’s views. Of
course, the same applies to philosophical discourse that privileges the thoughts of
(say) Aristotle, Kant, Marx, Adorno, Langer, Rorty, Greene, and so forth.
In contrast to top-down philosophy, Dewey suggests that philosophers should
be very cautious before accepting the theoretical assumptions of past or present
scholars. Dewey urges philosophers to begin their inquiries from the bottom up; he
advises that we avoid “given” and possibly flawed frameworks and assumptions by
seeking answers in actual, everyday, social experiences and social practices, which
is the preferred approach of pragmatic and praxial philosophers.
Finally, the field of experimental philosophy, or x-phi, holds that many
problems confronting contemporary society (e.g., the nature of consciousness,
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 75
ee

moral responsibility, intentional action) cannot be solved by philosophical analyses

alone. X-philosophers are currently integrating conceptual analyses and scientific
procedures to investigate a wide range of long-standing human issues. At present,
this potentially rich approach is almost completely absent in music education.

PHILOSOPHY OF MUSIC
AND MusIc EDUCATION

I suggested earlier that the literature of philosophical arguments, concepts, and

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

These praxial themes hold in many world musics past and present. For example,
“the Navajo people view music as medicinal” (Higgins, 1991, p. 12); the Finnish-
Karelian itkuvirsi is a ritual death lament improvised by women to guide commu-
nity mourning; and the Kaluli people of Papua, New Guinea, “make duets with
birds, cicadas, and other forest sounds; and they often sing when near a waterfall,
for they consider the waterfall to be a desirable musical accompaniment” (p. 15).
As explained elsewhere (Cross & Tolbert, 2009; Higgins, 1991; Regelski, 2009;
Elliott & Silverman, 2012a, 2015), music continued to be dominantly praxial (and
vocal) across all cultures until the mid-eighteenth century in Europe. Even in the
context of medieval and Renaissance music education, music was viewed as a so-
‘cial praxis tied to issues of social status, gender, and worship (Murray, Weiss, &
Cyrus, 2010). This is not to say that issues related to sonic structures were ignored;
rather, sonic structures were always related to historical/social/cultural needs,
experiences, values, and contexts, including other sensory experiences. Higgins
(1991) summarizes key points:

One of the most important features of music is experiential context. Most musical
experience throughout history and across cultures has been imbedded in
extramusical experience—indeed it is unimaginable without it—the extramusical
has had a decisive impact on the meaning of the music for the listener. (p. 16)

This long-standing situation changed gradually in Europe with the dawn of the
Enlightenment. At that point, a new concept of music began to emerge: music was
conceptualized as an “aesthetic” work-centered “fine art” (Kristeller, 1990) and equ-
ated with “pure” instrumental music. According to the aesthetic concept, which was
conceived by a small group of elite, male thinkers in the specific cultural, economic,
and political circumstances of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Europe, the
value of music resides entirely in the formal structures of musical “works”—in “the
music itself” There have been many variations on the premises and corollaries of
the aesthetic concept during the last 250 years of aesthetic theorizing. Most no-
tably, the aesthetic doctrine argues that musical works exist to be perceived with an
“aesthetic attitude’ —with distanced and “disinterested” attention to the complexity
and novelty of a work's formal properties. When listeners listen aesthetically, they
(allegedly) undergo an “aesthetic experience,’ a kind of otherworldly, intellectual-
emotional pleasure. Conceived in these vague terms, “aesthetic meaning” is processed
rationally and yet “ineffable.” Musical experience is conceived as music “cognition”
or “perceptual structuring” focused on musical elements and form. Even musical
~ feelings and emotions are viewed as resulting from cognitive processes alone.
To a large degree, these premises anchor many philosophical writings about
musical affective experience and music education, past and present (e.g., Hanslick,
1854; Kivy, 1980; Langer, 1942, 1953; Meyer, 1956; Reimer, 1970, 1989, 2003). And
aesthetic notions still underpin a theoretical and practical division between “art
for arts sake” and musical actions that are beneficial in practical and social ways
(Higgins, 1991; Bowman, 2005; Korsmeyer, 2004; Regelski, 2009). The notion of
aesthetic value, says Korsmeyer, was attached to the new concept of “good taste”
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 77
a

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

Alperson, Budd, Davies, Robinson) have conducted thorough conceptual analyses

of Langer’s work-centered philosophy of music (1942, 1953), exposed many lapses
in her logic, and, accordingly, rejected her concepts of the nature and value of
music. To the extent that music educators are unaware of the depth and precision of
these conceptual analyses, and the philosophy of music in general, our profession
is weakened, because (for example) many teachers continue to accept uncritically —
Langer’s philosophy, which underpins past and present aesthetic and synergistic
philosophies of music education (e.g., Reimer, 1970, 1989, 2003).
At this point it’s appropriate to consider Higgins’s argument that “philosophical
adherence to a rigid definition of music in terms of ‘musical works’ has led many
.philosophers to counterintuitive misunderstandings about the nature of music as
a phenomenon in human experience” (1991, p. 16). Indeed, many of the issues and
theories that traditional philosophers of music and music education continue to
analyze and produce are outdated in relation to work in the fields of contempo-
rary music philosophy, ethnomusicology, music psychology, music sociology, and
neuroscience, all of which have exhaustively examined key topics in music educa-
tion, such as people’s emotional responses to music (e.g., Juslin & Sloboda, 2010),
music-social identities, embodied interactions with music, and music and health
(e.g., Elliott & Silverman, 2012b).
But if past and present aesthetic conceptions of music are problematic inade-
quate, are there alternative ways of conceiving music? Yes. Beginning in the 1980s, a
great deal of new musical scholarship rejected Enlightenment-aesthetic theorizing
and its many offshoots in favor of social-cultural concepts of music, as explained by
key scholars in several related fields: for example, “new musicology” (e.g., McClary,
Kerman, Subotnick, Kramer); music sociology and ethnomusicology (e.g., DeNora,
Shepherd, Small, Clayton, Bohlman, Martin, Finnegan); music psychology (e.g.,
Hargreaves, MacDonald); music philosophy (e.g., Sparshott, Alperson, Carroll,
Robinson, Gracyk), and MEP (e.g., Bowman, Elliott, Goble, Jorgensen, Regelski).
Because it's impossible to account for all the important concepts, themes, and
arguments in this new body of scholarship, I will only sketch a few social-cultural,
praxial, and pragmatic themes that have impacted MEP since the early 1990s.
According to Kramer (1990) “music . . . is a form of activity: a practice. If we
take it in these terms, we should be able to understand it less as an attempt to say
something than as an attempt to do something” (p. xii). Similarly, Small (1998)
argues that “music is not a thing at all but an activity; something that people do”
(p. 2). Bowman (2007) proposes that music educators begin their professional
~ theorizing “with music as a social act and a social fact, instead of music as an en-
tity to which my relationship is aesthetic, receptive, and somehow individual in
nature” (p. 1). In my work (Elliott, 1995; Elliott & Silverman, 2015), I recommend
that we conceptualize “music” not narrowly—not in terms of musical pieces,
sonic works, or products alone—but inclusively as a robust and highly diverse so-
cial praxis that includes pieces and much, much more. This means that each spe-
cific musical style is actually a style-community: an integrated network of socially
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 79
ee ed

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

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. Is MEP important in music education? Why, or why not?

2. If someone asks you what “philosophy” means, how will you answer?
3. What attributes make the philosophy of music education (1) a’robust field,
and (2) a problematic field?
4. Locate, compare, and analyze examples of valid and fallacious thinking in
MEP books and articles.

KEY REFERENCES

Alperson, P. A. (1994). Introduction. In P. A. Alperson (ed.), What is music? An intro-

duction to the philosophy of music (pp. 3-30). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Bowman, W. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New York: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, K. M. (1991). The music of our lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Goble, J. S. (2009). The praxial philosophy in historical perspective.
In D, J. Elliott (ed.), Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues (pp. 19-51).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, J. (ed.). (1997). Music and meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
MUSIC EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 81

eee
PIONMLATHTR or(tY= OFS) RiarerBre {aashe (Q/R\S: 8/6(apIGtb'9' Cen Y's wh dicia thRik'We OU 8 WES ONCE wee tofu Rieu
eeeCeienUs bebe esse’ ee ee ee ie er i re

Alperson, P. A. (1994). Introduction. In P. A. Alperson (ed.), What is music? An intro-

duction to the philosophy of music (pp. 3-30). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Alt, M. (1968). Didaktik der Musik. Orientierung am Kunstwerk. Diisseldorf: Schwann.
Angeles, P. A. (1981). Dictionary ofphilosophy. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Bailey, R., Barrow, R., Carr, D., & McCarthy, C. (eds.) (2010). The Sage handbook of philos-
ophy of education. London: Sage.
Beaney, M. (2009). Analysis. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/analysis [accessed June 5, 2010].
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations, New York: Guilford.
Bicknell, J. (2005). Just a song? Exploring the aesthetics of popular song performance. The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(3), 261-270.
Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, P., & Standish, P. (eds.) (2003). The Blackwell guide to the phi-
losophy of education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bowman, W. (2010). No one true way: Music education without redemptive truth.
In T. Regelski & J. T. Gates (eds.), Music Education for Changing Times (pp. 3-15).
New York: Springer.
Bowman, W. (2007). Who is the “We”? Rethinking professionalism in music education.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(4), http://act.maydaygroup.org/arti-
cles/Bowman6_4.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010].
Bowman, W. (2005). The rationality of action: Pragmatism’s habit concept. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education, 4(4), http://mas.siue.edu/ACT/v4/Bowman4_1.pdf
[accessed August 12, 2010].
Bowman, W. (2003). Re-tooling “Foundations” to address 21st century realities: Music ed-
ucation amidst diversity, plurality, and change. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music
Education, 2(2), http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Bowman2_2.pdf [accessed August
23, 2010].
Bowman, W. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bowman, W., & Frega, A. L. (eds.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of philosophy in music.
New York: Oxford University Press
Bowman, W., & Powell, K. (2007). The body in a state of music. In L. Bresler (ed.),
International handbook of
research in arts education (pp. 1087-1106). New York: Springer.
Colwell, R. (ed.), (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New York:
Schirmer.
Colwell, R., & Richardson, C. (eds.), (2002). The new handbook of research on music teaching
and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Critchley, S. (2010). Whatisa philosopher? New York Times, May 16,2010, file:///Users/vtrombone/
Desktop/ Philo%20for%20Gary%20/What%201s%20a%20Philosopher%3F:Critchley.html
[accessed May 16, 2010].
Cross, I., & Tolbert, E. (2009). Music and meaning. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.),
The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 24-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. J. (2007a). Puerto Rico: A site of critical performative pedagogy. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education. 6(1), 2-24, http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/ Elliott6_
1.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010].
 82 DAVID J. ELLIOTT

Elliott, D. J. (2007b). “Socializing” music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music
Education, 6(4), 60-95, http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Elliott6_4.pdf [accessed June
22, 2010].
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters: A philosophy of music education. 2d ed.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (20124). Rethinking philosophy, re-viewing musical-emotional
experiences. In W. Bowman & A. L. Frega (eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy in
music education (pp. 37-62). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2012b). Why music matters: Philosophical and cultural
- perspectives. In R. MacDonald, G. Kreutz, & L. Mitchell (eds.), Music, health, and
wellbeing (pp. 25-39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fiske, H. E. (1990). Music and mind: Philosophical essays on the cognition and meaning of
music. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,
56, 167-198.
Goble, J. S. (2010). What’ so important about music education? New York: Routledge.
Goehr, L. (2000). Music philosophy. In L. Macy (ed.), The new Grove dictionary of music
online. http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:22941/subscriber/article/grove/music/52965#$5296
[accessed June 22, 2010].
Gutek, G. L. (2008). New perspectives on philosophy and education. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Hanslick, E. (1854). On the musically beautiful. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Payzant.
Indianapolis: Hackett, 1986.
Henry, N. (ed.). (1958). Basic concepts in music education. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Higgins, K. M. (1991). The music of our lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Jorgensen, E. (2002). Philosophical issues in curriculum. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson
(eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 48-62).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jorgensen, E. (1997). In search of music education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Jorgensen, E. (1992). On philosophical method. In R. Colwell (ed.), Handbook ofresearch on
music teaching and learning (pp. 91-101). New York: Schirmer.
Juslin, P., & Sloboda, J. (2010). Handbook ofmusic and emotion: Theory, research, applications.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kania, A. (2007). The philosophy of music. Stanford encyclopedia ofphilosophy. http://plato.
stanford.edu/entries/music/ [accessed June 22, 2010].
Kivy, P. (1980). The corded shell: Reflections on musical expression. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Kohli, W. (ed.) (1995). Critical conversations in philosophy ofeducation. New York: Routledge.
Korsmeyer, C. (2004). Gender and aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Kramer, L. (1995). Classical music and postmodern knowledge. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Kramer, L. (1990). Music as cultural practice, 1800-1900. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Kristeller, P.O. (1990). Renaissance thought and the arts: Collected essays. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
 an t, 8,K, (1966). cultural importance ofthe arts. Journal of aesthetic education,

“anger, 5, K. (1953). Feeling and form. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
L S.K.(1942). Philosophy ina new key. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1959). Foundations and principles of music education.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
ee Moonah tnancient “Greeté. Mew Nock: Colmnbia
Luci re eons reheated Tosonte:MacMillan.
McLeod promise offreedom and the regulation of gender—feminist pedagogy
1 the 19708. Gender and Education, 104), 431-445.
lay, L. (1992). Foucault and feminism: Power, gender and the self.
‘Cambridge: Polity Press.
Meyer, L.B.(1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Murray, R., Weiss, S.,& Cyrus, C.(eds.) (201
Music
0).education inthe Middle Ages and the
sell, J. L.(1948). Education for musical growth. Boston: Ginn.
el , J.L.(1934). Human values in music education. New York: Silver, Burdett.
assmore, J. (1967). Philosophy. In P. Edwards (ed.), The encycloped
of philosophy,
ia vol. 6 (p.
216). New York: Macmillan.
“$ T. (20104). The questions of “philosophy” or philosophy for music educators?
Paper presented at the conference of the International Society for Philosophy
of Music
: Education, Helsinki, Finland, June 10, 2010. Unpublished manuscript.
Regelski, T.(2010b). Conclusion: An end is a beginning In T. Regelski & J. T. Gates (eds.),
_ Music education for changing times (pp. 187-197). New York: Springer.
Regelski, T. (2009). Curriculum reform: Reclaiming “music” as social praxis. Action,
Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 8(1), http:-//act.maydaygroup.org/articles/
Regelski8_1 pdf [accessed June 22, 2010].
Regelski, T. (2006). Music appreciation as praxis. Music Education Research, 8(2), 281-310.
Regelski, T. (2005). Music and music education: Theory and praxis for “making a difference”
and Theory, 37(1), 7-27.
Educational Philosophy
Regelski, T. (2002). On “methodolatry” and music teaching as critical and reflective practice.
Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 102-133.
Regelski, T. (1997). A prolegomenon to a praxial theory ofmusic education. Canadian Music
Educator, 38, 43-51.
Regelski,T.,& Gates, J.T. (eds.). (2010). Music education for changing times. New York: Springer.
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision. 3rd ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Reimer, B. (1989). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Reimer, B. (1970). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rosenberg, J. F. (1984). The practice ofphilosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Schwadron, A. (1967). Aesthetics: Dimensions for music education. Washington, DC: Music
Educators National Conference.
Shand, J. (ed_) (2009). Central issues ofphilosophy. Chichester, UK: Wiley-BlackwelL
Shusterman, R. (1997). Practicing philosophy: Pragmatism and the philosophical life.
New York: Routledge.
Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings ofperforming and listening. Hanover: University
Press of New England.
Small, C. (1980). Music-society-education. 2nd ed. London: John Calder.
84 DAVID J. ELLIOTT

Sparshott, F. (1994). Aesthetics of music: Limits and grounds. In P.A. Alperson (ed.),
What is music? An introduction to the philosophy of music (pp. 33-98). University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Sparshott, F. (1982). The theory of the arts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stone, L. (ed.) (1994). The education feminism reader. New York: Routledge.
Stroll, A. (2009). Informal philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Swanwick, K. (1994). Musical knowledge: Intuition, analysis, and music education.
London: Routledge/Falmer.
Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. Windsor, UK: NFER ent
Vogt, J. (2003). Philosophy—music education-curriculum: Some casual remarks on some
basic concepts. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 2(1), http://act.
maydaygroup.org/articles/Vogt2_1.pdf [accessed June 22, 2010].
Vogt, J. (2001). Der schwankende Boden der Lebenswelt: Phanomenchinehe Musikpddagogik
zwischen Handlungstheorie und Asthetik. Wirzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann.
“What philosophy means to me.” (2006). Philosophy Forum. http://groups.able2zknow.org/
philforum/topic/1508-1 [accessed June 12, 2010].
Woodford, P. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of
practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
 CHAPTER 5

CULTURAL
DIVERSITY: BEYOND
“SONGS FROM
EVERY LAND”

HUIB SCHIPPERS AND

PATRICIA SHEHAN CAMPBELL

With the unprecedented meeting, mixing, and recontextualizing of cultures across

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

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

THE RISE OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY

IN Music EDUCATION

* As Blacking (1985) points out, cultural diversity has existed across cultures and
eras. Less common are active interventions in “multimusical” environments. From
a recent Western perspective, McCarthy (1997) traces such initiatives back to the
1950s, and Volk (1998) digs well into the nineteenth century, where she also finds
warnings on the “tendencies” of “negro melodies and comic songs” “to corrupt
both musically and morally” (Mason quoted in Volk, 1998, p. 27). The influential
1967 Tanglewood Declaration is a convenient formal starting point for contem-
porary approaches to cultural diversity among music educators. Since that time,
schools addressing cultural diversity in music education seem to have been driven
' mostly by demographics. The context of the school or school district in which a
teacher worked (along with the teacher’s own experience and training) has been
fundamental to the curricular choices made in elementary and secondary school
music programs—and occasionally shaped instructional strategies as well. This has
been stronger than philosophical arguments for the selection of music based on
its inherent sonic beauty so as to offer, for example, experiences in Thai music to
students in largely Mexican, Korean, or Pakistani neighborhoods. In this sense,
the development of world music in schools has been unlike that of the “world
music” phenomenon at large, which has been attributed to forces such as mu-
sical curiosity, commercialism, exoticism, changing musical tastes, or “one world”
ideologies (Taylor, 2007).
In the United States, the historical development of greater musical diversity in
school programs is directly linked to developments in university programs of music
of the time. The field of ethnomusicology was blossoming with the founding of the
Society for Ethnomusicology in 1955, which then fueled interest from established
university faculties in performance, historical musicology, music theory, composi-
tion, and education in understanding and finding the relevance of the study of world
music in music programs (Nettl, 2002). By the 1970s, the academy was opening its
door to studies in the music of India, Japan, and Indonesia in particular. Gamelans
as exemplar of “high-art Asian music” began to appear in courtyards or rehearsal
rooms to draw students directly into music-making experiences (Campbell, 2004b;
Solis, 2004). At the same time, a rise of interest in the study of musical traditions of
the African continent was developing as a response to the Afro-American Studies
programs that were emerging at the edge of the civil rights era. New faculty hires
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 87
e e

created opportunities to bring ethnomusicology and the performance of some of

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

workshops at conference sessions and specialized institutes, and the emphasis on

repertoire has given way to the inclusion of cultural meaning and pedagogical
approaches that emanated from the targeted musical culture.
Simultaneously, this transformation was in motion elsewhere in the world.
In Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Europe, throughout Latin America, and
across the African continent, curricular revision was evident at every level of music
education. In postcolonial Africa,alarge number of fiercely independent thinkers
and practitioners, such as J. H. Kwabena Nketia and later Meki Nzewi, forged ideas
linking traditional practices and constructs of music-making with contemporary
realities. Across Asia, two generations of musicians and scholars began negotiating
‘the tensions in the triangle between long-established traditional practices, a strong
interest in Western art music, and the rise of popular music. In Australia, scholars
like Peter Dunbar-Hall and Kathryn Marsh made major practical progress in an
environment where the translation from well-conceived policies to actual practices
that support cultural diversity—and the music of Indigenous Australians—is gen-
erally slow to take shape.
In Europe, the diversification of musical training in public music schools,
conservatories, and university programs was under way from the early 1980s, and
consolidated in the early 1990s through the efforts of Joep Bor in Rotterdam, Huib
Schippers in Amsterdam, Andreas Gutzwiller in Basel, Switzerland, Trevor Wiggins
at Dartington in the United Kingdom, Keith Howard and David Hughes at (SOAS)
the School of Oriental and Asian Studies in London, and Eva Saether and Hakan
Lundstrém at Malmé, Sweden. Interest in what was often referred to as Teaching
World Music led to the development of a movement known as Cultural Diversity in
Music Education (CDIME) by the mid-1990s, which drew from ethnomusicology,
world music performance, and music education in an attempt to provide students
with an understanding of how people learn, process, and find meaning in music as a
human phenomenon (Lieth-Philipp & Gutzwiller, 1995). Somewhere between eth-
nomusicology as a scholarly discipline and music education with its long-standing
conventions of school bands, choirs, and orchestras, there was a blend of views and
practices that encompassed world music pedagogy, applied ethnomusicology, and
community music (Campbell, 2004b; Higgins, 2006). An overview of European
conservatoires and schools of music in 2000 yielded evidence of over 50 world
music courses and programs, ranging from optional one-off courses to full degrees
(Kors et al., 2003). Not unlike the North American situation, “points of entry” for
these new courses into these conservative environments tended to be music edu-
cation, composition, jazz, or percussion. Through its conferences and publications
CDIME has drawn international attention (Campbell et al., 2005; Kors, 2007; Lieth-
Philipp & Gutzwiller, 1995), becoming an umbrella for the inclusion of those en-
gaged in multicultural and global approaches to the musical education of students
of various ages, interests, and contexts.
Nowadays, learning what many refer to as “world music” (or at least, about
world music) is available to many aspiring musicians and music lovers in some
shape or form in school, community settings, or higher education. However, in spite
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 89
e e ee

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

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

A BRIEF CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW

As the previous paragraph suggests, the uptake of the ISME policy on cultural di-
versity is slow, even if we take into consideration practical obstacles such as lack
of funding, adequate training, and professional development. There is even a re-
gression from curricular recommendations and from facing practical realities
surrounding most contemporary music learning. ‘This is likely to be due to con-
ceptual approaches toward cultural diversity in music education, with underlying
values and attitudes presenting invisible but very real thresholds. Three of these are
widespread:
Preconceptions regarding “ethnic,” “minority,” or “world” music and their place
in the rhetoric and power structures of culturally diverse societies. While this is
not the place for a debate on “correct” definitions of the terms used to refer to
music from various cultures, it is important to observe how much confusion and
“baggage” is associated with these terms. For example, for U.S. audiences, “ethnic”
and “minority” still hail to 1970s/1980s views of multiculturalism, as driven by non-
African-American teachers’ fears of African-American militancy, while “world”
carries an interpretation of exotic island, bush, and court culture. Europe has a long
history of exoticism (Oriental music), prejudice (primitive music), misconceived
status (e.g., “folk music” for court traditions), and naive idealism (“Weltmusik”
in the sense of a single, harmonious global music). Given its relative lack of such
strong connotations, the term “world music” (and incidentally its plural “world
musics”) is perhaps the least objectionable term to collectively refer to music from
various cultures, with an emphasis on the fact that music travels, establishes, and
sometimes transforms itself away from its place and culture of origin (Schippers,
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 91

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

of any music (Schippers, 2010, pp. 65-75). The dynamic interactions that accom-
pany these processes constitute a complex and fascinating realm of reflection, as un-
derlying values are rarely made explicit. When the actors in this relationship come
from different cultures, the complications multiply. Work on intercultural com-
munication from sociology provides an interesting framework for coming to grips
with these complications. In a famous study of constructs in corporate headquarters
across nations, Hofstede (1998) identified five dimensions that strongly influenced
interaction between people:
Small versus large power distance
Individualism versus collectivism
Long-term versus short-term orientation
spel Masculinity
fee
geese versus femininity (which in music education could be opera-
tionalized most meaningfully as “strongly gendered versus gender-neutral”
5. Avoidance versus tolerance of uncertainty
Each of these dimensions is eminently relevant to music transmission across
cultures. For instance, they can elucidate (1) the absolute power of the guru in Indian
classical music, (2) the spirit of the Javanese village gamelan, (3) the difference be-
tween performance-oriented community music projects and long apprenticeships
with African kora masters, (4) rigidly defined gender roles in Aboriginal music, and
(5) the problems many Asian students experience when they are faced with post-
modern acceptance of uncertainties when learning music in the West, having come
from a culture where it may be inappropriate to challenge anyone senior.
Combining the concepts discussed above, Schippers (2010) distinguishes three
basically different responses commonly encountered among music teachers from
other cultures facing the challenges of their new environments:
1. The teacher maintains the way of teaching that she or he has personally
experienced, often in the context of the culture of origin. This is an attitude
that can be fed by allegiance to and respect for the tradition, conviction,
arrogance, insecurity, ignorance, or a clever appraisal of the market (as in
the deliberate ambiguity about their role as spiritual guru among many
expatriate Indian music teachers in the late 1960s). This approach has a
substantial risk of failure by not acknowledging contemporary realities that
surround the musical practice. While key qualities in the music may be
retained, the frustration level among students from another culture is likely
to cause a significant dropout rate. In some instances this may be an intended
mechanism for natural selection, in most it is likely to be an undesired effect.
2. ‘The teacher adopts the predominant teaching style of the host culture
(whether that is a country or an institution). It is sometimes difficult
for musicians who feel truly foreign to resist being intimidated into
adapting to the dominant culture. For instance, teachers may resort to
notation to transmit essentially aural traditions out of insecurity rather
than conviction. Many teachers of African percussion will concede that
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 93

a performance can be notated, but maintain that the learning process is

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

MODELS OF FORMAL AND

INFORMAL LEARNING

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

for the Carnival in Rio. Both hopefully have support and experiences that help them
realize their musical goals, whether they are long-term or short-term, spiritual or
community-driven. And both these experiences—and countless others—can in-
form music education in institutions.
In recent literature (e.g., Green, 2002, 2008), a distinction is often made be-
tween formal, nonformal, and informal learning. Informal is characterized by
an absence of consciously organized structures for music instruction; nonformal
relationships between teachers and learners are organized by senior musicians or
communities themselves; and formal represents programs and structures regulated
by governments, in which the institutional environment consequently is a strong
‘influence. This mapping of learning situations can be useful, but it is not without
its critics. For instance, African educator Meki Nzewi (2003) convincingly argues
that African transmission processes often classified as “informal” are in fact highly
structured, purposeful, and fit for context.
The rise of attention to community music activities, aiming to provide for “per-
sonal and communal expressions of artistic, social, political and cultural concerns”
(ISME-CMA, 2008), has taken what began as experiences chiefly outside the realm
of formal institutions of musical education into schools and tertiary-level programs
at colleges, conservatories, and universities. In its early development in the 1960s
and 1970s out of a Marxist-inspired movement of social activism, it was viewed as
a socially conscious means of developing individual expression within a supportive
and accepting community (Higgins, 2006). Today’s manifestations of community
music activities evidence a mix of formal and informal means of group music-
making with “facilitation” by a group leader rather than didactic teaching as the
means by which people sing, play guitars, write songs, form drumming ensembles,
and dance together to live and recorded music (Bartleet et al., 2009). 2
Since the mid-1990s, a steady stream of scholarship has been directed toward
the examination of childrens musical expressions, advancing beyond collections
of their songs to questions of how they acquire songs, chants, and dance routines.
Ethnographic techniques have been employed to the study of children whose mu-
sical expressions reflect their valuing of mediated music as well as repertoire that
‘emanates from their home and community experiences. In her study of a multi-
cultural sampling of American schoolchildren, Patricia Campbell (2010) examined
content, functions, and meanings of children’s songs and rhythmicking behaviors,
and described particular processes by which school and mediated songs were al-
tered at the whim of children earnest in their efforts to make the music their very
own. Amanda Minks (2002) identified within a review of ethnomusicological and
education-based research the theme of children’s undirected peer-group practices in
their learning of songs and singing games, and noted their tendency toward observa-
tion and adaptation of adult musical practices. Kathryn Marsh (2009) centered her
work on questions of children’s musical creativity in playgrounds, embracing rich
descriptions of their transmission of songs to one another in locations spreading
from Sydney to Seattle and Seoul.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 95

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

LESSONS FROM THE WORLD

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

Twelve Continuum Transmission Framework (TCTF)

Issues of Context
Static tradition

-> [Holistic
Notation-based =—s(||: <----------------------------- > |Oral
——>
Tangible <----------------------------- > |Intangible

Be See tere er ae Small power distance

Incivicalicemttal Mists rca ee ee Collective central
Strongly gendered | <----------------------------- Gender-neutral
- = --------------------------- Tolerating uncertainty

Monocultural

Figure 5.1 Framework for understanding music transmission in culturally diverse

environments (Schippers, 2010).

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

1. The framework can be viewed from four perspectives: the tradition,

the institution, the teacher, and the learner. These may be (and in fact
often are) at odds with each other. The way these tensions are negotiated
is crucial in creating learning environments that will be perceived as
successful by all concerned.
There are neither “right” nor “wrong” positions on each continuum: the
framework is essentially nonprescriptive and nonjudgmental. Positions
are likely to vary from tradition to tradition, from teacher to teacher,
from student to student, between phases of development, from one
individual lesson to another, and even within single lessons. The aim of
the framework is not to establish the “correct” way of teaching for any
music, but to increase awareness of conscious and subconscious choices.
The underlying assumption is that teaching is more likely to be successful
when the institutions, teachers, and learners are fully aware of the choices
they have and make, and are able to adapt to the requirements of different
learning situations by choosing positions or moving fluidly along the
continua.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 97
EEE Ss reli lipemia eee ta gl rr

3. There is some coherence between the continua: a general tendency

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

The Twelve Continuum Transmission Framework (TCTF) can be applied to

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

to traditions in their cultures of origin—including world, jazz, pop, and Western

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

PROMISES AND OBSTACLES

In spite of the rather sobering or even bleak picture that emerges from some of the
sections in this chapter, there are in fact a good number of exemplary practices
worldwide that illustrate that cultural diversity in music education can be inspiring
and rewarding if both the organizational and conceptual challenges mentioned
above are addressed with sense and sensitivity. There is abundant evidence of
this: from small-scale community initiatives in African townships to large world
music & dance centres in Europe; from vibrant traditional music schools in India
to visionary practices across North America. By and large, the practice of teaching
world music is on an upward trajectory in terms of the frequency of appearance
in the curriculum of children’s singing games, polyphonic choral pieces, percus-
sion (especially drumming) experiences, and culturally sensitive arrangements of
a wide array of the world’s musical expressions for school bands ahd orchestras.
These developments are helped by unstoppable changes in demographics, increas-
ingly looser links between ethnicity and cultural preference and activities (breaking
down musical stereotypes), and an increasing number of “world musicians” con-
versant with the language and approach of both their own and new environments.
However, despite best efforts by well-intentioned teachers who embrace
-the philosophical tenets of musical and cultural diversity as integral to twenty-
first-century music education, the journey from philosophy and policy to prac-
tice is long and laden with considerable challenges for many. There are various
uncertainties and misgivings in the minds of working teachers. Remarks like these
represent some of the reasonings behind the largely monocultural practices within
schools: “Multicultural music is not relevant, because my kids are not ethnic; they
are white.” “I have no time to teach world music.” “My expertise is my training in
Western—not world—music.” While. lack of resources and professional develop-
ment are very real obstacles, successful practitioners report a number of strategies
that largely overcome the need for external support, including a commitment to
listening continuously to the music to be taught in order to know its intricacies;
reading key references to become informed of the context and meaning of music
and of particular musical expressions, genres, and pieces in a culture; seeking out
 CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 99

cultural communities for the music, dance, drama, various visual arts, crafts, and
customs that manifest their values; talking to artist musicians about the music they
make and why it is important to them; observing—or, better, participating as a stu-
dent in—lessons by a master singer or instrumentalist in order to understand the
pedagogical approach; seeking out a genuine performance or listening competence
in a second musical culture for the sensitivity it brings to understanding music
comparatively; developing and delivering instruction intensively; and focusing on
one or just a few musical cultures (Campbell, 1996).
Moreover, it is not necessary to go to inland Borneo or outback Australia to do
fieldwork for cultural diversity in music education. The opportunities are around
the corner, often a short bus ride away. Most communities from other cultures
are extremely welcoming and generous, even if they have major grief from a re-
cent or more distant path (be it war, suppression, racism, or slavery). A dialogue
approached with integrity and some cultural sensitivity can lead to highly rewarding
experiences. In-service training, professional development, sabbaticals, study leave,
or refresher time can be used to develop insights, knowledge, and skills that will
help realize vibrant learning experiences. These may include boldly recontextualized
versions of the music one chooses to work with in the classroom, acknowledging
differences with originals, aware but not paralyzed by concepts such as tradition,
authenticity, and context. Content and approaches developed in this way may also
address the diversity of learning styles and strengths within any educational setting.
Students from other cultures frequently have trouble learning music through no-
tation or analysis, yet may excel in understanding and remembering complicated
music by ear. Some may learn best through abstract presentations of the material,
while others gain most from a hands-on approach. These are well-known principles
that require additional sensitivity and can be put to even more effective use in cul-
turally diverse environments.

CONCLUSION

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

taught acknowledging the central role of aural transmission in addition to notation.

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

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

KEY SOURCES

Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, expressing culture.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, P. S., Drummond, J., Dunbar-Hall, P., Howard, K., Schippers. H., & Wiggins, T.
(eds.) (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges
for the 21st
' century. Brisbane: Australian: Academic Press.
 CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” . 101
= e C—O

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

WEBSITES

Association for Cultural Equity: www.culturalequity.org/.

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. M., & Campbell, P. S. (1989). Multicultural perspectives in music education.

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

Campbell, P. S., Drummond, J., Dunbar-Hall, P., Howard, K., Schippers, H., & Wiggins, T.
(eds.) (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st
century. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feay-Shaw, S. J. (2002). The transmission of Ghanaian music by culture-bearers: From
master musician to music teacher. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Washington.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53, 106-116. - .
Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate Publishers.
Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishers.
Higgins, L. (2006). Boundary-walkers: Contexts and concepts of community music.
Ph.D. diss., University of Limerick.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: International differences in
values. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol 39. Retrieved 18 November
2003 from www.questia.com.
Holmes, R. (1990). A model of aural instruction examined in a case of fiddle teaching.
Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Washington.
Hood, K. M. (1960). The challenge of bi-musicality. Ethnomusicology, 4, 55-59.
Howard, G. R. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
ISME. (1996). Policy on musics of the world’s cultures. Reading, UK: ISME.
ISME-CMA. (2008). Community music commission. See www.isme.org [accessed October
10, 2008].
Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kors, N. (ed.) (2007). Networks and islands: World music and dance education. Musiké 3. The
Hague: Semar.
Kors, N., Saraber, L., & Schippers, H. (2003). Sound links: Cultural diversity, mobility, and
employability in music education. Rotterdam: Rotterdam Academy of Music and Dance.
Lieth-Philipp, M., & Gutzwiller, A. (eds.) (1995). Teaching musics of the world.
Affalterbach: Philipp Verlag.
McCarthy, M. (1997). The role of ISME in the promotion of multicultural music education.
International JournalforMusic Education, 29, 81-93.
Marsh, K. (2009). The musical playground. New York: Oxford University Press.
‘Minks, A. (2002). From children’s song to expressive practice: Old and new directions in the
ethnomusicological study of children. Ethnomusicology, 46, 379-408.
Nettl, B. (1995). Heartland excursions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Nettl, B. (2002). Encounters in ethnomusicology. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press.
Nzewi, M. (2003). Acquiring knowledge of the musical arts in traditional society. In Herbst,
A., Nzewi, M., & Agawu, K. (eds.), Musical arts in Africa: Theory, practice and education
(pp. 13-37). Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education. (3rd ed.). Advancing the vision. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. .
Rice, T: (1994). May itfill your soul. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Solis, T. (ed.) (2004). Performing ethnomusicology: Teaching and representation in world
music ensembles. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: BEYOND “SONGS FROM EVERY LAND” 103

Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind and education. London: Routledge.

Taylor, T. (2007). Beyond exoticism: Western music and the world. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Trimillos, R. (1989). Halau, hochschule, maestro, and ryu: Cultural approaches to music
learning and teaching. International Journal of Music Education, 14, 32-42.
Volk, T. M. (1998; second edition 2004). Music, education and multiculturalism: Foundations
and principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER 6

Teele Pv eee seed Obese er eee rerer ree n herrea sene seer nr eeeveerscverreseseteed ee seen ree see viet eizecies

SOME CONTRIBUTIONS
OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY

BRUNO NETTL

This chapter introduces the field of ethnomusicology and attempts to relate

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

ETHNOMUSICOLOGY DEFINED

The scholars who identify themselves as ethnomusicologists have had a difficult

time coming to agreement about a precise definition and conceptualization of their
field. Most ethnomusicologists in Europe and North America see themselves as
(1) students of the musics of the world’s cultures from a comparative, relativistic, and
nonjudgmental perspective, and (2) students of music in its relationships to human
culture (or cultures) at large, and more specifically, to other domains of culture such
as social organization, religion, politics, and the arts. Typically, and especially be-
fore around 1980, ethnomusicologists in Western nations have been concerned with
cultures outside their own, and most frequently they have studied societies that are
geographically distant from their home ground. Their approach has been primarily
that of the scholar rather than that of the practicing artist. Ethnomusicologists in
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 105
ee e—“(‘“(‘‘“((C;™

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

APPROACHES

Ethnomusicology is a heterogeneous field, and its practitioners followa large number

of methods and styles of scholarship in conducting their studies, and their work has
been based on a number of fundamental concepts. The approaches discussed below,
especially in their relationships to music education, are particularly significant.

PRESERVATION

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

FIELDWORK

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

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

INTERNALIZATION

_ By “internalization? I mean the comprehension of a musical system by learning

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

PROCESSES

Since the 1960s, ethnomusicologists have seen the world of music as an ever-
changing set of phenomena, and they have devoted much of their energy to a search
for understanding of the processes of change and of cultural relationships. Placing
the many and diverse sets of processes that affect everything from the macrocosm of
a total music to small units of culture such as changes in one instrument makes for
 SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 107

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

COMPARATIVE STUDY

Ethnomusicologists have largely abandoned the label “comparative musicology,’

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

MUSIC AND CULTURE

_ Although defining ethnomusicology as the study of music in culture (a defini-

tion used by many North and Latin Americans, and Europeans) did not become
 108 BRUNO NETTL

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

MuSIC EDUCATION AND

ETHNOMUSICOLOGY: THE RELATIONSHIP

In assessing the relationship of music education and ethnomusicology one ought

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

3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 109

_ repertory with which they were most concerned. They also have, naturally,
>

_ maintained a special affinity to the academic study of performance, or what is often

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

SOME BASIC ABIDING ISSUES

IN ETHNOMUSICOLOGY

Following on an account of some of the principal approaches of ethnomusicology,

the following paragraphs detail some of the fundamental questions or issues that
have been the subject of debate by ethnomusicologists throughout the history of the
field, and attempt to relate these to issues in music education.
 110 BRUNO NETTL

EGALITARIAN AND RELATIVISTIC

Cm meme mere merase enna eens sree esse eH ese eH EH OO HESEEEHESE SEED OED E DHE HEesEHeHrreeFereren EEE HHeFerEHEeHE EE EEEBEeHerasenene®

The fundamental viewpoint of ethnomusicology is egalitarian and relativistic. As

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

MusIc oR MUSICS?

An abiding issue in ethnomusicology concerns views of the musical universe.

Primarily, we are faced with the question whether music, as a unitary phenom-
enon, should be seen as a large group of distinct musics, somewhat analogous to
languages, or whether all music is simply “music.” Within ethnomusicology, these
questions relate to forms of musical and social analysis; and despite the widespread
interest in the existence of “universals,” the first alternative—a world of musics—
characterizes the discipline’s attitudes. Thus, music is not seen as “the universal
language,’ but “a’ music is a system with its distinctive grammar, style, and rep-
ertory; though it shares with (virtually) all other musics certain “universals” traits.
:SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 111
a RR

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

BuT: STABILITY OR CHANGE?

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

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

MUSIC AND CULTURE

The hallmark of ethnomusicology is the relationship of music to culture. Although

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

TRADITION AND TRANSMISSION

Connecting the concepts of change, authenticity, and the fusion of cultural forms,
ethnomusicologists have taken a strong interest in the nature of musical transmission.
In the early days of the field, most scholars were satisfied with simply designating
the transmission of musics outside Western classical traditions “oral tradition” (later
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 113

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

MUSIC OF INDIVIDUALS AND OF CULTURES

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

CONTRIBUTIONS (REAL OR POTENTIAL)

OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY

Music education and ethnomusicology have interacted in a number of ways, and

ideas of each have influenced the other. The following paragraphs briefly discuss
 114 BRUNO NETTL

some of these areas from the perspective of ethnomusicological contributions,

expanding on some of the points made in the previous sections.

Music TEACHING AND LEARNING AS A

COMPONENT OF MUSICAL ETHNOGRAPHY

We are looking at two sides of a coin. Ethnomusicologists have gradually learned

-
that the musical education of a society tells one a great deal about that society, and
music educators have come to value the finding of approaches of ethnomusicologists
in their work. The first general work on ethnomusicology that sees the study of
teaching and learning as a component of musical ethnography is Alan Merriam’
book The Anthropology of Music. From Merriam’s time on, works of musical eth-
nography have typically included a great deal on musical transmission, but they
don't ordinarily distinguish musical education as a separate unit of musical cul-
ture. It is actually difficult to find, in most comprehensive musical ethnographies, a
chapter of information about the ways the music is taught and learned.
For understanding a musical culture, its system of teaching or transmission of
both the conceptions and the sounds is clearly of primary importance. Allow me
to cite illustrations from my experience. In the musical culture of certain Native
American peoples, the fact that songs are believed to have been learned from super-
natural vision beings such as animals that appear in dreams and teach songs in one
hearing is clearly related to the belief that humans also learn songs from each other
in a single hearing; and this, in turn, may be related to the consistency and homo-
geneity of song forms, in the course of which a song can be largely predicted once
a singer or listener has heard its opening motif. Thus, the way songs are thought to
come about, and the ideas about the way music is learned, are intimately associated
with their musical structure.
By the same token, Iranian musicians learning the classical tradition must learn
' the approximately 300 pieces of the body of music known as the radif, which be-
come the basis for improvisation and composition. From the radif one learns not
only the melodic and rhythmic materials that must be used as points of departure
for creating new music, but from the very structure of the radif one learns how to
relate diverse materials to each other musically. Moreover, the structure and the
internal interrelationships of materials in the radif teach and reinforce metaphori-
cally important principles governing the structure of Persian culture and ideal so-
cial behavior.
The normal way of learning Carnatic music, the classical tradition of South
India, involves a particular master-student relationship emphasizing the authority of
the teacher in all respects, and a group of exercises and teaching pieces—alankaras,
padams, varnams—which emphasize musical dexterity and flexibility, instruct in
the relationship of melody and rhythm, and provide models for applying the rules
 SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 115
eee

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

MusIc EDUCATION IN
ETHNOMUSICOLOGICAL FIELD RESEARCH

Recognizing the importance of the system of transmission of a music as a compo-

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

usually on the fieldworker’s own conceptions of the structure of a musical system,

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

LEARNING BY BECOMING BIMUSICAL

The most important development in fieldwork technique in the twentieth century,

one of significance to music education, was the inclusion of hands-on learning of
music as part of the fieldworker’s toolkit. No doubt many early collectors had al-
ready learned informally to sing some songs, or participated in ensembles, perhaps
with no thought that this might be a serious process. But the systematic study of
performance became the hallmark of a branch of American ethnomusicology, de-
veloped first at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the leadership of
Mantle Hood and then by Robert E. Brown at Wesleyan University, in the late 1950s,
and it was quickly adopted by a number of other programs in the United States. By
the late 1960s, it was widely taken for granted that fieldwork would include a large
component of performance study. Scholars put themselves in the hands of teachers
(or anyone, whatever their title, who was instrumental in the transmission of mu-
sical knowledge and kills) and learned to play or sing, hoping to become part of the
- musical culture.
One might expect that such an approach would have come about as an aspect
of anthropological field method, a component of the “new ethnography” being
developed in the 1960s, and the significance of making both “etic” and “emic”
interpretations of culture— juxtaposing the outsider’s view of the scholar to that of
the cultural “insider.” However, Mantle Hood insisted on considering his approach
a normal practice in the tradition of Western musical education. Looking to histor-
ical musicology as the field most closely related to ethnomusicology and observing
that at least modest performance ability in Western music was a requirement of
musicological training, he promulgated an analogous stance for ethnomusicology.
Students were encouraged to attain “bimusicality, a concept analogous to
“bilingualism,” although the two are clearly not quite parallel concepts. While
widely adopted by certain American and a few European university programs in
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 117

ethnomusicology, “bimusicality” was at first greeted skeptically by others (in North

America and Europe), particularly some with a principally anthropological ori-
entation. The critical attitude was based on certain convictions: that learning to
perform would deemphasize the study of the relationship of cultural domains es-
sential to ethnomusicology; that Western students would never attain the skills
needed for native standards but, because of their high social and economic status,
would in the long run dilute authenticity and pollute tradition; that fieldworkers
would impose Western teaching and learning methods on cultures in which the
notion of cross-cultural musical experience was totally foreign. Possibly all of these
things did happen, but their effect was probably mitigated since the same feared
processes could have been observed among the autochthonous developments in
non-Western cultures after aroundigso0, quite independently of the appearance of
ethnomusicology.
By the twenty-first century, the conception of students at all ages learning about
the music of cultures foreign to them by studying or at least getting exposure to
the music-making of the situation had become widely accepted in North American
and European systems of music education. The “bimusicality” concept was first ac-
cepted in higher education—perhaps beginning with graduate students specializing
in ethnomusicology and moving to other specialties in music and then other fields.
A two-pronged approach can be identified. While ensemble participation and
lessons became part of the formal professional training of ethnomusicologists, par-
ticipation in non-Western and folk ensembles became an important aspect of extra-
mural activity and in the lives of minority or international students. The existence
of ensembles from non-Western musics or European-derived folk cultures had be-
come, by the 1980s, a standard feature of North American music departments, even
those that did not actually offer conventional courses in ethnomusicology. The entry
of ethnomusicological thinking and the accompanying introduction of ensembles
providing hands-on experience in primary and secondary education came later,
and they experienced influences from outside the ethnomusicological mainstream.

THE IMPACT OF IMPROVISATION

AND FOLK MUSIC

A number of developments in musical thinking early in the twentieth century af-

fected developments in both music education and ethnomusicology. One area was
the study and uses of improvisation, for which I briefly mention the work of Emile
Jaques-Dalcroze, in whose comprehensive approach to musical education improv-
isation played a major role. The first historian of improvisation (in Western music,
but with references to other cultures) was Erné Ferand, whose career was devoted
in considerable measure to music education. Many early scholars of folk music were
 118 BRUNO NETTL

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

MusIc AS REFLECTION OF AND INFLUENCE

ON CULTURE

Music educators have been more interested in the “world music” component of
the ethnomusicological universe than in the “music in culture” side. Although
ethnomusicologists do not agree on the details of methods of analysis, on
interpretations, and on conclusions, they generally tend to agree that the music of
a society reflects in some sense, or represents, or perhaps comments on some of its
important characteristics or guiding principles. Simple illustrations may include the
following possibilities: the congruence of technically simple music with small tribal
' societies, and of complex music with developed national cultures; the dominance
of ornamental soloistic singing in hierarchical cultures as against choral singing in
egalitarian and cooperative cultures; the differential kinds of acceptance of Western
music by the societies of India, Japan, and China. These approaches are described
and argued in works by Alan Lomax.
In education, particularly elementary and secondary, the presentation of a for-
eign culture is often introduced with the use of native music. And at the same time,
a foreign musical system may be presented by reference to the social contexts from
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY
a 119
ee en A

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

THE Music EDUCATION SYSTEM AFFECTS

THE MusIc

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

teaching traditions of a foreign musical system that is being introduced, a system

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

CROSSING THE DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES

IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES -
AND INSTITUTIONS

Most organizations involving music research, that is, the professional organizations
of music scholars of all types, have not made education, particularly of primary and
secondary schools, one of their concerns. The American Musicological Society has,
to be sure, shown concern for the development of teaching methods and skills in
music history for tertiary institutions, mainly in providing workshops. The Society
for Ethnomusicology (SEM), however, has made a relationship with the discipline
of music education a principal concern. Since the 1970s, it has maintained first a
committee, and then an interest section for music education, its purpose to en-
courage and facilitate the teaching of traditional and vernacular musics of the world
in public schools in North America and elsewhere. The SEM was motivated by the
recognition that in multicultural societies such as the United States and Canada,
students (mainly in primary and secondary schools) should have exposure to a
large variety of musics; but the principal driving force in the schools themselves, it
seems to me, was the felt need to support students from minority groups and from
abroad by teaching their own musics to them and their fellow students.
The idea of teaching children the repertories of the cultures represented in
the schools has had considerable success in North America and Europe, although
it contrasts with the use of ethnomusicology in tertiary school systems, where
the purpose is to teach “strange” musics rather than providing social support to
students by showing respect for their own music. The notion that exposure to a
variety of musics will decrease intercultural prejudice and discrimination against
minorities and immigrants has been studied particularly in Scandinavia, with
careful evaluations of the effects of teaching on refugee populations from South
and West Asia, and on local indigenous pupils. In the United States, where public
education is largely under state and local jurisdiction, programs in certain cities
have made the inclusion of world music a special cause; significant among them is
Seattle, which pioneered, in the early 1970s, the introduction of African music into
public schools.
In many nations, and some states in the United States, a minimum under-
standing of music of the world’s peoples is required in the course of music teacher
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 121
a ee a

training. Music education societies generally developed a commitment to “world

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

CONCLUSION

In developing further areas of cooperation and collaboration, ethnomusicologists

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. Ina system of music education, is it important to learn thoroughly the

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

KEY SOURCES
ee ae eC a

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

SELECTED LITERATURE
A substantial body of literature relating to ethnomusicology and music education has
developed, although it has concentrated on the “world music” aspect of ethnomusico-
logical concern much more than on the “music in culture” component. A seminal work
for understanding music learning in non-Western cultures is Patricia Campbell’s Lessons
from the World (New York: Schirmer Books, 1991), and a guide including printed and re-
corded materials, along with providing commentary from a variety of sides, may be found
in Musics of the World’ Cultures (by Barbara Lundquist et al., Reading, UK: ISME, 1998).
International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, edited by Liora Bresler (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer, 2007) provides a broader approach comprehending perspectives
from Western-derived scholarship as well as a multicultural approach, with contributions
and responses by scholars and teachers in nations throughout the world. Performing
Ethnomusicology, edited by Ted Solis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004)
examines the issue of study of non-Western music by Western music students from sev-
eral perspectives. Huib Schippers, Facing the Music: Shaping Music Education from a Global
Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) integrates issues involving the
teaching of world musics, and the influences of ethnomusicology, in a holistic approach to
music education.
Ethnomusicological views of music in tertiary education are found in Henry
Kingsbury, Music, Talent and Performance (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988),
and Bruno Nettl, Heartland Excursions: Ethnomusicological Reflections on Schools of Music
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), while Ruth Finnegan, The Hidden Musicians
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), contemplates the musical culture, impor-
tantly including teaching and learning, in a small British community. The use of ethnographic
techniques in informing music teachers is illustrated in Patricia Campbell, Songs in their
Heads (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Experiencing Ethnomusicology: Teaching
and Learning in European Universities, by Simone Kriiger (London: Ashgate, 2009), is a
study of ethnomusicology as it is established in the United Kingdom and in Germany.
Literature from outside the field of music education includes Ernst (Ern6) Ferand,
Die Improvisation in der Musik (Zurich: Rhein- Verlag, 1938); Bruno Netil, Blackfoot Musical
Thought: Comparative Perspectives (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press); Jean During
et al., The Art of Persian Music (Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 1991); Gabriel Solis and
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNOMUSICOLOGY 123

Bruno Nettl, eds., Musical Improvisation: Art, Education, and Society (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press); Alan Lomax et al., Folk Song Style and Culture (Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1968).
The discussions of ethnomusicology in the foregoing paragraphs may be found ex-
panded in some general works: Alan P. Merriam, The Anthropology of Music (Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964); Mantle Hood, The Ethnomusicologist
(New York: McGraw Hill, 1971); and Bruno Nettl, The Study of Ethnomusicology: 31 Issues
and Concepts (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005).
“
 CHAPTER 7

MUSICAL IDENTITIES
MEDIATE MUSICAL
) DEVELOPMENT |
eee eee eee eee ee ee ee

DAVID J. HARGREAVES, RAYMOND

MACDONALD, AND DOROTHY MIELL

This chapter has two main aims. The first is to identify those aspects of develop-
mental psychology as a whole that are most useful in trying to explain musical devel-
opment in particular. From the theoretical point of view, it was clear from the outset
that we would need to place a strong emphasis on the expansion and application of
the sociocultural approach. This has become a dominant force in developmental
and educational psychology more generally, and its influence is also apparent in the
study of musical development (see, e.g., Hargreaves & Lamont, 2017).
This is perhaps most clearly shown by the rapid growth in studies of musical
identity (see, e.g., MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2017), and so the second aim of
this chapter emerged: to develop our central argument that the’stiidy of people's mu~
sical idéntities is an essential part of the explanation of their musical development.
People’s developing self-concepts tell us a great deal about why they develop in the
ways they do. This argument is particularly important since one of its implications
is that musical development involves a number of important factors not necessarily
concerned with technical aspects of musical performance. Recent advances in iden-
tity research have come to highlight the reciprocal relationship that exists between
identity and musical development (e.g., Eccles, O'Neill, & Wigfield, 2005; Randles,
2009; Welch, 2007).
As far as our first aim is concerned, we can look back to the first attempt
that was made to map out the developmental psychology of music approximately
MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT
Ee 125
ae a eee ea

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

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

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON
MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT
ee ee ee ee ee ee ie i)

The sociocultural approach predominates in current developmental and educational

psychology: the ideas of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky remain the most influen-
tial. Hargreaves and Lamont (2017) have traced the recent history of the explana-
tion of musical development from the sociocultural perspective. This originates
from Vygotsky's fundamental idea that “the relations between the higher mental
functions were at one time real relations among people” (1966, p. 37), such that
the social environment—our parents, family members, peers, teachers, and so on—
forms the basis of our own individual development. In one sense, this is the direct
opposite of Piaget's view, in which individuals assimilate the social world around
them to their own thinking: Piaget felt that thinking predominates over social de-
velopment, whereas Vygotsky's view was that social relationships actually determine
individuals’ thinking. Piaget’s well-known theory of qualitatively different stages of
cognitive development in childhood and adolescence is accepted by very few con-
temporary developmental psychologists in its original formulation, although many
of Piaget's developmental concepts still influence our thinking (and it is interesting
to note that Vygotsky also proposed that developmental stages exist in children’s
thinking, in his case in relation to the foci of different types of activity at different
age levels (see El Konin, 1971).
The main theoretical explanations of musical development in particular were
reviewed by Hargreaves and Zimmerman, in the Handbook for Research in Music
Teaching and Learning (Colwell, 1992); by Swanwick and Runfola (2002) in the
second edition of their New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning;
MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT 127
a a

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

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

COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF MUSICAL

DEVELOPMENT: ACQUISITION OF
MUSICAL COMPETENCIES

The Universality of Music

While there is considerable evidence to support the idea that children move through
different stages of development not only psychologically but also musically, and
while it is important to recognize that children may move through these stages at
different speeds, developing new skills at different ages, litisalsocrucial to note thaty
all children have the potential to express themselves through music? fn this section
we examine the evidence to support the notion that “we are all musical”: that every
human being has a biological and social guarantee of musicianship. We suggest this
not as a vague utopian ideal, but rather a conclusion drawn by a growing number
of researchers who are exploring the foundations of musical behavior (MacDonald,
2008). The work of Colwyn Trevarthen (2002, 2012) has demonstrated how the
earliest communication between a parent and a child is essentially musical. The
cooing and babbling interplay that takes place between a parent and a child is a
form of communication that has more in common with musical interaction than
with spoken language: work in this area involves detailed microanalyses of the
moment-by-moment communicative interactions between parent and child.
We therefore suggest that music plays a vital role in the earliest and most impor-
tant bonding relationship that is developed throughout our whole lives, namely that
with our parents. Our previous work (Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell, 2005) has
also highlighted how music acts as a separate channel of communication that is
quite distinct from, though often related to, language. Trevarthen (2002) provides
evidence that not only do we.all have the potential to communicate through
music, but that we are all born musical communicators. Not only is this type of
MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT 129
ep

communication musical, but it is also improvisatory. The kinds of musical inter-

action displayed between a parent and a baby are quite different from those taught
within conventional music education. However, the development of musical exper-
tise and knowledge in singing or instrumental playing, for example, build on the
communicative systems that are rooted in infancy, and there is no doubt that these
early interactions are spontaneous musical gestures that demonstrate our universal
potential for musical communication.
4

Normal Distribution of Musical Behavior

Given that the previous section has provided evidence to suggest that “we are all
musical,” and that we all begin life as expert musical communicators, why do so
many people see themselves as unmusical? This is a complex question, and it raises
an issue that manifests itself in many ways. For example, there is evidence to suggest
that 15% of the population may define themselves as “tone-deaf” (Williamson,
2009). Many people claim to not be musical in terms of not having “musical genes,”
or not coming from a musical family, and received wisdom tends to suggest that in
order to develop advanced music skills, individuals’ genetic inheritance must be fa-
vorable, and that this should coincide with a tradition of music-making within the
family.
However. t the nusician is more likely to be’
supp nd fertilen RNS E TET
velops skills earner A rather than deriving
from innate musical ability: there is copious anthropological and empir-
ical support evidence for this argument (Blacking, 1973; Costa-Giomi, 2012;
Sloboda, Davidson, & Howe, 1994a, 1994b). However, if other personal char-
acteristics such as intelligence and athletic prowess are normally distributed
throughout the population, could it not be that this also applies to musical
abilities (whatever they might be)? A possible answer to this apparent par-
adox may be that even if musical talent is normally distributed within the ge-
neral population, then it is distributed around a mean that is much higher
than received wisdom suggests. For example, some of our work has shown how
individuals with learning difficulties or mental health problems can learn to
play a musical instrument, and that psychological benefits often result from
musical engagement of this kind (MacDonald, Davies, & O'Donnell, 1999;
MacDonald & Miell, 2002).
Where does this leave the virtuoso musician, and the argument that some
people just have a natural propensity for music? Perhaps there is a compromise
position—that we are all musical, but that musical ability is still normally distrib-
uted within the population. To put it simply: we are all musical, but some people
have more natural potential to develop musical skills than others.
130 DAVID J. HARGREAVES, RAYMOND MACDONALD, AND DOROTHY MIELL

The Fundamental Mastery Misconception

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

SOCIAL/PERSONALITY ASPECTS OF MUSICAL

DEVELOPMENT: MUSICAL IDENTITY
ee a eS

Musical Identities
We argued earlier that the study of people's musical identities is an essential part of
the explanation of musical development: we conceive of musical identities as ubiq-
uitous, constantly evolving aspects of the self-concept that are negotiated across a
range of social situations. Research on identity facilitates the exploration of fun-
damental research questions relating to musical behavior and the social construc-
tion of musical activities in contemporary contexts. Musical identities influence not
only the development of specific musical skills but also the rate at which that de-
velopment occurs, and this provides the vital link between the development of very
specific musical skills, and the effects of wider social and cultural influences on in-
dividual learning (Sichivitsa, 2007). As stated, this link is reciprocal: in addition to
musical identities affecting musical development, the development of specific mu-
sical skills can also influence developing musical identities. For example,’a young
child who learns to play a demanding new piece of guitar music will experience ,
akonfidence boost ¢hat may influence in a positive way how she feels about her
own musical abilities. There is considerable scope for research on the psychological
processes surrounding how developments in technical aspects of musicianship in-
fluence musical identities.
MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT 131
oo ae Ee Eee ee a

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

Social Construction of Musicianship

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

adopt the appropriate professional title, such as “doctor; “dentist,” or “lawyer,” and
so on. This has no parallel in music: individuals do not go to university or Tae
attain a degree in music, secure a job as a musician, and then ls ie label “m
sician” ina same er [he ter idera e flu

Have been sides fered upon tliat the |term musician 1 meant someone who was ac-
tively involved in producing music: composers, improvisers, and performers would
all have been included, while listeners or audience members were seen as taking a
more passive and reactive role. However, Rickard and Chin (2017) recently argued
that it is possible to define musicianship in terms of listening as well as production
a skills. They suggest that a “musicianship of listening” exists alongside the more con-
ventional “musicianship of production; and that therefore, the widespread use of
the term nonmusician should decline.
Jazz musicians, for example, use elements of lifestyle choice to help them define the
“professional jazz musician” (MacDonald & Wilson, 2005), and this is not solely de-
pendent on the attainment of technical skills. For example, Caldwell and MacDonald
(2010) interviewed 10 self-defined “non-musicians” about their musical tastes,
preferences, and behaviors. In spite of their self-definition, all had experience of playing
music in public, and some had advanced technical skills evidenced by the fact they
had been performing regularly in bands, in some cases for over 20 years. Conversely,
MacDonald and Miell (2004) report a study of young adults without formal education
in music, but who performed in a band that practiced every day: these individuals did
see themselves as “musicians.” The key point here is that the term musician is a so-
cially constructed label, and not an identity that is dependent on formal education or
qualifications. These examples highlight how the concept of “being a musician,’ and
the development of our musical identities, are influenced by nonmusical factors within
the immediate and wider social environment, in particular by the ways in which we
relate to people around us (MacDonald, Miell, & Wilson, 2005).
In a related study, Borthwick and Davidson (2002) studied 12 families over
a number of years, undertaking interviews with all family members. Their work
highlights in significant detail how social factors such as family interactions and
sibling communication influence the construction and negotiation of musical
identities. In this instance, musical influences merge with those present in the
family. In one example, a family in which all the siblings have considerable musical
experience and skill appears to interact in such a way that the oldest sibling adopts
the identity of “musician.” This in turn inhibits the younger siblings, who discuss
their musical skills by comparing them unfavorably with those of the older, appar-
ently more musical sibling.
The way in which music is structured and delivered in the school context also
has a huge influence on our developing musical identities (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009).
Lamont (2002) compared one school in which some pupils received peripatetic
music lessons out of regular class time with another in which all pupils received
music lessons together in the classroom. Many more children in the latter viewed
themselves as being “musical” in comparison to the former. We do not present this
example to advocate one way of teaching music rather than another, but as a way
MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT 133

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

EMOTIONAL ASPECTS OF MUSICAL

DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENT OF
PREFERENCE AND TASTE

The Revised Reciprocal Feedback Model

In its original version (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2005), this was a model
of musical communication that combined two constituent models of response
and performance, and the response model was used in the original version of this
chapter. Figure 7.1 shows the revised version (Hargreaves, 2012), which has been
 134 DAVID J. HARGREAVES, RAYMOND MACDONALD, AND DOROTHY MIELL

Music Situations and contexts

Reference systems, genres, idioms, styles,
pieces.... Social and cultural contexts

Collative variables: complexity, familiarity, Everyday situations: work, leisure,

orderliness... consumer, education, health, media
Situational appropriateness | entertainment...
Prototypicalit of genres and styles
Lt M Presence/absence of others
Performance contexts: live, recorded,
nonmusical Other,ongoing activities

Response
Physiological: arousal level
e Level of engagement
e Active/passive control of
listening
Cognitive
e Attention, memory, perceptual
coding, expectation
e Discrimination, evaluation Individual use of
Constant evolution and change
music as a resource in different
Affective: emotional responses,
in individual preferences and taste goals in specific
like/dislike, mood
situations:

Environments

Listener
Individual difference variables: gender, age,
nationality...

Musical knowledge, training, literacy, experience

Immediate and short-term preference patterns:

medium/long-term taste patterns
Self-theories: musical identities

Figure 7.1 Reciprocal feedback model of musical response.

recast as a model of music processing and which combines elements of musical

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

MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT 135

ee I aap he a

national figures). This conceptualization enables us to see how reciprocal feedback

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

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

goals?” “Is this music appropriate for this situation?” and so on. In this sense we
are all very sophisticated consumers of music, not least because we make these
personal and complicated psychological assessments very quickly (Cassidy &
MacDonald, 2010).
We should therefore evaluate the research literature on the development
of musical preference and taste with a clear distinction in mind between the
capabilities that are involved in making particular preference decisions and the
actual content of those decisions. It may be that something like “cognitive aes-
thetic development” does exist, and that this idea could be used to explain how
children’s aesthetic judgments become more mature as they get older, but this
-
does not necessarily have any bearing on the musical content of those judgments.
In one of our own studies (Hargreaves & North, 1999), we made the distinction
between the cognitive and affective components of responses to musical pieces
and styles, suggesting that there is likely to be more consistent age-related change
in the cognitive than in the affective component; but both aspects are influenced
directly by the social and cultural context within which particular pieces and
styles are evaluated.
The research literature on the content of the musical preferences of different age
groups has been reviewed by Finnas (1989) and LeBlanc (1991), and more recently
by Hargreaves, North, and Tarrant (2016) and Hargreaves and Lamont (2017).
LeBlanc’s (1991) review led to his developmental account of “open-earedness,’ a
term first employed by Hargreaves (1982) in explaining the results of his own study
on age changes in preference. Hargreaves used the term to refer to some children's
ability to listen to and maybe also enjoy unconventional or unusual (e.g., “avant
garde,” aleatory or electronic) musical sounds, as they may “show less evidence of
acculturation to normative standards of “good taste” than older children” (p. 51).
LeBlanc developed the idea of open-earedness by using it as the basis for four
generalizations emerging from his literature review: that “younger children are
more open-eared. . .. open-earedness declines as the child enters adolescence. . . .
There is a partial rebound of open-earedness as the listener matures from adoles-
cence to young adulthood. . . . open-earedness declines as the listener matures to
-old age” (pp. 36-38).
Hargreaves, North, and Tarrant (2016) summarized the studies reviewed by
LeBlanc, as well as some more recent ones, in a table that shows the details of the
participants in each study and the music that was employed, and which summarizes
the results in each case. LeBlanc’s generalizations do seem to be supported by this
analysis: a “dip” occurs in open-earedness in later childhood at around age 10 or 11
that typically shows itself in strong preferences for a narrow range of pop styles, and
strong general dislike for all other styles. After this, there seems to be a general de-
cline in liking for all popular music styles across the rest of the life span, and a cor-
responding general increase in “classical” and other “serious” styles. Louven (2016)
recently published a critique of the ways in which the concept of open-earedness
has been operationalized in subsequent research, proposing his own definition, and
Hargreaves and Bonneville-Roussy (2017) have responded to this by proposing four
 MUSICAL IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL
i DEVELOPMENT 137

different possible definitions, as well as ways in which these can be operationalized

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

CONCLUSION

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS
mee nem ener meee reer ere ee ese ene He sess aEssHe Hee DED EHO REEFS EE SH SED ED HEED ES EEHH HED eFeEsesEFEsEsHD SEES HeSEnEEHEseesEsOE

1. In what sense are we “all musical”?

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

KEY SOURCES

Borthwick, S. J., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Developing a child’s identity as a musician: A

family “script” perspective. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.),
Musical identities (pp. 60-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J. (1996). The development of artistic and musical competence. In I. DeLiege
& J. A. Sloboda (eds.), Musical beginnings: The origins and development of musical compe-
tence (pp. 145-170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., & Lamont, A. (2017). The psychology of musical development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., MacDonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. E. (2017). The changing identity of mu-
sical identities. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (eds.), Handbook of
musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., Miell, D. E., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (eds.) (2012). Musical imaginations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (2009). Musical identities. In S.
Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 462-470).
Oxford: Oxford University Press. ,
MacDonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (eds.) (2017). Handbook of musical
identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E. (ed.) (2016) The Child as Musician: A handbook of musical development.
and ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES

Bamberger, J. (1991). .The mind behind the musical ear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barrett, M. S. (2006) Creative collaboration: An “eminence” study of teaching and learning
in music composition. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 195-218.
j MUSICAL
a
IDENTITIES MEDIATE MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT 139
| a ae

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

Hargreaves, D. J., & Lamont, A. (2017). The psychology of musical development.

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

MacDonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. E. (eds.) (2017). Handbook of musical
141

identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Genesis of the higher mental functions. Abridged translation.

In P. H. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (eds.) (1991), Learning to think, pp. 32-41.
London: Routledge and Open University Press.
Welch, G. F. (2007). Addressing the multifaceted nature of music édiichtida’ An activity
theory research perspective. Research Studies in Music Education, 28(1), 23-37.
Wetherell, M., & Mohanty, C. T. (eds.) (2010). Sage handbook of identity. London: SAGE.
Williamson, V. (2009). In search of the language of music. The Psychologist, 22(12), 1022-1025.
Wilson, G. B., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2005). The meaning of the blues: Musical identities
in talk about jazz. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 341-363.
Zillman, D., & Gan, S. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D. J. Hargreaves and A. C.
North (eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 161-188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER 8

SUPPORTING
MOTIVATION IN MUSIC
EDUCATION

JAMES M. RENWICK AND

JOHNMARSHALL REEVE

Learning to perform musi¢ can be a very enjoyable, satisfying, and meaningful

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

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

SELE-DETERMINATION THEORY

This is an approach to student engagement that uses traditional empirical methods

to highlight the key role of students’ inner motivational resources in facilitating
their positive classroom functioning, such as their engagement, learning, and
achievement (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Much of the research guided by SDT emphasizes the motivational underpinnings of
students’ positive functioning, and we will emphasize both intrinsic motivation and
internalized valuing in this chapter. Other research guided by SDT emphasizes the
role that social and environmental factors play in either promoting and vitalizing
student motivation or in thwarting and undermining it, and we will emphasize the
music teacher’s motivating style as a key social influence on students’ motivation
and engagement.
In the empirical study of motivation, SDT highlights the inherent and acquired
motivational resources that facilitate students’ positive classroom functioning. The
prototype of students’ natural motivation is intrinsic motivation, which is “the in-
herent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges,to extend and exercise one’s
capacities, to explore, and to learn’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). It is through in-
trinsic motivation that a child engages in a piece of music because it makes her feel
happy, because she likes the sound of the chord changes, or because she enjoys the
SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 145
a ae ea se,

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

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Despite the fact that all music students enter the classroom with intrinsic mo-
tivational tendencies, it is clear that they do not all walk out with their intrinsic
motivation intact. For its maintenance and enhancement, intrinsic motivation
requires supportive conditions (Deci & Ryan, 1985); accordingly, SDT focuses on
the environmental factors that can sometimes nurture and support, but other times
suppress and undermine, students’ natural tendency to learn and explore the world
with autonomy. Some environmental factors that generally maintaih and enhance
intrinsic motivation include provision
the of optimal challenges) opportunities for’
self-direction, acknowledgment of feelings, and positive feedback} some environ-
mental factors that generally frustrate and undermine intrinsic motivation include
deadlines, threats of punishment, competition, surveillance, and external evalua-’
tion (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
A central tenet of SDT is that intrinsic motivation will be enhanced by
conditions that support people’s experience of being autonomous and competent,
while it will be undermined by conditions that reduce or frustrate people's expe-
rience of autonomy and competence. An example of how a student might express
high intrinsic motivation during a music lesson would be to show a high and en-
during level of interest, to seek out and find pleasure in optimal challenges, and to
say things such as “This is fun.” Educational practices that provide opportunities
for self-direction, optimal challenges, and positive feedback typically enhance
intrinsic motivation. An example of how a student might express low intrinsic
motivation during the same music lesson would be to show listlessness, to avoid
challenges, and to say things such as,"“I can’t do it”Hence, conditions that lead
people to feel lesser autonomy andompetence will typically undermine intrinsic
motivation. This explains why educational practices such as deadlines, threats of
punishment, competition, surveillance, and external evaluation typically decrease
intrinsic motivation. .
My QA CON, Ub Just neca
MeL +0’ Remind Yor
146 JAMES M. RENWICK AND JOHNMARSHALL REEVE

INTERNALIZATION AND INTEGRATION

Although intrinsic motivation is an important type of motivation, it is not the

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

Non-self-determined BEHAVIOR self-determined

Intrinsic
Amotivation Extrinsic motivation
motivation

fo ise a
External als tec :
regulation Introjection Identification || Integration

sent No
¢ Non- e Reward e Ego * Conscious e Hierarchical ¢ Interest
contingency je Punishment _|| Guilt valuing synthesis of || ¢ Enjoyment
° Low ¢ Approval * Self-endorsed || goals * Inherent
competence goals satisfaction
WA ly
Sat
Figure 8.1 Internal—external Motivation Continuum (adapted with permission after
Ryan & Deci, 2000),
 a
_ SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 147

either intrinsic or extrinsic. At onesian Hus 8.1 showsal state

where p an hemselves
ep see a oe ofany errr Suton theiractions
and environmental outcomes. This is the polar opposite of intrinsic motivation,
where a person engages in an activity solely for its own inherent satisfactions, and
out of interest and enjoyment.
Extrinsic motivation becomes autonomous when students wholeheartedly
internalize into the self-system a socially prescribed way of thinking or behaving
(e.g., a value for practicing a musical instrument, a personal goal to win a state
competition). Students might express a self-endorsed goal during music instruc-
tion through a high and enduring level of commitment and valuing of what they
are doing. Hence, conditions that allows students to feel greater autonomy, val-
uing, or self-endorsement of the goal are likely to assist the process of motivational
internalization.
How music teachers can do this is the topic of the next section, on teachers’
motivating styles. But before introducing this key topic, consider one experiment
that illustrates many of the concepts highlighted throughout the chapter—long-
term adherence and persistence in the activity, intrinsic motivation, types of ex-
trinsic motivation, and motivating style. The experiment focused on persistence
within a specific skill domain, which is a crucial issue in music education be-
cause it is an elective course and because too many students drop out of music
education in early adolescence. In this study, Pelletier and colleagues (2001)
investigated the effects of athletic coaches’ motivating style (autonomy support
and controlling) on competitive swimmers’ long-term persistence. The effect
that motivating style had on persistence was hypothesized to be mediated by the
five types of motivation introduced in figure 8.1. Persistence was measured by
swimmers continued participation (versus dropout) after 10 months (Persistence
in Season 1) and then again after 22 months (Persistence in Season 2). Results are
summarized in figure 8.2. What is important to note about these findings is, first,
the close connection between the coaches’ motivating style and the swimmers’
motivations, and second, the close connection between the swimmers’ motiva-
tional orientations and their choices regarding persistence. Specifically, when
coaches were autonomy supportive, the swimmers’ intrinsic motivation and
identified regulation both increased substantially. Alternatively, when coaches
were controlling, the swimmers’ dysfunctional motivations—external regula-
tion and amotivation—increased substantially. These ‘changes in motivation /
‘throughout the season were important} as intrinsic motivation and identified reg-
ulation clearly facilitated long-term persistence, whereas external regulation and
amotivation clearly undermined it. With a little imagination, perhaps the reader
can see some striking parallels between the changing motivations and outcomes
of these swimmers and the changing motivations and outcomes music teachers
witness in their classrooms year after year.
 148 JAMES M. RENWICK AND JOHNMARSHALL REEVE
a rg en

Intrinsic
motivation

Coaches’
autonomy Identified
support regulation

Introjected Persistence Persistence

regulation in Season 1 in Season 2

Coaches’
control External
regulation

Amotivation

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

AUTONOMY SUPPORT
ee er eee eee eee eee HEHEHE EEE HE HEHEHE E EEE EE HEHEHE EHH ETH HHH HEHEHE HERE E HEHEHE HEHE HEHEHE HEHE HEHEHE EEE EEE OE EEE EEE

Autonomy support exists as a variety of behaviors teachers enaet to enhance

students’ feelings of freedom, of choice, and their sense that they are the origin
of their own behavior—that is, students’ experience of autonomy. Formally, au-
tonomy support is the interpersonal sentiment and behavior that teachers provide
to identify, nurture, and develop students’ inner motivational resources (Reeve,
2009). Its opposite is behavioral control—behaviors teachers enact during instruc-
tion to suppress students’ experience of autonomy. More specifically, controlling
‘is the interpersonal sentiment and behaviors that teachers provide to pressure
students to think, feel, or behave in a specific way—“think this way; don't feel like
that; and do this but don't do that” (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007).
As opposites, autonomy support and controlling represent a single bipolar con-
tinuum to conceptualize the quality of a teacher's motivating style toward students
(Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981). A teacher's motivating style is an im-
portant construct because it predicts students’ educational and developmental
outcomes, such that students of autonomy-supportive teachers relatively thrive in
terms of their learning, engagement, and well-being, while teachers of controlling
teachers relatively suffer on the same student outcomes (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Ryan
& Deci, 2000).
. SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Se 149
eee

Recognizing the influence that a teacher's motivating style has on students’

classroom functioning, many researchers have worked hard to specify exactly what
autonomy-supportive and controlling teachers do during instruction. Once under-
stood, teacher training intervention programs have been developed to help teachers
become more autonomy supportive toward their students. In this section, we will
identify precisely what autonomy-supportive and controlling teachers say and do
during instruction, and then we will summarize the benefits to students when
teachers are trained to be more autonomy supportive.

What Autonomy-Supportive Teachers Say and Do

Many instructional behaviors have been validated as autonomy-supportive acts of
instruction (e.g., Reeve & Jang, 2006). These instructional behaviors can be organ-
ized into five clusters of autonomy support (for reviews, see Reeve, 2009; Reeve,
Deci, & Ryan, 2004):

1, Autonomy-supportive teachers spark students’ initial engagement in”

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

What Controlling Teachers Say and Do

Autonomy-supportive teachers enhance students’ autonomy, while controlling
teachers neglect and frustrate this fundamental psychological need. For each
autonomy-supportive instructional behavior, its opposite can be identified:
1. Controlling teachers try to spark students initial engagement in learning
activities through directives, assignments, incentives, or compliance
requests. That is, they neglect or bypass the opportunity to vitalize
students’ inner motivational resources and, instead, introduce some sort
of (often artificial) source of environmental motivation (e.g., directive,
deadline, incentive).
2. Controlling teachers are notably silent when it comes to providing
explanatory rationales for their requested activities, rules, and procedures.
Again, they bypass the opportunity to develop students’ inner motivational
resources (internalization and valuing, in this case) and instead simply
push for students’ behavioral compliance.
3. Controlling teachers rely on pressuring language. By using pressuring
language (e.g., “You should”; “You have to”; “You've got to”), controlling
teachers tend to escalate their pressure (“You've got to, right now!”) until
students give in and comply with the teacher's demands.
4. Controlling teachers impatiently grab the learning materials and say, “Here,
do it like this,” or “Here, let me do this for you,’ as they push students
toward answers, solutions, and desired ways of behaving as if the point of
the instructional time was not learning and skill development but merely
proving that one can reproduce a modeled behavior or a right answer.
5. Instead of acknowledging and accepting students’ expressions of resistance
and negative emotions, controlling teachers counter and try to change
students’ “bad attitude” into something more acceptable to the teacher.
For example, instead of saying the aforementioned “Yes, this is hard; it can
make anyone feel frustrated. What could we do differently?” controlling
teachers tend to say, “Quit your whining; if you would have practiced like
I told you to, then this wouldn't be so hard. So, shape up, and get to work.”
While a controlling motivating style is more commonplace in the classroom
than is an autonomy-supportive style, teachers can learn how to become signifi-
cantly more autonomy supportive toward students. In a meta-analysis of 20 training
programs designed to teach people how to be autonomy supportive, the average
effect size for the training group (compared to a control group) was an impressive
d = .63 (Su & Reeve, 2011). Evidently, given focused training and support, teachers
can learn how to become significantly more autonomy supportive than they were.
This is exciting because the students of teachers who participate in these autonomy-
supportive training programs show clear and meaningful subsequent benefits from
their teachers’ enhanced motivating style, including greater autonomous motivation
.
SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION
cee
eae 151
, ae

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

MUSIC AND MOTIVATION

PACD ORE TRA ROR ee mere sernereneeVErehenseeeeresecrecerecer

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

SELF-DETERMINED MOTIVATION

In the often intense teacher-student relationship of music education, a strong effect

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

strategies when practicing their instruments. We explored a range of reasons a stu-

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

SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS

. The motivational effects of people's beliefs about their own competence have been
central to a range of dominant motivational theories focusing on the question “Can
I do this task?” Self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997,
p. 3). While general competence beliefs relate to people’s global feelings of ability in a
subject area such as music, self-efficacy relates to people’ level of confidence in their
ability to perform very specific tasks, such as a difficult section of a piece. Self-efficacy
has been found to be a strong predictor of academic achievement, independent of the
effect of actual cognitive competence (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivée, 1991).
This effect was mediated by students’ increased use of strategies such as monitoring
of time, persistence, and knowing when to accept a correct hypothesis. These results
have been replicated with young musicians (McPherson & McCormick, 2006),
showing self-efficacy to be a strong predictor of achievement in music examinations.
J
‘
:
} SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION : 153

TASK VALUE
SESS CE WORE: Ka OA e ACRE e keh ANCES CECE ES CORAUTACCK ENS eee

Expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) suggests that students’ com-
petence beliefs are the strongest sche of their arial achievement The other
main element of the theory—the extent to which » e value an activity—i
a strong predictor of their decisions to continue with their i reset People's
estimations of the value of an achievement activity are thought to comprise four
main components:
Attainment value: the perceived importance of success in the activity
Utility value: its usefulness in everyday life
Intrinsic interest: the pleasure to be gained from engagement in the
activity itself
Perceived cost: the sacrifice of other activities and emotional resources that
engagement entails (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000)
Developmental research has found that this multifaceted conception of task value
emerges from a more holistic one throughout the school years; young children will
not typically draw the fine distinctions between aspects of task value as do adolescents
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In elementary school, children’s perceptions of their own
competence and valuing of music generally declines rapidly even before most have
had any formal instruction in the area (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Alarmingly, this
decline is far more pronounced with music than reading and mathematics, and even
occurs before school music is introduced in many countries. Despite this general de-
cline, children’s perceptions of music as interesting and important, and their feelings
of being good at it, predict the time they will devote to practicing and their choice of
whether or not to participate in music over rival activities such as sport.
McPherson and McCormick (1999) found that task value predicted students’
engagement in several aspects of music practice. A follow-up study (McPherson &
McCormick, 2000) investigated the effects of task value on students’ examination
results. Together with a strong effect of self-efficacy, only task value added to the ability
to predict achievement scores. Factors traditionally assumed to play a major role, such
as self-reported practice time and anxiety, did not predict the music examination result
when controlling for the measures of perceived competence and task value.
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) have theorized that the nature of task value would
change as children mature. Young children primarily value activities for their in-
herent interest and enjoyment, whereas in elementary school, children’s experience
of a wider variety of activities gives them a greater sense of the difference between
the utility, importance, and enjoyment ofa pursuit such as music. In high school, as
young people approach career decisions, their choices start to be determined more
by their perception of the usefulness of the activity and their expectation of being
successful in it (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This change may be particularly relevant
in its effect on the choices that adolescents make about continuing or discontinuing
their involvement in music.
 154 JAMES M. RENWICK AND JOHNMARSHALL REEVE

INTEREST

Interest has emerged as an important aspect of motivation research (Renninger,

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

GOAL ORIENTATIONS

A predominant perspective guiding achievement motivation research in recent times

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

_ SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 155

nnen

learning goals, as well as perceived competence. In turn, personal learning goals

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

In contemplating the typical pattern of disenchantment with formal music learning

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE

The key implication of research for systems of teaching and learning is that the de-
_ velopment of a sense of autonomy and competence need to be supported if young
 156 JAMES M. RENWICK AND JOHNMARSHALL REEVE |

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

SUPPORTING AUTONOMY
Peer meee e meme meee reese Heese EH E HEH HE EH EE HEHEHE HEHE HEE HEE EH HOSED E HEE E DEED EEE HEHE HEHE EHH HEHEHE EEE EB ESE D ESSE SESE HEF ERE EE

-
The master-apprentice tradition of music learning is often characterized by author-
itarian approaches that undermine autonomous student learning (Persson, 1994).
This is a problem because the greater the perceived difference in status, expertise,
or social power that exists between any two people interacting, the greater the like-
lihood that the higher status person (master) will relate to the lower-status person
(apprentice) in a controlling way. Many music teachers are highly controlling in the
way they decide student issues such as repertoire choice, examination enrollment,
and required approaches to practicing, often with little sense of negotiation with the
student (Renwick, 2008). Recognizing the temptation for powerful instructors to be
controlling, the enactment of an autonomy-supportive motivating style explicitly
seeks to empower students by taking and valuing their perspective and by inviting
and welcoming their thoughts, feelings, and actions into the flow of instruction to
the point that instruction becomes a codetermined, rather than a unilateral, activity.
To become more autonomy supportive and to work toward greater teacher-
student codetermination, music teachers might consider the following acts of
instruction that parallel the five autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors
introduced earlier.
¢ (To nurture students inner motivational resources. Instead of unilaterally
telling students what to do, ask students what music-relevant goals they
have for themselves, discover what is most interesting and valuable to them
about music, and integrate a sense of challenge, curiosity-induction, and
intrinsic motivation into the structure of every lesson plan.
¢ To provide explanatory rationales: Before asking students to engage in
potentially uninteresting activities, such as learning scales, provide a
rationale that explains in a satisfying way why the activity is truly worth the
students’ effort. The explanatory rationale will help students internalize the
value of the activity in a way that allows them to transform their otherwise
vulnerable motivational state (e.g., “Why do I have to do this?”) into a more
volitional agency (e.g., “Yes, now that you explain it, this is worth doing,’).
« To rely on noncontrolling, informational language./Rather than uttering
pressure-packed communications that students have to do this and must
do that, use communications that encourage students to discover their
own optimal learning strategies. As problem-solving tasks change, scaffold
 PPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION L577,

students’ efforts to learn ever more adaptive and sophisticated learning

strategies.
+ To display patience toallow time for self-paced learning to occur. Displaying
patience means giving students the time they need to set goals, make plans,
revise strategies, monitor progress, deeply understand what they are trying
to do, diagnose problems, and formulate and test out problem-solving
es
strategies. This means encouraging students to think about and monitor
their personal goals, choose their own repertoire, and work at their own
pace, and it does not mean pushing students toward answers and idealized
performances.
.

\emotions, Teachers might support students in managing their frustration

and other negative emotions by acknowledging and accepting that these are
part of the process of skill development.

SUPPORTING COMPETENCE
PRR Ree H EE EEE HEHEHE HEHEHE HEHEHE EHH HEHE EEE TREES EEEEEEEE TEESE HEE EOE E EE EEES

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

How Nort TO BE CONTROLLING

TOWARD STUDENTS

It is easy to recommend that music instructors support students’ autonomy and

competence, yet it is hard to see how this is either possible or practical in an era of
high-stakes external evaluations and accountability. Most teachers are not control-
ling because they want to be. Instead,most teachers adopt a controlling style because
y th ves feel such pressure to produce student successes inexaminations,
and competitions(Reeve, 2009). The music curriculum is populated with pressure-
5
inducing motivations, such as to do well on examinations, concerts, and competitions,
to please parents, to be accepted into a selective ensemble or school by audition, and
other high-stakes goals. Recognizing that music teachers face a relentless presence of
implicit and explicit pressures, researchers recommend the following three steps that
teachers can use to become less controlling and more autonomy supportive.
The first task in becoming more autonomy supportive is to become less |
controlling—to avoid controlling sentiment, controlling language, and control-
ling behaviors. To do so, teachers need to become mindful of a!l the pressures that
unconsciously push them toward a controlling style—such as the dual burdens of
being responsible and accountable for student performances—so that teachers can
make instructional decisions based on choice and on sound pedagogical practice,
rather than on the ever-present daily demands and circumstances. The second task
is to truly want to support students’ autonomy. A sincere commitment to support
students’ autonomy typically comes from an appreciation of just how beneficial au-
tonomy support is to both students and teachers. That is, with autonomy support,
students display higher quality motivation, engagement, healthy development,
learning, performance, and well-being (Reeve, 2009), while teachers experience less
emotional exhaustion and an increased sense of personal satisfaction from their
teaching (Roth et al., 2007). Finally, the third task is to learn the “how-to” of au-
tonomy support. To answer the commonly asked question “Okay, autonomy support
sounds nice in theory, but what specifically would I do?” the chapter has offered five
" specific autonomy-supportive acts of instruction. A wealth of intervention-based
research makes it clear that by integrating these five acts of instruction into the
way they relate to students on a daily basis (1) teachers can learn how to be more
autonomy supportive and (2) students do benefit when their teachers become more
autonomy supportive (Reeve, Jang, et al., 2004).

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. How much freedom did you have over your musical choices while at
school? Has this influenced your musical engagement since leaving school?
jSUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION
(eR
rai 159
=

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Johnmarshall Reeve's contribution was supported by the WCU (World Class

University) Program funded by the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology, consigned to the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (Grant
no. R32—2008-000-20023-0).

KEY SOURCES

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

WEBSITE

University of Rochester (1996-2008). Self-determination theory: An approach to human mo-

tivation & personality. Available at http://www.psych.rochester.edu/ SDT/index.php.

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
160 JAMES M. RENWICK AND JOHNMARSHALL REEVE

Anguiano, K. R. (2006). Motivational predictors of continuing motivation and achievement

for early adolescent instrumental music students. Available from Proquest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3229641).
Austin, J. R. (1991). Competitive and noncompetitive goal structures: An analysis of motiva-
tion and achievement among elementary band students. Psychology of Music, 19, 142-158.
Austin, J. R., Renwick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Developing motivation. In G. E.
McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical Bag: (pp. 213-238).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Theexercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivée, S. (1991). Influences of self-efficacy on
self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age students.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 153-164.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: tee
and Row.
Davidson, J. W., & Jordan, N. (2007). “Private teaching, private learning”: An setonet of
music instrument learning in the private studio, the junior and senior conservatories. In
L. Bresler (ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (Vol.1, pp. 729-744).
Dordrecht: Springer.
deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the self-determination of human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’
orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic moti-
vation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals ard
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 461-475. ;
Evans, P. A. (2009). Psychological needs and social-cognitive influences on participation in
music activities. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
AAT 3362780).
Evans, P. (2016). Motivation. In G. E. McPherson (ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of
musical development (pp. 325-339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hallam, S. (1998). The predictors of achievement and dropout in instrumental tuition.
Psychology of Music, 26, 116-132.
Hallam, S. (2002). Musical motivation: Toward a model synthesising the research. Music
Education Research, 4, 225-244.
Maehr, M. L., Pintrich, P. R., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2002). Motivation and achievement. In
R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and
learning (pp. 348-372). New York: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
141, 98-102.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2000). The contribution of motivational factors to in-
strumental performance in a music examination. Research Studies in Music Education,
153 31-39:
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology
of Music, 34, 322-336.
: SUPPORTING MOTIVATION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 161
EEE

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

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sandene, B. A. (1998). An investigation of variables related to student motivation in instru-
mental music. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT
9811178).
Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Emotion, functionality and the everyday experience of music: Where
does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3, 243-253.
Sosniak, L. A. (1990). The tortoise, the hare, and the development of'talent. In M. J. A. Howe
(ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 149-164). Leicester,
UK: British Psychological Society.
Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs
designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159-188.
Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). The effect of an intervention to improve
newly qualified teachers’ interpersonal style, students motivation and psychological need
satisfaction in sport-based physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35,
242-253.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-
life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy—value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
 CHAPTER 9

BECOMING A MUSIC
LEARNER: TOWARD
A THEORY OF
TRANSFORMATIVE
MUSIC ENGAGEMENT

SUSAN A. O NEILL

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

new pedagogical and curriculum initiatives involving inquiry and reflective prac-
tice (Reynolds & Beitler, 2007), transformational professional development (Upitis,
Smithrim, & Soren, 1999), and collaborative teaching and learning (Conkling, 2004;
Luce, 2001; Mills, 2005). We need to build on these shifts in thinking and continue
to expand our awareness of the lens through which we view music learners in a
digital age, examine more deeply and collaboratively the meaning and purpose of
music learning, and develop music learning opportunities that promote connec-
tivity across diverse perspectives, contexts, and cultural ecologies.
The American psychologist Carl Rogers (1961) asserted that a person or learner
is not a state of being but is always in the process of becoming. Rogers also described
what Buber (1958) refers to as confirming the other, which means accepting the
whole potentiality of the other—the person that she has been created to become.
Whereas the idea of being a music learner suggests a bounded and static entity, with
a nature that is prescribed, determined, or unchangeable, becoming a music learner
is infused with notions of unfolding, openness, and dynamic potential (Fromm,
1976). We are always in a continuous process of becoming music learners, while _
our memories simultaneously connect us to our past “lived experiences” (Althusser,
2001). There is a temporal and spatial dimension to music learning and both need
to be considered in our efforts to understand and engage music learners. As Wells
(2000) points out, “any activity is situated in place and time; although there may
be common features across activities and settings, each activity is unique, since it
involves the coming together of particular individuals in a particular setting with
particular artifacts, all of which have their own histories which, in turn, affect the
way in which the activity is actually played out” (p. 59).
Shifting our thinking about music learners from being to becoming provides a per-
spective transformation toward a theory of positive and meaningful music learning
that is more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective, and integrative
of experience (Mezirow, 1996). I refer to this theory as transformative music engage-
ment and suggest that this framework is capable of acting as a vehicle or catalyst for
change across a broad and diverse group of music learners. I believe this theory offers
the possibility for change that moves us beyond merely solving problems and pro-
' viding adequate opportunities for learners to acquire the basic skills and knowledge
necessary for music learning. Alternatively, it provides a framework for engaging
music learners as active agents in their own musical development. This involves em-
powerment (transformative means having the power to transform) that enables auton-
omous or self-directed learners (O'Neill, 2016) to construct their own form of “music
learning authenticity” (Green, 2005). It combines a sense of connectedness and emo-
tional engagement (Furrer & Skinner, 2003) with a capacity for critical reflective or
reflexive self-awareness (Ridley, 1991) and an impassioned spirit that continually seeks
“visions of still untapped possibility” (Greene, 1990, p. 67) for all music learners.
Transformative music engagement is a dynamic, transformational, and mul-
tidimensional theory that operates on many interdependent levels (personal, so-
ciocultural, systemic). It is a braiding of psychodevelopmental or lifelong learning
perspectives on transformational learning theory (Taylor, 2007), critical and
transformative pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2008; McCaleb, 1997), and positive music
: BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER
ee 165
eee

engagement—a concept that focuses on motivation and meaningful participation

in a learning activity by individuals with a well-informed understanding and val-
uing of the activity, from which they derive a sense of relevance, purpose, and ful-
fillment (O'Neill, 2006). This notion of engagement “underpins learning and is the
glue that binds it together” (Bryson & Hand, 2007, p. 60). Although the use of the
term engagement has increased tremendously in recent years, it remains a relatively
underdeveloped and loosely defined construct. It usually refers to a form of involve-
ment or participation in an activity that has both a psychological component (e.g.,
values, meaningfulness, identity, sense of belonging) and a behavioral component
(e.g., effort, intensity, focused concentration). It also has a dynamic nature that is
moderated by individual differences and is context-dependent within interrelated
personal, social, and systemic ecologies (Rose-Krasnor, 2009).
In working toward a theory of transformative music engagement, I have selected
several elements or features to highlight in this chapter. I believe they offer a particular
challenge or extension to some of our current theoretical conceptualizations, research
approaches, and educational practices. They are emergent and repetitive themes
from the research I have undertaken with colleagues and graduate students over
the past 20 years involving interviews and surveys with thousands of music learners
in the United Kingdom (Harrison & O'Neill, 2000; Mills & O'Neill, 2002; North,
Hargreaves, & O'Neill, 2000; O'Neill, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005; Senyshyn & O'Neill,
2001), United States (Eccles, O'Neill, & Wigfield, 2005), and Canada (O’Neill, 20112,
2011b, 2017). Senyshyn & O'Neill, 2011). My colleagues and I have listened to chil-
dren and adolescents tell their stories about what they do in their music classrooms
and instrumental music lessons, how they feel about themselves and others as music
learners, what they value about music learning, what they find most relevant or useful
and purposeful about music learning in their everyday lives, the challenges they en-
counter as music learners, how they overcome obstacles and barriers, what initiates
and sustains their music learning, the support they receive from parents, teachers,
and peers, the benefits they derive from music learning, the musician role models
that they admire and why they admire them, and their dreams and aspirations for the
future. Recently, with my colleague Gary McPherson, we have analyzed survey data
that explored the musical beliefs and values of over 22,000 elementary and secondary
school students from Brazil, China, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, México, and
the United States (McPherson & O'Neill, 2010). A globalized notion of music learning
is emerging that is embedded in value systems replete with tensions and negotiations
around interrelated messages and assumptions about music, such as tradition and
innovation, reproduction and creation, credentialism and understanding, commodi-
fication, aesthetic and cultural capital, and personal expression (Cook, 1998).
I have attempted to bring together some of the key messages that I have learned
from this research and some of the theoretical frameworks that I have used to
make sense of these messages and the assumptions that construct their meaning
in particular ways. I hope that readers might make their own connections between
interrelated dimensions. Findings from my previous studies emphasize the impor-
- tance of viewing music learners as part of an intricate sociocultural web involving
particular structures and practices that empower some and prevent others from
166 SUSAN A. O NEILL

purposeful and positive music engagement. To understand what becoming a music

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

SHIFTING THE PARADIGM TOWARD

TRANSFORMATIVE MUSIC ENGAGEMENT

Transformative music engagement begins with a paradigmatic shift in how we think

about music learners. In particular, it is about shifting the focus from viewing music
learners from within a deficit versus talent/expertise framework. It focuses instead
on the idea that all music learners in all contexts of development have musical
strengths and competencies. Transformative music engagement is about identifying
and developing these competencies, reflecting on their meaning and how they are
experienced and shared, as well as harnessing emergent and expansive learning
opportunities in ways that empower learners to build on these competencies for fur-
ther growth and change. It is also about shifting the focus from merely instructing
and supporting learners to fostering the resiliency necessary for sustaining music
engagement and overcoming negative constraints on learning (O'Neill, 2011¢;
Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1997). From the perspective of transformative music
engagement, musical skills and knowledge are no longer viewed as the domain of a
relatively few talented individuals. Instead, the focus shifts to participatory cultures
that work toward common endeavors while creating highly supportive and genera-
tive learning environments (Gee, 2005; Jenkins, 2009).
Adopting the perspective of transformative music engagement also makes other
important shifts in thinking possible. For example, we might begin to consider
alternatives to the “community of practice” model (Lave & Wenger, 1991) that has
permeated much of our thinking in music education for the past 20 years. Although
this framework has been a rich resource for both research and practice, particularly in
 BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER 167
es

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

ADOPTING A CRITICAL APPROACH TO OUR

BELIEFS AND EXPECTATIONS

Adopting a critical, questioning approach is a necessary precursor for optimizing

the’ learning experiences of all music learners. However, our common sense
assumptions about what constitutes a music learner can become so ingrained in our
thinking that they may begin to escape our notice, let alone our critical scrutiny.
Our assumptions become active prescriptions that shape how we experience, talk,
and think about music learners. We become bounded by these expectations, and
~ this can limit our ability to explore other possibilities (Daignault, 1991). Overcoming
 168 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

these bounded expectations requires a critical approach that recognizes the ways
particular epistemologies have become ideologies ofpower that indoctrinate us into
the beliefs, values, and images that construct and perpetuate our sense of music
learners in particular ways (O’Neill & Senyshyn, 2011).
Since at least the 1960s, disciplinary knowledge in developmental and edu-
cational psychology in particular has been used to inform music educators’ un-
derstanding of music learners in terms of their musical development, learning
strategies, achievement, and performance. Embedded within this disciplinary
knowledge or positivist epistemology is an assumption that the scientific study of
music learners (in terms of learning models, processes, and behavioral outcomes)
is capable of revealing knowledge about the nature of music learners that can help
educators figure out the best way to teach them.
The idea that developmental or educational psychology can provide the nec-
essary knowledge for understanding music learners has informed much of our
current thinking in music education. In Hargreaves’s (1986) book on develop-
mental psychology of music he stated that explanations of musical development
“should form the natural foundation for music education” (p. 213) and that “the
specification of objectives for music education involves breaking down musical
skills into their cognitive, affective, and psychomotor components, and the eval-
uation of these objectives draws heavily on psychological assessment procedures”
(p. 226). This was of course a common assumption at the time, especially in relation
to theories in developmental and educational psychology that attempted to classify
learners, such as Gagné’s (1965) eight types of learning from his influential book
The Conditions of Learning and Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Such approaches have actually increased the focus on performance achievement
outcomes as indicators of learning and perpetuated the simplistic notion that if we
discover the optimal conditions of learning through rigorous, systematic research,
we will become better music learners, or by implication, better teachers.
Rooted in empiricism, rationalism, and scientific method, positivistic
researchers seek to study music learning in the same way that scientists study phe-
nomena such as global warming based on presuppositions about its nature and
' existence as a discrete phenomenon. The aim is to discover a set of immutable
and generalizable laws through observation, prediction, and control. Some of the
most influential ideas, concepts, beliefs, values, and practices that have come to
represent (and in some cases limit) as well as shape our understanding of music
learners are found in positivist discourses associated with behaviorisim and its
preoccupation with skill acquisition or training (Ozomon & Craver, 1992). Linear,
hierarchical, and stage approaches to learning are all manifestations of positivist
education. Behaviorist teaching methods rely on consistent repetition in order to
provide the necessary effective reinforcement of response patterns. The commonly
used maxim that “practice makes perfect” is an example of this focus on repeti-
tion and reinforcement. Other methods include question (stimulus) and answer
(response) frameworks in which questions gradually increase in difficulty, guided
practice, regular reviews of material, and rewards in the form of grades and awards.
BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER 169
I eee ee

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

LEARNING CONTEXTS AND ZONES

OF COMPLEXITY

There is no shortage of discussion in music education today about how dramatically

different young people’s music learning experiences are compared to even a genera-
tion ago (Sloboda, 2001). Music learners in the twenty-first century have undergone
a transformation in how they learn and in their learning relationships. Living in the
current information era means that a vast number of music learners experience in-
creasingly fast-paced and high-tech lives. They have instantaneous access to varied
music resources and an immeasurable amount of music choices. Technology has
created an unprecedented amount of autonomy in their musical lives, and it has
_ exploded the boundaries of what music learners are capable of achieving.
 170 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

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

Bronfenbrenner argued that we should foster societal attitudes that value the
contributions to learning that are made on all levels: parents, teachers, community
workers, policy-makers, musicians, and so on.
A few years ago I was involved in research at a large secondary school in Canada
where the music teacher was having problems recruiting and retaining students.
Although many music educators share this concern it had become an alarming
issue at this particular school. To put it bluntly, the students were afraid to go to the
music room for their classes. The music room was located at the back of the school,
at the end of a long corridor that contained mostly unoccupied rooms. This loca-
tion made good practical sense to the school administrators because any sounds
coming from the music room were unlikely to disturb other classes. However, the
same isolated and deserted corridor provided a great place for a gang of trouble-
some students to gather without supervision. They would occupy this space before
and after school, and at various other times during the day. Members of this gang
would bully and intimidate the students who attempted to walk past them to get
to the music room. The gang also threatened to beat up any student who told a
teacher about what they were doing, and the gang was very good at avoiding de-
tection by the teachers and staff at the school. Music students starting dropping
out of music classes, and it became increasingly difficult to recruit students to play
in the school’s music ensembles. The music teacher complained repeatedly to the
school authorities about the situation, and the gang would get moved on from the
corridor for a week or two, but these efforts were not sustained, and the gang would
resume their occupation of the corridor. For those music students who remained
in the music program, morale was at an all-time low. This was not only because of
the gang of students who bullied them but also because no one seemed to notice,
or if they did notice they did not seem to care enough to do something to change
the situation.
This incident reminds us that just because we may have an adequate space
(physical and geographical) and amount of time (length and duration) for music
education, we also need a place that offers opportunities for meaningful partici-
patory music engagement. We are self-locating creatures by nature, both literally
and metaphorically. Consider how important location and place is by how often we
use the preposition “in,” for example: “in a band? “in a choir,’ “lost in the music,”
> «-.

“in the middle of learning a new song,’ “in the school musical,” “in second place in
the competition.” The American philosopher Edward Casey (1996), who is known
for his important work on indigenous approaches to place, reminds us that “to live
is to live locally, and to know is first of all to know the place one is in” (p. 18) We
must first understand where we are in order to adapt to the various obstacles and
advantages that we might encounter as we navigate toward our destination. Helping
music learners acquire a new power of navigation can make all the difference by
opening up possibilities for imagining new destinations and for negotiating the var-
ious pathways that they might encounter on the way.
Although a systems theory offers an insight into the complexity and multidi-
mensionality of music learners, there is a danger of reducing the music learner to an
 172 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

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

PARTICIPATORY CULTURES
AND LEARNING RELATIONSHIPS.

To gain a sense of the transformations that are already taking place in the lives
of music learners, we need look no further than popular television shows such as
Pop Idol, which currently has versions in over 40 territories around the world, and
the musical drama television series Glee. What do these shows have to offer music
-learners, and how do they impact on their expectations for music learning? In terms
of actual music engagement, we need to consider the rapidly expanding music “par-
ticipatory cultures” (Jenkins, 2009) that take place on YouTube and the internet.
For example, Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir involved over 2,000 people from around
the world who supported each other through a network of online social media to
learn and record their choral parts. Apple's GarageBand provides access to over
100 virtual instruments, multitrack audio recording, online collaborations with
other musicians, and prerecorded music lessons that include lessons by the famous
musicians and songwriters who composed the songs being taught.
These participatory cultures encourage the sharing of distributed knowledge
and emphasize the importance of mediators that connect or network people so
that they can access more knowledge and expertise than they could within existing
structures and practices (Gee, 2005). Gee (2004, 2005) refers to “affinity spaces” as
BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER
e e ee 173

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

Futures project (http://www.musicalfutures.org.uk/). In a recent study, we added

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

VALUES, MOTIVATION, AND CONSTRAINTS

ON Music LEARNING

In today’s technological and globalized world, many music learners experience

uncertainties and contradictions over what constitutes valued and valuable forms
of music-making. Music learners are not passive recipients but active constructors
not only of knowledge, meanings, and identities but also the values that live within
and among the musical communities they inhabit. Values have an odd life cycle, one
that transcends the dichotomy between the individual and the social. Values can
only thrive (or fail to develop) within relationships between individuals. They con-
tribute to the way that knowledge is constructed, used, and exchanged in the present
_e BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER
+S

ee se ee iS 175

and the future. Only through critical reflection and dialogue can educators and
learners create the conditions and circumstances in which they can search together
collaboratively for more comprehensible, authentic, and morally appropriate ways
of valuing and engaging in musical practices. This requires pedagogical approaches
that can act as catalysts, rather than constraints, for expanding equitable learning
opportunities that are reflective, dialogical, collaborative, participatory, interactive,
integrative, value-driven, and strength-based. The values that music learners de-
velop will serve as points for orientation for key decisions that they make about
music learning in the future; decisions such as whether or not they continue music
learning, whether or not they attend concerts or what kind of concerts they attend,
whether or not they want their own children to learn music, whether or not they
support music education in the schools and communities in which they live.
A recent study of learners from eight different countries found that learners
generally hold lower expectations for becoming competent in music and value
music less than other subjects at school (McPherson & O'Neill, 2010). The meaning
of music, the central role it plays in the emotional lives of music learners, and in-
formal learning strategies are often at odds with many formal or school music edu-
cation agendas (Green, 2001). In a climate of public accountability and demands for
improved standards of performance, “it is all too easy for the ‘person of the learner
and the processes and relationships of learning to be eclipsed by a ‘high stakes’
focus on learning outcomes” (Deakin Crick & Wilson, 2005, p. 6). In a systematic
review of research from around the world on the impact of summative assessment
on students’ motivation for learning, researchers found that this “overfocus” on per-
formance outcomes has a negative impact on what learners think and feel about
themselves as learners, how they perceive their capacity to learn, and their energy
for learning (Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003).
In terms of motivation, values are associated with interest, importance, and
usefulness, and they tend to predict the choice of activities that learners pursue
and their long-term involvement in music activities (Eccles, O'Neill, & Wigfield,
2005). Dweck (2006) provides compelling evidence that a growth mindset is a
crucial component of achieving positive motivation and successful performance
outcomes. A growth mindset is characterized by a passion for learning, the active
seeking of challenges, a valuing of effort, and the resiliency necessary to persist in
the face of obstacles or adversity. I have found consistent evidence to indicate that
the positive valuing of music participation is one of the most important reasons why
young people choose to continue with music learning. The most common responses
are: “Music gives my life meaning and purpose,’ “Music helps me express myself,’
and “Music connects me to others” (O’Neill, 201b). And yet, as I have pointed
out previously, research and practice in the area of positive youth development
or “positive youth musical engagement” (O'Neill, 2006) suggests that it is all too
easy to view music learners within an achievement-oriented focus that considers
high levels of music performance achievement to be an indicator of healthy and
effective music learners. This lens or framework for viewing music learners may
- have merit and has been a focus for much of the psychology of music research on
 176 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

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

DIALOGICAL INQUIRY AND

TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY

Learning transformations occur when individuals change their frames of reference

by reflecting critically on their assumptions and beliefs and consciously making and
implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their worlds (Mezirow, —
P}
y
BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER 177
Ee eee

1997; Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Dialogue-directed reflection is central to this

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

+ Teaching begins with student knowledge. Opportunities for expansive

learning are provided that enable learners to manipulate or interact within
their own artistic and cultural ecologies in a way that helps them make
meaningful connections.
 178 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

¢ Skills, knowledge, and voices develop from engagement in the activity. |

Learners are asked to create, express, or display their own representations of
a particular issue, event, or phenomenon.
¢ Teaching and learning are both individual and collaborative processes. The
role of the instructor is one of facilitator, organizer, leader, and source of
knowledge on the topic, but not the primary source of learning.
« Teaching and learning are transformative processes. Learners share their
creative representations with others and engage in a process of dialogue, |
shared meaning making, and sociocultural and sociopolitical associations. |

‘
There are obvious and not so obvious opportunities and constraints that enable |
some learners or limit the potential of others (Gladwell, 2008). Increasing our un-
derstanding of music learners is not only about knowing who they are but also about _
knowing what enables or prevents them from being considered as, or from con-
sidering themselves to be, music learners. For this, we need to adopta relational-
developmental perspective (Overton, 1998) so that becoming a music learner is
understood as “an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations” (Lave & Wenger,
1991, p. 50). We create possibilities for more expansive learning opportunities
through knowledge and critical understandings of the contexts and complexity
that construct and shape learners’ musical worlds in ways that are both diverse and
particular. We deepen our understanding of what it means to be a music learner
through a focus on personhood (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1998), which is the
entire situated person in relation to her music learning. We empower music learners
by nurturing their reflexive capacity to reflect inwardly about connections between
the self, music, and their sociocultural understandings.
Music learners use language and stories as a way of expressing who they are and
representing their musical worlds to others. An interesting feature of stories is that the
narrative unfolds according to crucial events, rather than through a strict adherence
to time sequences. Ricoeur (1984) refers to this as “humanly relevant time” because
crucial events are used to preserve the significance and meaning of the experience
being told. We use stories to order and structure our lives; they help us make sense
of our fragmented and sometimes confusing experiences by arranging them into |
coherent messages that offer a sense of meaning, unity, and purpose. Increasingly,
music education researchers are attempting to understand the personal knowledge
associated with music learning through the study of narrative accounts of lived ex-
perience (e.g., Barrett & Stauffer, 2009; Younker & Hickey, 2007; Wingstedt, 2005).
This approach has great potential for identifying crucial components of transform-
ative music engagement through an interrelated, relational, and critically reflective
methodology. It helps us address the question: How do we define music learning
and what prevents people, processes, and performances from enacting positive and
meaningful transformative change?
Seeking shifting and evolving transformations in the way we conceptualize
learners is also central to “dialogical inquiry” (Wells, 2000), which draws on
Vygotsky's (1978) concept of artifact-mediated joint activity involving change and
"1

BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER

ee re ee ee 179

transformation of participants and settings over time (O'Neill, 20110). According

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

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

KEY SOURCES

Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a

theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McPherson, G. E., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Students’ motivation to study music as compared
to other school subjects: A-comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music
Education, 32(2), 1-37.
|
y
BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER
e e ee ee eee

O'Neill, S. A. (2016). Youth empowerment and transformative music engagement. In G.

Spruce, C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, & P. Woodward (eds.), Oxford handbook of music educa-
ss
181

tion and social justice (pp. 388-405). New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Neill, S. A. (2017). Young people's musical lives: Learning ecologies, identities, and con-
nectedness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D, Meill (eds.), Oxford handbook
of musical identities (pp. 79-104). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
~

REFERENCES

Althusser, L. (2001). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses: Notes towards an inves-
tigation. In Lenin and Philosophy and other essays (pp. 127-186). (B. Brewster, trans.).
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Barrett, M. S. & Stauffer, S. L. (2009). Narrative inquiry in music education.
Netherlands: Springer.
Benard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership, 51, 44-48.
Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resilience in children. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: D.
McKay Co. ;
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (eds.) (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development.
In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (eds. in chief), & R. M. Lerner (vol. ed.), Theoretical models
of human development: Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 793-828). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Brookfield, $. D. (2000). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow &
Associates (eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 125-148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007, July). Promoting student engagement. Paper presented
at the Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australia Conference,
Adelaide.
Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, trans.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Casey, E. (1996). How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of
time: Phenomenological prolegomena. In S. Feld & K. H. Basso (eds.), Senses ofplace (pp.
13-52). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S$. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Colwell, R., & Webster, P. R. (eds.) (2011). MENC Handbook of Research on Music Learning.
Vol. 1: Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Conkling, S. (2004). Music teacher practice and identity in professional development
partnerships. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 3(3), 1-15. Retrieved from
http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Conkling3_3.pdf.
. Cook, N. (1998). Music: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
182 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2003). Parent-teacher-pupil interactions in instrumental music

tuition: A literature review. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 29-44.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1998). The development of the person: An experi-
ential perspective on the ontogenesis of psychological complexity. In W. Damon (series
ed.) & R. M. Lerner (vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of
human development (sth ed., pp. 635-684). New York: Wiley.
Daignault, J. (1991). Curriculum as composition: Who is the composer? Oe isa of
Philosophy and Social Sciences, 16, 1-34. .
Deakin Crick, R., & Wilson, K. (2005). Being a learner: A virtue for the 21st century. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 359-374.
DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Eccles, J. S., O’Neill, S. A., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-perceptions and subject task
values in adolescents and children. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (eds.), What do chil-
dren need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development
(pp. 237-249). New York: Springer.
Flutter, J. (2010). International perspectives on the students’ voices movement: Sonorities _
in a changing world. In J. Finney & C. Harrison (eds.), Whose music education is it? The
role of the student voice (pp. 16-23). Solihull, West Midlands, UK: National Association of
Music Educators.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum.
Fromm, E. (1976). To have-or to be? New York: Continuum.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic en-
gagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162.
Gagné, R. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gates, H. L., Jr. (1993). Loose canons: Notes on the culture wars. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology and social practice. New York: Bergin
& Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.
New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (eds.),
Beyond communities ofpractice (pp. 214-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gioia, D. (2007). Trade easy pleasures for more complex and challenging ones. Retrieved
from http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/june20/gradtrans-062007.html.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Goldblatt, P. F. (2006). How John Dewey’s theories underpin art and art education. Education
and Culture, 22(1), 17-34.
Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Motivational orientations that lead students to show deeper
levels of reasoning, greater responsibility for their academic work, and greater resilience
in the face of academic difficulty. In R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (eds.), Optimizing stu-
dent success in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience, and responsibility (pp.
39-58). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot,
Hants, UK: Ashgate.
Green, L. (2005). Musical meaning and social reproduction: A case for retrieving autonomy. |
In D. K. Lines (ed.), Music education for the new millennium: Theory and practice futures
for music teaching and learning (pp. 75-90). Oxford: Blackwell.
BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER 183

Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy.
Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate.
Green, B., & Bigum, C. (1993). “Aliens in the classroom”, Australian Journal of Education,
37(2), 119-141.
Greene, M. (1990). The passion of the possible: Choice, multiplicity, and commitment.
Journal of Moral Education, 19(2), 67-76.
Greene, M. (1997). Teaching as possibility: A light in dark times. Journal of Pedagogy,
Pluralism & Practice, 1(1), 1-10.
Hargreaves, D. J. (1986). The developmental psychology of music. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in
Education, 10(2), 169-208.
Harrison, A., & O'Neill, S. A. (2000). Children’s gender-typed preferences for musical
instruments: An intervention study. Psychology of Music, 28(1), 81-97.
Herbert, T. R. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an urban school. Urban
Education, 34, 428-457.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural
positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243-281.
Ivaldi, A., & O'Neill, S. A. (2008). Adolescents’ musical role models: Whom do they admire
and why? Psychology of Music, 36(4), 395-415.
Ivaldi, A., & O'Neill, S. A. (2009). Talking “privilege”: Barriers to musical attainment
in adolescents’ talk of musical role models. British Journal of Music Education,
26(1), 1-14.
Ivaldi, A., & O'Neill, S. A. (2010). Adolescents’ attainability and aspiration beliefs for famous
musician role models. Music Education Research, 12(2), 179-197.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York
University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for
the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Juhasz, A. (2011). Learning from YouTube. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Open access video book
available at http://vectors.usc.edu/projects/learningfromyoutube/.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. (1993). A tentative description of postformal thinking: The
critical confrontation with cognitive theory. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 296-320.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55(1) 170-183.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Luce, D. W. (2001). Collaborative learning in music education: A review of the literature.
Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(2), 20-25.
Maattanen, P., & Westerlund, H. (2001). Travel agency of musical meanings? Discussion
on music and context in Keith Swanwick’s interculturalism. British Journal of Music
Education, 18, 261-274.
McCaleb, S. P. (1997). Building communities of learners: A collaboration among teachers,
students, families, and community. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
184 SUSAN A. O'NEILL

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46,

158-172.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (ed.),
New directions for adult and continuing education: No. 74. Transformative learning in
action: Insights from practice (pp. 5-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a
theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McNamee, S., & Shotter, J. (2004). Dialogue, creativity, and changé. In R. Anderson, L. A.
Baxter, & K. J. Cissna (eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing oe in communication studies (pp.
91-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McPherson, G. E., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Students’ motivation to ee music ascompared to other
school subjects: A comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(2), 1-37.
Mills, J. (2005). Music in the school. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, J., & O'Neill, S. A. (2002). Children as inspectors? Evaluating school music provision
for children aged 10-11 years. British Journal of Music Education, 19, 285-301.
Moore, D., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2010). The social context of musical success: A
developmental account. British Journal of Psychology, 94(4) 529-549.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & O'Neill, S. A. (2000). The importance of music to
adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 255-272.
O'Neill, S. A. (1999). Flow theory and the development of musical performance skills.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141(2), 129-134.
O'Neill, S. A. (2001). Young people and music participation project: Practitioner report and
summary offindings. Unit for the study of musical skill and development, Keele University,
UK. Retrieved from
O’Neill, S. A. (2002). The self-identity of young musicians. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J.
Hargreaves, & D. Miell (eds.), Musical identities (pp. 79-96). Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A. (2005). Youth music engagement in diverse contexts. In J. L. Mahoney, R.
Larson, & J. S. Eccles (eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular
activities, after school and community programs (pp. 255-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
O’Neill, S. A. (2006). Positive youth musical engagement. In G. McPherson (ed.), The
child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 461-474). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
O'Neill, S. A. (2009). Revisioning musical understandings through a cultural diversity theory
of difference. In L. Bartel (series ed.), E. Gould (vol. ed.), & J. Countryman, C. Morton,
& L. Stewart Rose (eds.), Exploring social justice: How music education might matter, Vol.
4. CMEA Biennial Series: Research to Practice (pp. 70-89). Waterloo, Ontario: Canadian
Music Educators’ Association.
O'Neill, S. A. (2010). Aliens in the music classroom? Promoting effective knowledge ex-
change. Canadian Music Educator, 52(1), 26-28.
O'Neill, S. A. (2011a, May). Exploring artistic worlds: An interview study of the initiating
and sustaining factors and benefits of youth music engagement in formal and informal
learning contexts. In S. A. O'Neill (chair), Youth artistic participatory culture and music
engagement: Implications for curricula and expansive learning. Symposium conducted at
the meeting of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education
(CSSE), University of Fredericton & St. Thomas University, New Brunswick, Canada.
O'Neill, S. A. (2011b). Personhood and music learning: Theory, research, narratives and prac-
tice, Vol. 5. CMEA Biennial Series: Research to Practice. Waterloo, Ontario: Canadian
Music Educators’ Association.
 BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER 185
!

| O'Neill, S. A. (2011¢). Learning in and through music performance: Understanding cultural

4
diversity via inquiry and dialogue. In M. Barrett (ed.), A cultural psychology for music ed-
ucation (pp. 179-200). New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Neill, S. A. (20114). Developing a young musician's growth mindset: The role of motivation,
self-theories and resiliency. In I. Deliége & J. Davidson (eds.), Music and the mind: Essays
in honour of John Sloboda (pp. 31-46). New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Neill, S. A. (2014). Music and media infused lives; An introduction. In $. A. O'Neill (series
ed. & vol. ed.), Research to practice: Vol. 6. Music and media infused lives: Music education
in a digital age (pp. 1-15). Waterloo, ON, Canada: Canadian Music Educators’ Association.
O'Neill, S. A. (2016). Youth empowerment and transformative music engagement. In G.
Spruce, C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, & P. Woodward (eds.), Oxford handbook of music educa-
tion and social justice (pp. 388-405). New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Neill, S. A. (2017). Young people's musical lives: Learning ecologies, identities, and con-
nectedness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Meill (eds.), Oxford handbook
of musical identities (pp. 79-104). New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Neill, S. A., & Bespflug, K. (2011). Musical Futures comes to Canada: Engaging students in
real-world music learning. Canadian Music Educator, 53(2), 25-27.
O'Neill, S. A., & Peluso, D. (2010). Media convergence culture: Exploring young people's
musical worlds. In Proceedings of the Media Literacy Conference (p. 50). London: Media
Literacy Conference.
O'Neill, S. A., & Senyshyn, Y. (2011). How learning theories shape our understanding of
music learners. In R. Colwell & P. Webster (eds.), MENC handbook of research on music
learning (pp. 3-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Overton, W. F. (1998). Relational-developmental theory: A psychological perspective. In
D. Gorlitz, H. J. Harloff, G. Mey, & J. Valsiner (eds.), Children, cities, and psychological
theories: Developing relationships (pp. 315-335). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Ozomon, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (1992). Philosophical foundations of education (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Radford, M. (2006). Researching classrooms: Complexity and chaos. British Educational
Research Journal, 32(2), 177-190.
Reynolds, A. M., & Beitler, N. S. (2007). Reflective practice in a middle-school instrumental
setting. Bulletin of the Council
forResearch in Music Education, 173, 55-69.
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ridley, D. S. (1991). Reflective self-awareness: A basic motivational process. Journal of
Experimental Education, 60(1) 31-48.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (2009). Future directions in youth involvement research, Social
Development, 18(2), 497-509.
Senyshyn, Y. (1999). The passionate teacher and the curriculum police: Perspectives on
modes of subjectivity and the curriculum as art. Journal of Educational Thought, 33(2),
153-173.
Senyshyn, Y., & O'Neill, S. A. (2001). Subjective experience of anxiety and musical perfor-
mance: A relational perspective. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 9(1), 42-53.
Senyshyn, Y., & O'Neill, S. A. (2011, May). Youth and the arts: Toward a responsible inter-
subjectivity in the curriculum. In S. A. O’Neill (chair), Youth artistic participatory culture
and music engagement: Implications for curricula and expansive learning. Symposium
conducted at the meeting of Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of
Education (CSSE), University of Fredericton & St. Thomas University, New Brunswick,
Canada.
186 : SUSAN A. O'NEILL

Sloboda, J. (2001). Conference keynote emotion, functionality and the everyday experience
of music: Where does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3(2), 243-253.
Stetsenko, A. (2009). Personhood: An activist project of historical becoming through
collaborative pursuits of social transformation. New Ideas in Psychology. doi:10.1016/
j.newideapsych.2009.11.008.
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the
empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173-191.
Upitis, R., Smithrim, K., & Soren, B. (1999). When teachers become musicians and
artists: Teacher transformation and professional development. Music Education Research,
1(1), 23-35.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. The development of higher al processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W.
Rieber (ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The history of the development of higher
mental functions, Vol. 4 (pp. 1-251). New York and London: Plenum Press.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). Fostering educational resilience in
inner-city schools. Children and Youth, 7, 119-140.
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International,
Paper 2. Retrieved from. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadswortho8.
html.
Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. PR, & Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on educational resil-
iency. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. in'G:
D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing
meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51-85). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wingstedt, J. (2005). Narrative music. Towards an understanding of musical narrative
functions in multimedia. (Licentiate thesis). Lulea, Sweden: Lulea University of
Technology.
Wrigley, T. (2004).School effectiveness: The problem of reductionism. British Educational
Research Journal, 30(2), 227-244.
Younker, B. A., & Hickey, M. (2007). Examining the profession through the lens of social jus-
tice: Two music educators’ stories and their stark realizations. Music Education Research,
9(2), 215-227.
 CHAPTER 10

SHRM Cem e ee mete dere ren ere eeereereneeereebeerere

INITIATING MUSIC
PROGRAMS IN NEW
CONTEXTS: IN SEARCH OF
A DEMOCRATIC MUSIC
EDUCATION

GRACA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO

At the moment when we started to write this chapter, the first decade of the twenty-first
century was about to be complete. A decade whose characteristics were profoundly
contradictory and disappointing in many senses our hopes that a better and more just
world was possible. A decade of troublesome uncertainty, but also one where, coming
from various domains of human action, a number of experiences gave us signs of a
world where inclusiveness and solidarity may not be vain words. This was the time
of Daniel Barenboim’s book Everything Is Connected, where the power of music is
described as a strong metaphor for life, urging us to think about music “in the same
way as human existence” (2008, p. 133). This was the time to witness the increased im-
portance of communities Bf practice eerie 2006;
8 2015) Ra we penis engage,

We believe that any fei dictionof music eatin goes hand in had with the
recognition that it cannot be a neutral endeavor in the face of the great challenges
that are posed to all educators in this century. Part of our disquiet is that we cannot
be indifferent to contexts of injustice, inequality, and violence, so the search for a
- democratic music education calls for a multilayered reflection for which we are all
188 GRACA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO

indispensable. In this context, we are in tune with recent developments in bringing

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

REFRAMING ADVOCACY

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

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

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

To follow on this, Bowman explicates musics values as being always

sociopolitically contextualized, and therefore always possible to be refuted, grounded
in human action and socioculturally situated. At the end of these observations,
Bowman places the musical experience in “the nexus of mind and body, of individual
and social, of action and understanding” (2005, p. 127). Finally, in his summary of the
suitability of music’s meanings and values to educational ends, he acknowledges that
“the best source of valid, reliable, and responsible advocacy arguments is the quali-
fied professional whose charge it is to deliver ‘the goods’ ” (p. 128).
Bennett Reimer, while not denying the importance of the various reasons
that have been put forward by music educators to advocate the cause of music
in schools, calls our attention to the ever lurking danger that stems from most
music educators’ unexamined belief that what we are doing “(1) does in fact de-
velop musical intelligences; (2) does in fact serve the needs of the great majority of
students ... and (3) does in fact help students gain the deepest satisfactions music
can offer” (2005, p. 140). His argument strongly dissuades proselytism in view of the
more needed critical examination of our music educational practices. Ultimately,
our successful deliverance of “the goods? in Bowman’s words, could make the need
for advocacy completely useless.
We will now critically situate our concept of reframing advocacy, first in
connection with the previous stated ideas, and second by adding another dimension.
We offer no restrictions in positioning our concept of advocacy in tune with
the various arguments that appeal to a well-rounded and balanced education where
music has its deserved place. In fact, they all contribute to configure music’s meaning
and value for its own sake and, as such, its claim to be mandatorily included in the
school curriculum. However, and as Wayne Bowman so clearly points out,itis not
music that may be facing a crisis but rather music educations In fact, what might
need to be evidenced is the link between the full strength of music in people’s lives
and music education as a means of personal empowerment to which everyone has
the right of access (see Bowman, chapter 2).
Although we are not claiming to “discover” the essential final argument, we
still would like to make a significant contribution to the advocacy issue. We want to
INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 191
Se ee ae

begin by refuting the consideration that advocacy is not a philosophical endeavor

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

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

CONSTRUCTING SUSTAINABILITY

The following two situations set the tone of our contribution for the discussion
around constructing sustainability. The first is the description of a personal musical
experience. The second brings the elements of a music education intervention in the
words of John Eliott Gardiner.
Sitting in a full concert hall in Porto, Portugal, we listen t
to a performance of the
arrangement by the German composer Hans Zender for small orchestra and tenor of
Franz Schubert’ late work the “Winterreise.” The tickets were cheap, and the audience
is varied, including many young people. Beyond the strings and wind instruments the
orchestra includes a harp, a guitar, an accordion, and a huge variety of percussion
instruments, plus two wind machines. It is supposed to be a “composed interpretation”
rather than a mere orchestration or arrangement of the Schubert piece. For about 85
minutes the audience lives an experience of intense moments, where effects, textures,
movement of the musicians, or amplification of sound transmit both physical and
psychological evocations. The magnificent voice of the tenor, Christophe Prégardien,
moves fluently from the most ethereal cantabile to an intensive drama or to spoken
singing. While the whole musical material is creative and highly imaginative, it never
loses the spirit of the Schubert work, leaving intact its profound dramatic intensity.
At the end, the audience stands for an enthusiastic applause of a ravishing musical
experience.
John Eliott Gardiner, in an interview to a Portuguese newspaper, speaks about
his most recent involvement in pedagogical projects: “Our next project is called “Take
a Bow’ and it will take place in Paris, in June, again with the London Symphony
Orchestra. It will involve string students at all levels, from the very Pegi to the
most advanced ones. We will have a concert where everybody can participate.”
This Schubert concert indicates how (classical) music is a lively, continu-
ously evolving art, capable of reaching out to a wide audience, including many’
young people.’ Gardiner’s interview shows the ever growing interest of many great
musicians in the music pedagogical domain, and in how to bring more and more
. children and young adults to engage vividly with music. We would like to suggest
that both situations convey significant elements for the construction of sustaina-
bility in a music education program. First, we will distinguish between internal and
external sustainability. Under internal sustainability we understand the construc-
tion of a number of educational principles that may guarantee the musical con-
sistency of the program and its adequacy to the social and cultural contexts where
it should be implemented. The external sustainability considers the issue of social
responsibility in the construction of a coherent network that will establish the link
between the schools, teachers, students, families, and stakeholders.
In the construction of internal sustainability of any music education pro-
gram we will consider the three reciprocal principles of educational activity
as elaborated by Peter Abbs (2003). The first, Education is existential in nature,
indicates that education cannot happen without an engaged participation of the, |
__ INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 193

"students Abbs
. parallels existence “to make ourselves visible, to declare ourselves,
to confess ourselves, to become the free and willing agents of our own actions
and understanding” (2003, p. 15). The implications for a music education pro-
gram is the acknowledgment that students’ musical biography, noting that even
the youngest children will have one, must be part of the whole musical encounter
that is to take place within the educational program. These ideas, while intimately
connected with the previous section in this chapter, also remind us of Maxine
Greene's (1995) elaboration on discovering a pedagogy, and the notion of giving
young persons the possibility to approach and construct multiple realities, starting
by naming their own worlds.
The young can be empowered to view themselves as conscious, reflective namers
and speakers if their particular standpoints are acknowledged, if interpretative
dialogues are encouraged, if interrogation is kept alive. Idiomatic understandings
are always likely, but the construction cannot but be in terms of the culture to
which the young belong or intend to belong. It becomes all the more important
that they tap the full range of human intelligence and that as part of our
pedagogy, we enable them to have a number of languages to hand and not verbal
or mathematical languages alone. Some children may find articulation through
imagery; others through body movement; still others, through musical sound.
(p. 57)
Students must be protagonists of their own learning, and the music program
should contain open doors for unknown music, moments of reflection and revi-
sion, “gaps which constantly invite, provoke, unsettle and support [their] deep self-
involvement” (Abbs, 2003, p. 15).
The second principle, Education is essentially a collaborative activity, purports
an elaboration of the idea a and therefore the
individual who is to be educated needs to be within a community. Abbs argues that
the existential educational act cannot take place in the absence of dialogue, without
the exploration of others’ conceptions in a pursuit of common understanding.
Our understanding of this principle is that musical activities must be conceived as
moments of collaboration, making sense of musical appreciation, performance, im-
provisation, and composition.
The third principle, Education is always a cultural activity which has to be con~
\tinuously deepened and extended, is intended as an expansion of the previous exis-
tential and collaborative processes, calling for a progressive initiation of the students
into the culture of a certain discipline (Abbs, 2003, p. 17).
According to this third principle education exists to set up a conversation down
the ages and across cultures, across both time and space, so that students are
challenged by other ways of understanding and, at the same time, acquire ever
new material—metaphors, models, ideas, images, narratives, facts—for shaping
and reshaping and testing again that never finished process, their own intellectual
and spiritual lives.

For a music education program, this last principle strongly evokes the need to
_ go beyond confined walls, to move back and forth across musical epochs, styles,
 194 GRAGA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO ~

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

To explore these contradictions is not an easy task, calling for a major effort and
imagination—“it may be the recovery of imagination that lessens the social paral-
ysis we see around us and restores the sense that something can be done in the name
of what is decent and humane” (Greene, 1995, p. 35).
Such a community must adopt a number of ideas as their own, which means
that all parts involved—schools, students, families, and other stakeholders—share
what may be thought of as the common good (Steer & Smith, 2015). In a music
program, and especially if it is to be implemented with populations at risk (such as
- many Brazilian NGOs’ projects developed with socioeconomically impoverished
populations), there must be the need to fight for an enlarged acceptance, of taking
the program in collective hands, caring for its continuation, being prepared to
defend it from external threats, both social and economical. While there will be
different roles to fulfill, all actors in the network should commit to the program
much in the sense of Greene's words: “democracy, we realize, means a community
that is always in the making” (Greene, 1995, p. 39).
Summarizing this section, we would affirm the complementary character of
both sides of building sustainability in a music program, namely internal and ex-
ternal. It is the way the program can sustain itself internally, through its founda- _
tional principles, that may involve the whole community in its acceptance and |
defense. |
‘1 INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 195

INITIAL AND CONTINUING

Music TEACHER EDUCATION
ARC RSCORRCO RAO CEMA ERR ea Seeenecennanehasereeecete COPE R Smee meme eneerer ere seee eee RPD ROTO HDD OED EHENE SD OU EP DE ODeCenes

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

Such thoughts confront us inevitably with the need to assume that the core of
teacher education has not been sufficiently reflexive in terms of a music education
whose pluralism and diversity may be “a direct function of the diversity and plu-
ralism of our membership, our musical practices, and their attendant curricula”
(Bowman, 2007, p. 119). In a similar line of thinking, Bruner (1996) emphasized
the role of culture in education, which could be translated into the idea that both
teachers and pupils have musical life stories, and that those experiences must be
shared in different ways so as to acknowledge a musical universe being present in
music classes in diverse social and cultural contexts.
A supposedly “neutral” approach to music education has been strongly denounced
by Sloboda (2001) in what he calls the dominant music educational paradigm during the
twentieth century. His argument was that everything has been constructed so as to serve
a significant minority who are to be taught in the understanding and performance of the
classical canon. This dominant paradigm was, unfortunately, still being practiced in the
first decade of the twenty-first century in many countries, including Brazil (Figueiredo,
20042; Penna, 2002). More recently, Benedict explores the concept of alienation when
referring to the implementation in music classrooms of Orff and Kodaly methods, away
from the free play and creativity as initially purported by its authors, and alienating
“both teacher and student from musicking” (Benedict, 2009, p. 213). She maintains that
methods may “become a form of production that serves to reproduce systems of domi-
nation as well as a very particular form of cultural capital” (p. 213).
These ideas are central in the work of the sociologist Philipp Perrenoud (2008),
in which “the reflexive paradigm” appears as the possibility of reconciling scien-
tific and practical reasoning, knowing of universal processes and knowing of prac-
tical doings, ethics, implications, and efficacy. From this perspective, teacher and
 196 GRAGA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO

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

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

EDUCATING MusIcC TEACHERS

TODAY: SETTING THE PRINCIPLES

Several authors have been proposing a number of essential components of a-con-

temporary music teacher education, capable of bringing about significant changes.
In the following we present and discuss some of those core aspects.
|INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 197

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

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

By doing so, we believe that we are being consistent with our previous theo-
retical affiliations, for example Maxine Greene and Henry Giroux, while accepting
that this view of curriculum calls for a music teacher critically engaged in the de-
velopment of a coherent, plural, and meaningful music education for the diverse
198 GRAGA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO

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

PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION THROUGH

ENGAGEMENT WITH MUSIC

Considering a growing literature that brings evidence of significant gains whenever

children and young adults participate in activities involving singing and ensemble
playing, what follows gives a brief account of two realities that, given the ideas pre-
viously discussed in this chapter, may shed light on what can be understood under
the concept of a democratic music education.

MusIc EDUCATION IN SOCIAL PROJECTS

IN BRAZIL

Today, in Brazil, social projects are generally equated with the development of a
variety of actions mostly directed to socioeconomically impoverished populations,
and taking place in different contexts. While music education in the school cur-
riculum is poorly developed, social projects are taking over a relevant function by
providing for many young people unique opportunities of participation in music |
activities.
Many of these projects are developed by NGOs that are, in this way, implicitly
assuming a good part of the responsibility to ameliorate the life conditions of so-
cially and economically excluded populations. This is, in fact, a peculiar situation |
i
INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 199

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

There is‘no doubt that such musical activities have been producing significant
gains for the involved populations (Figueiredo, 2008). However, the fact that they
are in many cases implemented by NGOs favors its discontinuity, mostly due to
limited financial means. ;
A number of issues have been raised in research concerning social projects
involving music. These include:
¢ Promoting citizenship and social inclusion, sense of belonging, and
development of group identity through music as a social practice (Kleber,
2006; Souza, 2002)
¢ Self-esteem and improvement of quality of life through the possibility
of professional engagement with music (Lima, 2003; Santos, 2005;
Souza, 2004)
« Promoting new life's perspectives through the musical experience, especially
in projects working with populations severely excluded due to race, drug
abuse, and violence (Hikiji, 2006)
¢ Valuing of the popular musical culture through shared experiences
involving teachers, students, and musicians; breaking barriers between high
art music and popular music (Braga, 1997, p. 134)

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

THE PROJECT ORQUESTRA GERAGAO

In Portugal, the creation in 2007 of the project Orquestra Geragao was inspired by the
state funded Venezuelan Youth and Children Orchestra National System, internationally
- known as El Sistema. It began with a partnership between the municipality of Amadora
200 GRACA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO

and the School of Music of the National Conservatory in Lisbon. Like the Venezuelan
Project, the Orquestra Geracdo builds its action on a perspective of social inclusion
through involvement with music, primarily directed toward children and adolescents
undergoing greater educational and social risk and vulnerability. The first nucleus of the
Orquestra Geracao appeared in October 2007 supported by the European Community
program EQUAL and the Gulbenkian Foundation, integrating children from grades 5,
6, and 7 of a secondary school in Amadora. In 2008-2009, another nucleus was created
in another deprived neighborhood, this time supported by a commercial group owning
a chain of shopping centers, and between 2009-2010 and 2014-2015, further expansions
were implemented within the Lisbon metropolitan area, as well as five in the north of
Portugal, amounting to more than 700 participants. This project has been distinguished
as an initiative integrating the 50 best practices in Europe’.
Children attend three weekly classes: general music education, choir, and ensemble
playing. Classes are taught by music specialists, among them several Venezuelan
teachers who are currently employed in Portuguese orchestras and who grew up in
El Sistema. Music classes take place in schools during allocated extracurricular time. -
There have been already a number of public presentations, either by the initial nucleus
(July 2008 at the Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon, and November 2009 in Brussels at
the European Parliament) or by the orchestras that performed in the most emblematic
concert venues in Portugal. These concerts can usually count on a highly participative
audience, mainly constituted by the children’s families and friends.
This project appears to be a paradigm of action and intervention whose char-
acteristics already were systematically investigated (Boia & Boal-Palheiros, 2016;
Veloso, 2015, 2016; Mota et al., 2016) according to the following key concepts, among
others:
¢ Recognition: the cultural domination associated with another culture, which
is perceived as alien and/or hostile to one’s own (Fraser, 1997, 2000), that
is, the relationship between the musical styles and genres practiced by the
Orquestra Geracdo versus what counts in the participants’ everyday lives as
“their” music. The fact that classical music plays a major part in the taught
repertoire called attention to the need to understand the high level of
children’s adherence to the program in view of the confrontation with their
own musical traditions.
« Inherent meanings and delineated meanings: in Lucy Green’s account
(2006), negative experiences of inherent meanings may arise “when we are
unfamiliar with the musical style, to the point that we do not understand
what is going on, and thus find the musical syntax “boring’ ”; or negative
responses to delineations may arise “when we feel that the music is not ours.”
In her view, “music celebration” occurs “when we are positively inclined
both ways” (2006, p. 103).
¢ Critical pedagogy: this refers to music pedagogical practices in terms of the
social construction of knowledge as a “product of agreement or consent
| INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 201

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

CONCLUSION

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. How can a democratic and engaged music education be defined and

strategized?
2. To what degree do convergent and divergent points of view define music
education? Can you give an example of how this might be exemplified
in socially focused projects and music education within the school
curriculum?
3. What constraints limit the implementation of nonformal music education
practices within formal school settings?
 202 GRACA MOTA AND SERGIO FIGUEIREDO

KEY SOURCES
oe 0-0 so p.elaveielele! ales) ols a elejele oiele(alecale dele (ioe: 96.0: .8)0 6)ue)876/e (98 elelaimie)ols)e)(e)4ie w\9 e1e/s 0a) a.efe 6\s,0) 09 0 9 99 oie pe #)erone: 9ibs6 exehele) His/oe\@ #/Pimsevelehe-pesieie) 51> simle)ieis

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

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

REFERENCES

Barenboim, D. (2008). Everything is connected. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Bates, V. (2016). Foreword: How can music educators address poverty and inequality?
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 15(1), 1-9. act.maydaygroup.org/arti-
cles/Bates15_1.pdf :
Benedict, C. (2009). Processes of alienation: Marx, Orff, and Kodaly. British Journal ofMusic
Education, 26(2), 213-224.
Benedict, C., Schmidt, P., Spruce, G., & Woodford, P. (eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of
social justice in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bergh, A. (2007). Id like to teach the world to sing: Music and conflict transformation.
Musicae Scientiae (Special issue 2007), 141-157.
. Bergh, A., & Sloboda, J. A. (2010). Music and arts in conflict transformation: A review. Music
e Arts in Action, 2(2), 2-17.
Boia, P. S., & Boal-Palheiros, G. (2016). Making music in Orquestra Geracdo: From disci-
pline to empowerment? In G. Boal-Palheiros (ed.), International perspectives on music
education: Proceedings of the 26th International Seminar of the ISME Commission on
Research, London 18-22 July 2016 (pp. 31-41). London: International Music Education
Research Centre (iMerc) Press.
Bowman, W. (2001). Music education and post-secondary music studies in Canada. Arts
Education Policy Review, 103(2), 9-17.
Bowman, W. (2002). Educating musically. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The
new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 63-84). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bowman, W. (2005). To what question(s) is music education advocacy the answer?
International Journal ofMusic Education, 23(2), 125-129.
: INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 203
a —

Bowman, W. (2007). Who is the “We”? Rethinking professionalism in music education.

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

Lima, M. H. (2003). Educacéo musical/educag4o popular: Projeto musica & cidadania,

uma proposta de movimento. In Anais do XI Encontro Anual da ABEM, CD Rom.
Floriandpolis: ABEM.
Mark, M. L. (2005). Why does our profession need advocacy? International Journal of Music
Education, 23(2), 95-98.
Mota, G., Baker, G., Ilari, B., O’Neill, $. and Senyshyn, Y. (2016). Social inclusion and non-
formal music learning—in the shadow of Venezuela’ El Sistema. In S. O'Neill (series ed.)
and R. Wright, B. A. Younker, & C. Beynon (vol. eds.), Research to practice: Vol. 7. 21st-
century music education: Informal learning and non-formal teaching approaches in school
and community contexts (pp. 38-54). Waterloo, ON, Canada: Canadian Music Educators’
Association.
Nettl, B. (2005). An ethnomusicological perspective. International Journal of Music
Education, 23(2), 131-133.
O’Connell, J.M., & Castelo Branco, S. (eds.) (2010). Music and conflict. Champaign: University
of Illinois Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002). “Financing
education: Investments and returns (executive summary)”. http://www.uis.unesco.org/
TEMPLATE/pdf/wei/WEI_ExecSummary_Eng.pdf [accessed June 10, 2010].
Penna, M. (2002). Professores de musica nas escolas publicas de ensino fundamental e
médio: Uma auséncia significativa. Revista da ABEM, 7, 7-19.
Peretz, I. (2005). The nature of music. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2),
103-105.
Pollard, A., & Tann, C. S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the
classroom. London: Continuum.
Reimer, B. (2005). The danger of music education advocacy. International Journal of Music
Education, 23(2), 139-142.
Santos, M. A. C. (2005). Educacao musical na escola e nos projetos comunitarios e sociais.
Revista da ABEM, 12, 31-34.
Schon, D. A. (2009). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and leaning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Emotion, functionality, and the everyday experience of music: Where
does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3(2), 243-255.
Small, C. (1998). Musicking. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
Souza, J. R. T. (2002). As “Oficinas de musica da Casa Pequeno Davi”: Uma experiéncia de
educacao musical numa organizacao nao governamental na cidade de Joao Pessoa. In
Anais do XI Encontro Anual da ABEM, CD Rom. Natal: ABEM.
Souza, J. V. (2004). Educac4o musical e praticas sociais. Revista da ABEM, 10, 7-11.
Steer, L., & Smith, K. (2015). Financing education: Opportunities for global action. https://
www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FinancingForEducation2015.pdf
[accessed November 4, 2016].
UNICEF. (2008). Education statistics: Portugal. UNICEF, Division of Policy and Practice,
Statistics and Monitoring Section. http://www.childinfo.org/files/IND_Portugal.pdf
[accessed February 20, 2012].
UNICEF. (2016). The state of the world’s children 2016: A fair chance for every child. http://
www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_SOWC_2016.pdf [accessed November —
1, 2016].
Urbain, O. (ed.) (2014). Music and conflict transformation: harmonies and dissonances in geo-
politics. London: I. B. Tauris, in association with the Toda Institute Book Series on Global _
Peace and Policy Research. ©
INITIATING MUSIC PROGRAMS IN NEW CONTEXTS 205

Veloso, A. L. (2015). This is my voice in music: Creating new life opportunities from
collective musical participation. In N. Economidou & M. Stakelum (eds.), Democracy
and inclusion on music education: Every learner counts (Vol. 4, pp. 241-256). Innsbruck,
Austria: Hebling.
Veloso, A. L. (2016). Mas alla de la Orquestra Geracao: El retrato de Manuella, una joven
que sonaba com ser clarinetista profesional. Revista Internacional de Educacién Musical,
4, 25-33.
Walker, R. (2005). A worthy function for music education. International Journal of Music
Education, 23(2), 135-138.
Welch, G. F. (2005). We are musical. International Journal ofMusic Education, 23(2), 117-120.
Wenger, E. (2006). “Communities of practice. A brief introduction.” Communities of prac-
tice. http://www.ewenger.com/theory/ [accessed November 30, 2009].
Wenger-Trayner, E. & Wenger-Traymer, B. (2015). Communities of practice. A brief in-
troduction. http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/.
[accessed November 1, 2016].
 CHAPTER 11

IMPLICATIONS OF
NEUROSCIENCES AND
BRAIN RESEARCH FOR
MUSIC TEACHING
AND LEARNING

DONALD A. HODGES AND WILFRIED GRUHN

Neuroscientific discoveries have skyrocketed in recent years. This explosion of in-

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

NEUROSCIENCES AND LEARNING

In this section, we present brief synopses of different methods used in neuroscience.

We follow this with a discussion of basic information versus practical applications
of neuroscience to learning.
IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 207

CURRENT MODALITIES USED

IN NEUROMUSICAL RESEARCH

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

indicating that this area was more responsible for higher level musical processing
than the frontal operculum or secondary auditory cortex, which were involved in
ail the tasks.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides detailed information about brain
structure (Patoine, 2005). A powerful magnet realigns hydrogen protons, and the
computer tracks the difference between this state and the return to normal align-
ment. One group of researchers used MRI to determine differences in brain struc-
ture between a brain-damaged patient who suffered from amusia (loss of musical
skills) and normal controls (Satoh et al., 2005). The amusia patient had damage in
frontal temporal areas of both hemispheres; these locations were paired with the
+
patient’s inability to discriminate pitches or to recognize melodic patterns.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (f{MRI) is a means of detecting amounts
of oxygen-rich blood in various parts of the brain (Raichle, 2000). The assumption
is that this is an indication of brain activity; fMRI provides information on both
structure and function. Menon & Levitin (2005) asked untrained listeners to listen
passively to pleasant and unpleasant music while undergoing {MRI scans. By this
means, they were able to identify pathways linking music listening to reward and
pleasure systems.
Neuroscientists use transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to temporarily dis-
rupt or excite neural transmissions as a means of mapping cortical pathways (Hallett,
2000). Researchers used TMS to demonstrate that singing activated bilateral neural
networks that were different from those for reading text aloud (Lo et al., 2003).
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allows researchers to trace white matter
pathways, by tracking the diffusion of water molecules in brain tissue (Filley, 2005).
Schmithorst and Wilke (2002) used DTI to demonstrate that there were differences
in white matter architecture between musically trained and untrained individuals
and that based on the brain regions involved, these differences were a result of cog-
nitive and motor learning during musical training. .
Network science isa relatively new approach that creates a connectivity map of the
brain during real-time processing. Using this approach, researchers demonstrated
that increased activity occurred in the default mode network (DMN) when young
- adults listened to their all-time favorite music (Wilkins et al., 2014). The DMN isa set
of interconnected regions of the brain that are activated during moments of inward-
directed consciousness (e.g., meditation, daydreaming) and that are implicated in
the processing of autobiographical memories and self-relevant emotions.
Recently, researchers have begun to explore the advantages of using more than
one approach with the same group of subjects. Kim and colleagues (2004) combined
fMRI and TMS to study the effects of learning to play a string instrument. They
found that learning a string instrument led to reorganization of sensorimotor and
temporal regions of the brain. One goal of the study was to coordinate functional
MRI data with motor output maps obtained through TMS. Accordingly, two teams
of researchers gathered data from the two approaches independently of one an-
other. Using both {MRI and TMS led to confirmation of certain data sets, as well as
information unique to each approach.
 IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 209

EXPECTATIONS FROM NEUROSCIENCE: BASIC

INFORMATION VERSUS PRACTICAL
APPLICATION
SDP ae NSS WRAL OARS ORK T ATCA SOMMER RECON TRUCE SUCDER CO ante eheAeRs ee ee ee ey

Modern societies aspire to base decisions on strong empirical evidence, As a result,

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

General Directions from Brain Research

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

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

Music and Intelligence

The word intelligence normally refers to higher functions of cognitive processing.
A person shows evidence of intelligence if she or he has broad knowledge, evaluates
situations based on rational thought, creates practical solutions for new problems,
develops innovative ideas in special domains, and recognizes causal links be-
tween facts and ideas quickly and precisely. If this observation from everyday life
is correct, then intelligence could be defined in terms of cognitive brain functions,
creative strategies, and processing speed. New connectionist models and chrono-
metric approaches have uncovered remarkable mental differences in time and effort
spent on decision-making (Fiske, 2004). These functions are not domain specific,
but refer to a general potential that is founded in genetically determined brain
structures and is influenced by environmental stimuli.
Obviously, there are qualitative differences in human cognitive behavior that
can be traced back to differences in mental abilities. Scientific research has been
concerned with the determination of the degree of heritability and environmental
influences. Advanced methods in brain research and molecular genetic studies were
successful in uncovering specific genes that contribute to individual differences
in cognitive functions. However, the effects of genetically and environmentally
influenced portions of intelligence are not due to a static gift, but rather to a dy-
namic process. Developmental studies have demonstrated that “as children ma-
ture from infancy through adolescence the magnitude of h? [heritability] increases
and c* [environmental influences] decreases” (Thompson & Plomin, 2000, p. 158).
This is because environmental effects can only arise within genetically determined
conditions. Recent research has shown that interhemispheric connections between
_ regions that integrate various executive processes form the core of general intelli-
gence (Glascher et al., 2010), and that these become more influential during matura-
tion. Therefore, it is very likely that the same genetic disposition may have different
effects under varying environmental conditions. “That is, small genetic differences
may snowball as we go through life creating environments that are correlated with
our genetic propensities” (Plomin, 2004, p. 344).
There is considerable debate whether intelligence is grounded in one general
brain capacity or encompasses many special abilities. By analyzing a collection of
intelligence tests, it was found “that mental abilities... tend to collect together
in pools that have especially close associations” (Deary, 2001, p. 11). These pools
build subgroups, such as working memory, processing speed, verbal comprehen-
sion, and perceptual organization, that relate more highly to each other than to
other abilities. |
 IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 211
eee

Although intelligence can be regarded as the total of all mental competencies,

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

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

Practical Applications of Brain-Based Teaching

and Learning
The term “neuro-pedagogy” (or neuro-didactics) was introduced with the inten-
- tion of making seminal knowledge of brain research accessible to pedagogy (Preiss,
1998). The educational aim was to adapt the curriculum and its implementation
in schools to the neurobiological state of a child rather than to adapt the child to a
given curriculum. This application is also described as “brain-based teaching and
learning,” where learning is defined in terms of neurobiological procedures.
Especially in European countries, the introduction of neuro-pedagogy
(Neurodidatik or Neuropddagogik) has become intriguing to many educators and
researchers (e.g., Herrmann, 2006); its core issues are debated from different
perspectives (Stern & Herrmann, 2009). There are many researchers in education
who argue that detailed knowledge of brain structures and neuronal processing
functions cannot be directly transferred to shaping an adequate learning environ-
ment in school settings. What has caused a tremendous change in education has been
IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 213
SS

based on groundbreaking insights from progressive education (Reformpéddagogik)

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

vocal sounds in songs (Gruhn, 2008). The origins of language and music have been
debated in light of evolutionary biology. However, both modes can be traced back to
the same neural mechanism. Therefore, language and music evolved simultaneously
in the human lineage and reflect changes in special brain areas (Patel, 2008).
Finally, two abate important aspects for education come from brain re-
search: it ofthe body andmovement
in the learning process and 4
the rc aera ERUE SS (1) Body movement and motor control build
an ecental (if not the primary) function of the brain, as Daniel Wolpert (2011)
has pointed out. If learning is seen as the development of mental representations,
it is crucial to understand that the only way to build representations in the cortex
*
is through body movement. By afferent and efferent neural pathways the body
responds to any sensorial input. Therefore, to build a mental representation of
a musical phenomenon it is fairly inefficient to present a verbal explanation in-
stead of initiating a corporeal experience that then can be associated with a term
or symbol (Hither, 2006). From language acquisition we know that even young
infants perceive characteristics of the syntax of their mother tongue through pa-
rental movements long before the children start speaking. The same is true in
music where the experience of time and space mutually interacts (Phillips-Silver
& Trainor, 2007). Another aspect of motor involvement in music perception and
cognition is obvious in expressive gestures that accompany music performance
(Godoy & Leman, 2010). This becomes effective in making gestural learning an
important part of embodied learning. Embodiment marks a new trend regarding
the corporeal dimension of music learning by focusing on the interaction of
the body and mind and determining its neural conditions (Kronland-Martinet
et al., 2016).
(2) Emotion and motivation build the most powerful stimulation for learning.
Emotionally arousing stimuli are more memorable than input from neutral material
(Nielson & Lorber, 2009). Moreover, an unexpectedly efficient experience initiates
a powerful self-rewarding mechanism by which the nucleus accumbens produces
neuropeptides that are disseminated to the ventral striatum and frontal cortex and
cause an opioid effect that makes us feel good (Breiter et al., 1997). This brain-specific,
‘naturally produced, self-rewarding system is active during positive experiences.
This was demonstrated when listening to pleasant music led to increased levels
of dopamine (Menon & Levitin, 2005). Therefore, long-term, effective learning is
deeply connected with emotionally arousing, positive experiences.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF NEUROSCIENCE

TO Music TEACHING AND LEARNING

From a general discussion of neuroscience and learning, we now turn to specific

relationships between neuroscience and music learning. We will discuss the effects
;
|
_ IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH
_ 215

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

THE EFFECTS OF Music LEARNING

ON BRAIN STRUCTURE
CORR ACen ole die Ome Us ae Me eh RRA Kener es Cease Medeemeesererieeeeceneat

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

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

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC LEARNING

ON BRAIN FUNCTION

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

BRAIN MATURATION AND SENSITIVE

PERIODS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
Music LEARNING

In infancy and early childhood the brain maturation process is distinguished by

periods of intense neuronal development that are sensitive to a particular stim-
ulation within a certain time window. Fetal and neonatal brain development are
characterized by phases of extensive neuronal growth (Gos et al., 2008). For lan-
guage acquisition, it is crucial to differentiate speech sounds. In the first few months
of life infants are able to perceive differences in phonetic contrasts even between
Bixsscarions OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 217
eee
.

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

NEUROSCIENCES AND MUSICAL

PERFORMANCE

Music-making is intensely physical, and several brain systems operate together

to facilitate musical performance: the sensorimotor cortex receives incoming sen-
sory input and controls voluntary muscle output; the basal ganglia coordinate large
muscle groups; and the cerebellum regulates intricate muscle movements and stores
learned patterns (Altenmiiller, Wiesendanger, & Kesselring, 2006). With intense
musical training over time, motor maps and networks are redrawn and become
more efficient (Doidge, 2007).
There are limitations on brain imaging technologies during live performances,
but a few studies have been conducted on the following groups of musicians:
+ Pianists. Long-term training increases representation in the motor cortex
of areas that control the fingers (Meister et al., 2005). Piano performances
activated many motor and auditory areas in both hemispheres (Parsons
et al., 2005). Imagined and real piano performances activated the brain
similarly (Pascual-Leone et al., 1995).
 218 DONALD A. HODGES AND WILFRIED GRUHN

¢ Violinists. Results of studies with violinists were very similar to those with
pianists (Elbert et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2004; Kristeva et al., 2003; Langheim
et al., 2002; Nirkko et al., 2000). 3
« Singers. Auditory cortices, motor cortex, and frontal operculum were
activated during singing (Brown et al., 2004).
¢ Conductors. By training and experience, conductors are able to access
auditory and visual information in multisensory zones-more efficiently than
controls (Hodges, Hairston, & Burdette, 2005).
¢ Guitarists. When eight pairs of guitarists performed together, their
EEG rhythms were entrained, indicating synchronous cortical activity
(Lindenberger et al., 2009). :

As indicated, motor systems adapt and reorganize with repeated experience.

Although Bangert & Altenmiiller (2003) found that auditory and motor areas
began to change within 20 minutes of beginning piano instruction, it takes approx-
imately 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over a period of at least 10 years to reach
a high level of musicianship (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-R6mer, 1993). Changes in —
the brain are variable depending on the stage of development. For example, when
pianists learned a complex finger-tapping task, activation increased in the motor
cortex throughout learning, but decreased in the cerebellum (Hund-Georgiadis &
von Cramon, 1999). Similarly, Jancke, Shah, and Peters (2000) demonstrated that
primary and secondary motor areas were activated in professional pianists to much
less a degree than control subjects on one- and two-handed tapping tasks. The results
of both experiments can be explained by recognizing that long-term training leads to
greater efficiency; once a task is learned, fewer neural resources are required.
-

IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC EDUCATION

. Neuromusical research cannot answer the question of what and why to teach.
However, insights from brain research may affect how to teach. For this, further
long-term studies on the persistence of the observed structural and functional
brain changes are needed, namely in music perception and cognition, but also
with regard to complex motor activities and the refinement of motor coordination.
Furthermore, the neural mechanisms of audio-vocal learning in humans call for
a better understanding of the interaction between motor and aural stimulation.
In this respect, the function of mirror neurons—neurons that fire when a person
observes another persons behavior—may be involved in audio-vocal matching
in song (pitch matching) and speech (phonetic sound matching) and should be
investigated more intensively. The mirror function may be relevant to both audio-
vocal and visuo-manual processes (Brown et al., 2004). However, the audio-vocal
loop (which refers to the neural connection between the auditory and motor brain |
IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 219
eeee

areas) strongly accounts for the process of audio-vocal matching (Pfordresher,

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

REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. How important is an understanding of neuromusical functions for music

educators?
2. What are the most important findings that neuroscientists have to offer
music educators?
3. Have neuroscientists discovered enough about music processing in
the brain that practitioners can benefit from this knowledge in music
classrooms and rehearsals?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying neuromusical
findings to music pedagogy?
5. Neuroscientists stress the importance of body movement, emotion, and
motivation to learning. What observations in music classrooms and
rehearsals support this notion?
220 DONALD A. HODGES AND WILFRIED GRUHN

KEY SOURCES
Deemer meee ner rene renee HHH eH eH EEE EH E HPO SHOE OH OOOO DEEHS ERED OE ESOS EEE DEH E HEROD HEE HEHE O ES EH EDO F ESO OEPE EH HORS ERED HOES EE

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

WEBSITES

PBS. The Secret Life of the Brain: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/index.html.

National Geographic. The Brain: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-
human-body/human-body/brain-article/.
Sylvius Interactive Brain Anatomy Dictionary: http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/
0073123870/student_viewo/sylvius_interactive_brain_anatomy_dictionary.html

REFERENCES

Albert, N., Robertson, E., & Miall, R. (2009). The resting human brain and motor learning.
Current Biology, 19(12), 1023-1027.
Altenmiiller, E., Gruhn, W., Parlitz, D., & Liebert, G. (2000). The impact of music education
on brain networks: Evidence from EEG-studies. International Journal of Music Education,
35, 4753.
Altenmiiller, E., Wiesendanger, M., & Kesselring, J. (2006). Music, motor control, and the
brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, M. (1992). Intelligence and development. A cognitive theory. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Andreassi, J. (2007). Psychophysiology: Human behavior and physiological response (sth ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arnadottis, G. (1990). The brain and behavior. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.
Bangert, M., & Altenmiiller, E. (2003). Mapping perception to action in piano practice: A lon-
gitudinal DC-EEG study. BMC Neuroscience, 4. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.
com/1471-2202/4/26 [accessed August 27, 2008]. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-4-26.
IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 221
ca

Bangert, M., Peschel, T., Schlaug, G., Rotte, M., Drescher, D., Hinrichs, H., Heinze, H.J., &
Altenmiiller, E. (2006). Shared networks for auditory and motor processing in profes-
sional pianists: Evidence from fMRI conjunction. Neurolmage, 30, 917-926.
Bangert, M., & Schlaug, G. (2006). Specialization of the specialized in features of external
human brain morphology. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 1832-1834.
Bengtsson, S., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forssberg, H., & Ullen, F. (2005). Extensive
piano practicing has regionally specific effects on white matter development. Nature
Neuroscience, 8(9), 1148-1150.
Bermudez, J.,-& Zatorre, R. (2005). Differences in gray matter between musicians and
nonmusicans. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 395-399.
Brainard, M., & Doupe, A. (2002). What songbirds teach us about learning. Nature, 417(6886).
Breiter, H., Gollub, R., Weisskoff, R., & Kennedy, D. (1997). Acute effects of cocaine on
human brain activity and emotion. Neuron, 19(3), 591-611.
Brown, S., Martinez, M., Hodges, D., Fox, P., & Parsons, L. (2004). The song system of the
human brain. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 363-375.
Bruer, J. (1999). The myth of the first three years. A new understanding of brain development
and lifelong learning. New York: The Free Press.
Carey, J. (2008). Brain facts. Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience.
Cohen, H., & Segalowitz, N. (1990). Cerebral hemispheric involvement in the acquisition of
new phonetic categories. Brain and Language, 38(3), 398-409.
Deary, I. (2001). Intelligence. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, D., Dooley, K., Henthorn, T., & Head, B. (2009). Absolute pitch among students in
an American music conservatory: Association with tone language fluency. Journal of the
Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 125(4), 2398-2403.
Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. New York: Penguin.
Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Wienbruch, C., Rockstrub, B., and Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical
representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science, 270(5234), 305-307.
Eliot, L. (1999). What’ going on in there? How the brain and mind develop in the first fiveyears
of life. New York: Bantam Books.
Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Rémer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Filley, C. (2005). White matter and behavioral neurology. In J. Ulmer, L. Parsons, M. Moseley,
& J. Gabrieli (eds.), White matter in cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York
Academic of Sciences, 1064, 162-183. .
Fiske, H. (2004). Connectionist models of musical thinking, vol. 112. Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen.
Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Norton, A., & Schlaug, G. (2008). Practicing a musical instrument
in childhood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning. PLoS
ONE 3(10): €3566. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.o003566.
Gaser, C., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Gray matter differences between musicians and nonmusicians.
Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 999, 514-517.
Glascher, J., Rudrauf, D., Colom, R., Paul, L. K., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Adolphs, R. (2010).
Distributed neural system for general intelligence revealed by lesion mapping. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 107(10), 4705-4709.
Goldy, R., & Leman, M. (2010). Musical gestures: Sound, movement, and meaning.
New York: Routledge.
Gos, T., Bock, J., Poeggel, G., & Braun, A. (2008). Stress-induced synaptic changes in the
rat anterior cingulate cortex are dependent on endocrine developmental time window.
Synapse, 62(3), 229-232.
 222 DONALD A. HODGES AND WILFRIED GRUHN

Gruhn, W. (2008). Who can speak can sing. Paper presented at the International ISME
Research Seminar, Porto, Portugal (July 13-18).
Gruhn, W,, Litt, E, Scherer, A., Schumacher, T., Wei&, E., & Gebhardt, C. (2006). Suppressing
reflexive behaviour: Saccadic eye movements in musicians and nonmusicians. Musicae
Scientiae, 10(1), 19-32.
Gruhn, W., & Rauscher, FE. (eds.) (2008). Neurosciences in music pedagogy. New York: Nova
Science Publishers.
Gur, R., & Gur, R. (1994). Methods for the study of brain-behavior relationships. In A.
Frazer, P. Malinoff, & A. Winokur (eds.), Biological bases of brain function and disease (pp.
261-280). New York: Raven Press.
Haier, R., Jung, R., Yeo, R., Head, K., & Alkire,M. (2004). Structural brain variation and ge-
neral intelligence. Neuroimage, 23(1), 425-433.
Hallett, M. (2000). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the human brain. Nature, 406,
147-150.
Herrmann, UV. (ed.) (2006). Neurodidaktik. prude und Vorschlage fiir gehirngerechtes
Lehren und Lernen. Weinheim: Beltz.
Hodges, D., Hairston, W., & Burdette, J. (2005). Aspects of multisensory perception: The
integration of visual and auditory information in musical experiences. In G. Avanzini, L.
Lopez, S. Koelsch, & M. Majno (eds.), The neurosciences and music II (pp. 175-185). Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060.
Hund-Georgiadis, M., & von Cramon, D. (1999). Motor-learning-related changes in
piano players and nonmusicians revealed by functional magnetic-resonance signals.
Experimental Brain Research, 125(4), 417-425.
Hutchinson, S., Lee, L., Gaab, N., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Cerebellar volume of musicians.
Cerebral Cortex, 13(9), 943-949.
Hither, G. (2006). Die Macht der inneren Bilder. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Huttenlocher, P. (1994). Synaptogenesis, synapse elimination, and neural plasticity in
human cerebral cortex. In C. Nelson (ed.), Threats to optimal development. The Minnesota
Symposia on child development (vol. 27, pp. 35-54). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A., & Schlaug, G. (2009).
Musical training shapes structural brain development. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10),
3019-3025.
Itoh, K., Suwazono, S., Arao, H., Miyazaki, K., & Nakada, T. (2005). Electrophysiological
correlates of absolute pitch and relative pitch. Cerebral Cortex, 15(6), 760-769.
" Jancke, L., Shah, N., & Peters, M. (2000). Cortical activations in primary and secondary
motor areas for complex bimanual movements in professional pianists. Cognitive Brain
Research, 10(3), 177-183.
Kim, D., Shin, M., Lee, K., Chu, K., Woo, S., Kim, Y., Song, E., Lee, J., Park, S., & Roh, J.
(2004). Musical training-induced functional reorganization of the adult brain: Functional
magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation study on amateur
string players. Human Brain Mapping, 23(4), 188-199.
Kristeva, R., Chakarova, V., Schulte-Monting, J., & Spreer, J. (2003). Activation of cortical
areas in music execution and imagining: A high-resolution EEG study. Neuroimage, 20(3),
1872-1883.
Kronland-Martinet, R., Aramaki, M., & Ystad, S. (eds.). (2016). Music, mind, and embodi-
ment. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kuhl, P., & Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 31, 511-534.
 IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCES AND BRAIN RESEARCH 223
= SS Ee ree

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

Phillips-Silver, J., & Trainor, L. (2007). Hearing what the body feels: Auditory encoding of
rhythmic movement. Cognition, 105(3), 533-546.
Plomin, R. (2004). Genetics and developmental psychology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3),
341-352.
Preiss, G. (ed.). (1998). Neurodidaktik. Theoretische und praktische Beitrdge.
Herbolzheim: Centaurus.
Raichle, M. (2000). A brief history of human functional brain mapping. In A. Toga & J.
Mazziotta (eds.), Brain mapping: ‘The systems (pp. 33-75). San Diego: Academic Press.
Satoh, M., Takeda, K., Murakami, Y., Onouchi, K., Inoue, K., & Kuzuhara, S. (2005). A case
of amusia caused by the infarction of anterior portion of bilateral temporal lobes. Cortex,
41(1), 77-83.
Schlaug, G., Forgeard, M., Zhu, L., Norton, A., Norton, A., & Winner, E. (2009). Training-
induced neuroplasticity in young children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1169, 205-208.
Schmithorst, V., & Wilke, M. (2002). Differences in white matter architecture between
musicians and nonmusicians: A diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuroscience Letters,
321(1—-2), 57-60. ,
Schulz, M., Ross, B., & Pantev, C. (2003). Evidence for training-induced crossmodal reor-
ganization of cortical functions in trumpet players. NeuroReport, 14(1), 157-161.
Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2006). Native-language sensitivities: Evolution in the first year of life.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6), 239-241.
Sergeant, D. (1969). Experimental investigation of absolute pitch. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 17, 135-143.
Spitzer, M. (2008). Selbsthestimmen: Gehirnforschung und die Frage: Was sollen wir tun?
Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Steele, C., Bailey, J., Zatorre, R., & Penhune, V. (2013). Early musical training and white-
matter plasticity in the corpus callosum: Evidence for a sensitive period. Journal of
Neuroscience, 33(3), 1282-1290.
Stern, E. (2005). Pedagogy meets neuroscience. Science, 310(5749), 745.
Stern, E., Grabner, R., & Schumacher, R. (2005). Lehr-Lern- Forschung und Neurowissenschafte
n: Erwartungen, Befunde und Forschungsperspektiven (Vol. 13). Berlin: Bundesministerium
fiir Bildung und Forschung.
Stern, E., & Herrmann, U. (2009). Frischer Wind im Klassenzimmer. Gehirn und Geist,
2009(6), 60-65.
Thompson, L., & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in
intelligence. In K. Heller, F Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (eds.), International
Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 157-164). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wilkins, R., Hodges, D., Laurienti, P., Steen, M., & Burdette, J. (2014). Network science
and the effects of music preference on functional brain connectivity: From Beethoven to
Eminem. Nature Scientific Reports, 4, 6130. doi: 10.1038/srepo6130.
Wolpert, D. (2011). The real reason for brains. TED Talk: TEDglobal. https://www.ted.com/
talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains?language=en
Wu, C., Kirk, I., Hamm, J., & Lim, V. (2008). The neural networks involved in pitch labelling
of absolute pitch musicians. Neuroreport, 19(8), 851-854.
Zull, J. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the
biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
 CRIM KCrME
REFLECTIONS AND
POnPORE AG LON

Part Editor
GARY E. MCPHERSON
AND GRAHAM F. WELCH
 CHAPTER 12

| COMMENTARY:
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS
AND FUTURE ACTION

GARY E. MCPHERSON AND

GRAHAM F. WELCH

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

this part of the volume could be organized, our reading suggests that each chapter
relates to how the discipline of music education can achieve even greater political,
theoretical, and professional strength.
The contributions of Harold F. Abeles (chapter 13), Paul Woodford (chapter 37),
and Robert A. Cutietta (chapter 17) reinforce the imperatives of working toward
greater political strength. Learning how to speak to others outside the profession
in ways that they will understand is key to elevating the status of music in schools
and communities. These three commentaries are each based on a broad acceptance
of the importance of music learning in all people's lives and throughout the life
span. But as Abeles suggests, there is an imperative to vote with our feet and exert
pressure on policymakers because the greater the number of appropriately knowl-
edgeable music educators there are in schools, the more likely that music education
will be able to benefit children.
Beyond the rhetoric of the eloquent statements we see in curriculum documents
about the importance of music (and the arts) in children’s education is the current
reality that much of what is written in policy statements is often not evident in actual
practice. In this regard, Woodford reminds us that much philosophy and scholarly
work has been shaped by politics and past and current social realities, with the con-
sequence that it may carry meanings that were unintended or under-appreciated.
Turning our attention to the profession and its problems, according to Woodford,
will help “shake the still strongly held conviction among some academics and many
practicing teachers that music is ‘just music.”
Despite the enormous advances and expansion of music in schools over the
past 50 or more years, Cutietta reminds us that “we still know little about what
learning music does for the individual or society.’ He recommends that we step back
and examine what music education as a discipline has achieved over the past cen-
tury so that we can understand more clearly the path ahead and the challenges that
have and will continue to be faced by our profession. For Cutietta, understanding
what did and did not work, what limitations stifled our work, and what potentials
were realized or alternatively missed is an important means for helping understand
where we are now, and our attempts to define what we wish to become in the future.
Leading on from these discussions is Sarah Hennessy’s commentary
(chapter 20) about the state of music education in the mandated primary/el-
ementary years of schooling. For Hennessy, too much energy has been devoted
to justifying what we do and wrestling with the issues of who is best placed to
teach music in primary schools. According to Hennessy, we need to be careful that
our advocacy efforts do not deflect our attention from learning even more about
what and how children learn, and how those who teach music can develop better
practices. One of Hennessy’s key points is that in an environment of economic
downturn and serious questioning more generally about the role and purpose of
education, there is the need for music educators to find time to focus in more
sustained ways on developing understandings of which particular pedagogies are
most effective for various aspects of music education, and what exactly we mean
by musical development.
COMMENTARY: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE ACTION 229
aS he a

The key message in the commentaries of Wilfried Gruhn (chapter 19),

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

practices. This is important because he argues that music education is encased in

a “closed-loop” system; we tend to teach how we were taught, and opportunities
for transformative change occur rarely within teacher education programs. Finding
ways of breaking this cycle is a key to developing more effective music educators
who will be able to question past practices and be in tune with current and future
realities.
Rena B. Upitis (chapter 35) reminds us also that we are surrounded by change
and that our planet is undergoing human-induced changes at an unprecedented
rate. In such an environment the learning that can occur through music and more
generally through the arts “can help us find new ways of being, and new levels of
mindfulness,’ for when we “give students time to play and learn from one another, in
both formal and informal ways, and time to create, to perform, to argue, to wonder,
to appreciate—then we also given them ways to question the ubiquitous and to be-
come aware of the impact of their daily choices.”
Based on all of the above, there is a need to develop a mindset “that attends
to and promotes our commitments” to what Liora Bresler (chapter 15) refers to as
the entrepreneurial characteristics of university faculty and musicians that can help
us advance our mission of research, teaching and service. In a commentary based
on a similar perspective, Richard Colwell (chapter 16) stresses the significance of
pride, which he believes will be achieved professionally when we become “involved
independently and with others in challenging and scholarly work that enhances
teaching and learning of quality music.” For Colwell, the notion of music education
as a specialized craft rather than a profession is a means of focusing our thinking
on the ‘big picture,’ and the need for more self-criticism and professional augmen-
tation. Based on Sternberg’s definition of “wisdom, Colwell proposes that aug-
mentation of this type is based on thinking reflectively, thinking dialogically, and
thinking dialectically. “Reflective thinking is thinking limited to awareness of one’s
own thoughts and beliefs, an opportunity to establish one’s own values. To take into
account different frames of reference, various perspectives, multiple points of view,
one needs dialogical thinking. The ability to integrate different points of view is di-
alectical thinking. Elevating the conversation between colleagues, between teacher
- and student, and between parent and others who believe music education is valu-
able, even essential, seems necessary for one to be proud of music education.”
Liane Hentschke (chapter 21) outlines developments over the past decade in
the International Society for Music Education that have defined the need for a more
systematic understanding of what is happening in music education globally. She
stresses that establishing a system for collecting and collating information globally
would help provide theoretical strength for the profession by enabling us to un-
derstand more precisely which organizations serve music education practice and
research in each region and how they can be connected (or at least made aware of |
each other's work), plus how these connections can be formalized in ways that would _
allow for more concerted efforts to influence policy-makers in terms of advocacy, |
music education practice, policies for music education, and sources of funding (both
private and governmental). ‘This view runs parallel to the commentary by Estelle
 COMMENTARY: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE ACTION 231
a aa a ae

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

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

CHAPTER 13
ie ee ee ee eee ee ee er Pee eee ee eee ee eee eee eee ee ee

POLITICS, POLICY, AND

MUSIC EDUCATION

HAROLD F,. ABELES

In general educational contexts, democracy is often used to describe students’ role

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

this end, as evidenced by the national standards movement and federal policies such
as the No Child Left Behind Act. These federal initiatives are leading schools in the
United States toward common educational experiences that seemingly reflect the —
“country’s values” rather than local community values. In culturally heterogeneous
democracies, like the United States, a consensus on what future generations should
know and be able to do as a result of schooling is likely to be difficult to reach.
In totalitarian regimes, such.as the Soviet Union in the early twentieth century,
a monistic educational policy existed. In such totalitarian regimes there is a close re-
lationship between the goals of the state and the purposes of education. During the
initial period of communism in the Soviet Union, the state had three goals for ed-
ucation: developing literacy, developing an allegiance to socially productive labor,
and undermining the values, traditions, and way of life of czarist Russia. In such
regimes there is one school curriculum designed to ensure that education serves
the state. Schwadron (1967) reported that during this period, Soviet music teachers
were expected to exclude Russian music from certain periods that were viewed as
politically unacceptable.
While in the early twentieth century the government of the Soviet Union
wielded almost total control of the curriculum for political purposes, the relation-
ship between politics, policy, and education is also evident in democracies, particu-
larly when a society’s values are challenged. Economic challenges frequently prompt
discussions about education. When there are imbalances between imports and
exports, high unemployment, and declining industrial productivity, discussions
often follow about the preparation of a country’s workforce. In the early 1980s
the federal government perceived that the United States’ educational system was
failing to meet the national need for a competitive workforce. As a consequence,
President Ronald Reagan appointed the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, which in April 1983 produced the report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative
for Educational Reform. The report linked aspects of the U.S. educational system,
such as an increase in the number of electives (e.g. culinary and driver’s educa-
tion) at the secondary level to poor performances by U.S. students. The report also
identified the subjects that the report’s writers considered most important to the
‘ proper development of students—English, mathematics, science, social studies,
and computer science—and titled them the “five new basics.’ The report paid little
attention to the arts, as the commission did not see the arts as part of the solution to
the primarily economic challenges identified (National Commission on Excellence
in Education, 1983).
As a consequence of A Nation at Risk, there was increased focus in the United
States on developing measurable standards and on standardized testing, particu-
larly in the subject areas that were emphasized by the report. The Music Educators
National Conference urged school districts to develop comprehensive school music
programs and emphasized the guidelines developed by the College Board (1983),
which included the arts as part of the expectations for prospective college students.
With a perceived close link between education and countries’ economies, poli-
tics affect educational policies in many democracies. In England, from the late 1990s
 POLITICS, POLICY, AND MUSIC EDUCATION 235
[ee

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

While music educators should not necessarily be one-dimensional in their

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

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

REFERENCES

Apuzzo, M. (2009). Teachers benefit from job saving stimulus spending. http://www.boston.
com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/10/13/teachers_benefit_from_job_saving_stim-
ulus_spending/ [accessed April 10, 2010].
College Board. (1983). Academic preparation for college: What students need to know and be
able to do. New York: College Board.
Conservative Party. (2010). Culture, media and sport. http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/
Where_we_stand/Culture_Media_and_Sport.aspx [accessed April 20, 2010].
DeLorenzo, L. (2003). Teaching music as democratic practice. Music Educators Journal,
90(2), 35-40.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Labour Party. (2010). Culture, heritage and the arts. http://www.labour.org.uk/policies/
culture-and-arts [accessed April 20, 2010].
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative
for educational reform. http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html [accessed April
4, 2010].
Obama/Biden Campaign (2008). Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Champions for arts and cul-
ture. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Arts.pdf
[accessed August 15, 2008].
Schwadron, A. A. (1967). Music in Soviet education. Music Educators Journal, 53(8), 86-93.
 CHAPTER14

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

NICK BEACH

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

controlled and directed by someone we call a “teacher” There is a huge variety of

practice in this area, of course: from those who teach individuals through to those
working with larger groups and from teachers who have a primary focus on tech-
nical development to those who encourage a broader understanding of what it is to
be musical. All of these have their place and are responsible for enriching the lives
of countless children and enhancing musical culture through the development of
countless gifted performers.
Sarah’s instrumental learning experience, and that of increasing numbersof
young people like her, doesn't fit these models. She is clearly learning an instru-
ment, but her learning is not directed by a teacher (if by teacher we mean an adult
in charge). This might lead us to place her music-making in a different box and give
it a different label, suggesting that it is somehow separate from the sort of instru-
mental learning we support as instrumental teachers. We might consider the gaps in
her learning and how we might be able to fill these: if she had a better understanding
of form she would know that the missing section was a middle eight, and if she had
better aural skills she would be able to transcribe the missing chords for herself. We
might even say that learning in these areas is essential to support her development
as an independent musician. But actually Sarah is in charge of this learning process,
not us, so perhaps we need to find ways of respecting and supporting that owner-
ship rather than imposing our own.
Teachers of musical instruments have historically taken a “jam tomorrow”
approach to learning an instrument. We talk of “developing a secure technical foun-
dation” and “not getting into bad habits”; we worry about not playing particular
pieces until children are “ready” and take a linear approach where each stage of
technical development must be perfected before the next can be tackled. Thus chil-
dren are taken on a journey of development on the basis that one day this will all
prove to be worthwhile and the world of music-making will be opened up to them.
But children live in the present and want those musical rewards now. Getting all
that technique drilled in is a tough slog, and many don't stay the course. As a school
principal summarized his experience of instrumental teaching to me: “Ten pupils
learning instruments at the start of the year, two by the end—what’s the point of
- that?” This is an extreme case, but overall dropout rates for instrumental lessons are
extremely high, especially when we consider how keen children and young people
are to make music. According to a Youth Music survey in the United Kingdom, 91%
of children and young people aged 7-19 like listening to music, 48% of children and
young people aged 7-19 believe they are musical, and 39% of the 7-19 age group
engage in musical activity.’ There is no shortage of enthusiasm among children and
young people for getting involved with music.
A feature of Sarah's learning is that she doesn’t have long-term goals in mind—
she is only focused on the forthcoming concert and is intent on gathering around
her the resources she needs to succeed in that context. Many of those resources
are available to her on the internet, and when she can’t find what she needs there
she considers the skills of the people she knows and decides who would be the
 INSTRUMENTAL TEACHERS AND THEIR STUDENTS 239
SS ee SS Ee ee ee een

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

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

ee i ee ec eC a rc rc

1. Youth Music Research: http://www.youthmusic.org.uk/news/youth_music_announces_

2006_omnibus_survey_findings.html
 CHAPTER 15

UNIVERSITY
PROFESSORS AND THE
ENTREPRENEURIAL
SPIRIT
LIORA BRESLER

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

ACADEMIC CONTEXT: REALITIES,

PRESSURES, AND POSSIBILITIES

The university as we know it is changing. With shrinking state budgets and uncer-
‘tain returns on endowments, the ever-present expectations of faculty to contribute
 242 LIORA BRESLER

to the economics of the university is intensified. In addition to increasing research

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

ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACROSS
DOMAINS: ANIMATION, EXPERIENTIAL
LEARNING, AND BORDER CROSSING

A core aspect of all areas of entrepreneurship, including academic entrepreneurship

(AE) involves a vision that goes beyond conventional knowledge and practices. To
UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT 243
a a a een

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

A key part of experiential learning is learning from failure. The understanding

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

Entrepreneurs identify a need, conceive of a solution, and carry a project to fruition.

So can we. Our arena is the university, but it could well expand beyond. Our tools
are research, teaching, and service. Our success will be measured by how we affect
others’ growth, intellectually, socially, and educationally.
Palmer’s (1998) claim that “we teach who we are” makes a case that teachers’
inner landscapes are central to what they do. While this is often true for musicians
 UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT
a 245
—“‘“(‘(‘“(‘“( <(

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SSO SHOES Oem ODE seer Eee OEE EEE EEE HOSE ODE ese DeEeeeseseere

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

REFERENCES

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

Miller, N., & Boud, D. (1996). Animating learning from experience. In D. Boud & N. Miller
(eds.), Working with experience: Animating learning (pp. 3-13). London: Routledge.
Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American
research university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’ life. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead.
Petroski, H. (1992). To engineer is human: The role of failure in successful design.
New York: Vintage Books.
Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2007). Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards failures: An experi-
ential learning approach. Paper presented at Babson College Entrepreneurship Research
“ Conference. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1064982 [accessed January 25, 2008].
Popper, K. (1963/2004). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
New York: Basic Books.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1911/1936). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepre-
neurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning about failure: Bankruptcy, firm age and the
resource-based view. Organizational Science, 14(5), 497-509.
 CHAPTER
16

SPOOR Oe ae m eee deen erner eee e meee ree nereneeeeroren

PRIDE AND
PROFESSIONALISM IN
MUSIC EDUCATION

RICHARD COLWELL

Pride in one’s profession is occasioned by multiple factors. One can be “profes-

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

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

provement that I’m discussing when I should be using “music,” but readers are, un-
fortunately, more familiar with practices in education.) The American Educational
}
Research Journal provides the date of receipt of each article and the date the “revi- |

sion” was received—often 9-12 months later, which indicates how much the writer

|
PRIDE AND PROFESSIONALISM IN MUSIC EDUCATION
e a ee 249
ee,

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

Ina follow-up article (Woodford, 2009), he built on his argument (not opinion)
by pointing out the role of the music industry in shaping teaching and learning
in Canada, as in the United States. The response came, not from Canadian music
educators, but from the executive director of the Coalition of Music Education in
Canada, a group similar to NAMM, which is made up of industry and other advo-
cacy groups (51, (3), 2010).
Koza and Woodford question the validity of voluntary national standards,
another topic where opinion and argumentation vie. The 1994 standards form a
political document rather than one identifying power standards that all students
must master, and thus, it is understandable that when the same group of writers
reassembled a decade or so later, they concurred that, as a political document in the
standards war, the 1994 document did not need to change. It would be unfortunate
if these standards are seen as relating to any high-stakes assessment. The original
intent of NAEP was to determine what students at four different age levels knew and
could do in music in order that “realistic” curricula could be developed—a need
that continues today. Unfortunately, the purpose of the 1997 NAEP changed to one
of determining how well students could perform on these standards, with little or
no data whether the standards were appropriate for fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-
grade students given the present instructional resources. The 1971 NAEP provided
evidence of our overreach at that time, with a success rate of around 11%.
The professional literature on standards and assessment consists primarily
of opinions and no argumentation. Along with the standards came evaluation
categories of performing, creating, and responding, an unfortunate simplification
when philosophers such as Bennett Reimer have suggested that students should
perceive, discriminate, feel, and evaluate works of art, to understand them as objects
and events with distinctive cognitive characteristics, to be aware of the historical,
social, culture, political, and religious contexts, and to know of, how, about, why,
and more. Most philosophies stress understanding, along with perceiving, creating,
and evaluating, a philosophical stance related to teaching and to scholarship.
Integrating music instruction with instruction in any and all other subjects is
a current topic that seems to be accepted without question as being “good.” Yet
“John Goodlad (1992, p. 206), argued that “the arts have been savaged in programs
seeking, for example, to integrate them with social studies.” Has the need for inte-
gration arisen because colleges of education no longer require their students to take
two semesters of visual arts and two semesters of music, with the consequences
that those elementary education students are thus not competent to use the arts in
making their instruction more authentic?
Yes, music education has changed little from its beginning in the twentieth cen-
tury; it needs self-criticism and professional argumentation for music educators to
take pride in its “big picture” Argumentation could be based on Sternberg’s defi-
nition of wisdom as consisting of thinking reflectively, thinking dialogically, and
thinking dialectically. Reflective thinking is thinking limited to awareness of one’s
own thoughts and beliefs, an opportunity to establish one’s own values. To take into
account different frames of reference, various perspectives, multiple points of view,
PRIDE AND PROFESSIONALISM IN MUSIC EDUCATION
SS SEE EE ee a 251
ee ee

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

; REFERENCES
Oe ee er ee ee ee ee ee nesite eee eee eee eee eeee eee eee ee ee ee ee ey

_ Arostegui, J. (2004). The social context of music education. Champaign: University of Illinois.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269991114_The_social_context_of_music_
education.
Colwell, R. (2005). “Critical friends” article. Bulletin of the council for research in music edu-
cation, 166, 75-91.
Duncan, A. (2010). The well-rounded curriculum, prepared remarks for the arts education
partnership national forum, April 9.
Goodlad, J. (1992). NSSE arts education and knowing yearbook. In B. Reimer & R. Smith (eds.
pp. 192-212). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, P. (2009). Article in Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 3-8.
Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Koza, J. (2002a). Corporate profit at equity’s expense: Codified standards and high-stakes
assessment in music teacher preparation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 152, 1-16.
Koza, J. (2002b). A realm without angels: MENC’s partnerships with Disney and other major
corporations. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 72-79.
Koza, J. (2006). Save the music? Toward culturally relevant, joyful, and sustainable school
music. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 14(1), 23-38.
Reimer, B. (1992). What knowledge is of most worth in the arts? In B. Reimer, & R. Smith
(eds.), The arts, education, and aesthetic knowing. 91st Yearbook ofthe National Society for
the study of education, Part 11 (pp. 20-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, crea-
tivity, and success. Thousand Oaks California: Corwin.
Woodford, P. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of
practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Woodford, P. (2009). Why Canada does not have national music education standards, or
does it? Canadian Music Educator, 51(2).
in the 1958 NSSE yearbook, Basic Concepts in Music Education, Foster McMurray and
Harry Broudy
Thus, 25 years later (in Basic Concepts II), McMurray took it on himself to point out this
inconsistency in a brilliant example of argumentation.
The response came, not from Canadian music educators, but from the executive director of
the Coalition of Music Education in Canada, a group similar to NAMM, made up of in-
dustry and other advocacy groups (51, (3), 2010).
 CHAPTER 17

PONDERING THE
GRAND EXPERIMENT
IN PUBLIC MUSIC
EDUCATION
ROBERT A. CUTIETTA

When the editors of this volume asked me to write a commentary, the only advice
they. gave was to “pick an issue that would be of interest to an international audi-
ence, even though the experience you bring will be from a North American per-
spective.” One would think that I could easily accommodate such an appropriate
and simple piece of advice, yet I can’t. Instead, the topic I really want to contemplate
is inherently tied to the United States. I do this not out of disrespect for the rest of
_the planet, but in hopes that the topic might provide some food for thought for all.
During the twentieth century, the United States attempted to provide partic-
ipatory music education to every young person in the country through its public
school system. Thus an extremely large and diverse society attempted to provide
an education in music to every young citizen of the country as a basic entitlement.
As such, it has to be one of the grandest experiments in music education to ever
take place.
Shortly after World War I, the movement to provide instruction in music grew
steadily. At first it was confined to instruction outside the school day or only at
the elementary school level. However, by the 1930s music-making had become
an important part of the school experience at all grade levels and in all corners of
the country. It became standard for youngsters in the beginning grades to receive
singing and note-reading instruction. Students in the upper elementary grades
PONDERING THE GRAND EXPERIMENT IN PUBLIC MUSIC EDUCATION 253
a te a eee
r eee

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

_ of how to teach and learn music effectively, but we did little to ensure that a place
would exist for these new techniques to be practiced.
That is what is perhaps most frustrating about the current situation. While
the media and others attack education as being ineffectual, the fact remains that
we know how to create highly effective music programs that can efficiently involve
millions of students in substantive learning. However, neste this knowledge we
have fewer and fewer opportunities to do so.
Further, this larger perspective could help us to finally argue for appropriate
evaluation of our efforts. If the goal of this movement was to provide music edu-
cation for every child, the questions explored should have been more along these
lines: How were we doing in reaching every child? What were the results of the
Herculean effort of providing music instruction to millions on millions of human
beings? Did our efforts change society in some fundamental way? Did music in-
struction really further the goals of education in a democratic society? What were
the arguments that were most persuasive for keeping these programs alive, flour-
ishing, and vibrant? What were the effective arguments against music (or for other
subjects) that caused us not to be able to maintain our programs? Was the one-size-
fits-all large ensemble model appropriate for such a large and diverse country?
Perhaps the most important and timely question would be why are the very
people we educated in music—the people who today are the parents, grandparents,
school board members, and policy makers—not stepping up to defend and demand
the musical education they received? Are we strong enough as a profession to en-
tertain the inherently uncomfortable questions this phenomenon suggests, such as
whether or not the musical education we offered held relevance for the children;
whether the quality and methods of teaching reached these children in a substan-
tive manner; and whether anyone ever took us seriously as a subject. These, I sus-
pect, are the core questions we need to answer.
Unfortunately we (largely unconsciously) made the assumption that the grand
experiment was sure to succeed and spent decades answering the rather simplistic
question “If we teach a child something, will she or he learn it?” This question, in
one form or another, underlies just about every attempt at music assessment and
" research. After decades of scholarly work we know (arguably) that some ways of
teaching music lead to more music learning than given “other ways.’ But we still
know little of what learning music does for the individual or society.
The current era could be a very positive turning point in music education. The
research community can set the groundwork for the next phase in the development
of music education for all, but we need to step back and examine what we did from
this broad perspective, or we will never learn from our successes and our failures.
We can explore what seemed to work and what didn’t; what were the limitations;
what were the potentials both realized and missed. We need to study where we were,
where we are, and where we plan to be in our continuing development as a disci-
pline if we are to create new and better programs for music learning. We need to
examine the period we are leaving as the grand experiment it was, or perhaps as the
ultimate pilot study of what could be.
 CHAPTER
18

MUSIC EDUCATION AND

SOME OF ITS SUBFIELDS:
THOUGHTS ABOUT
FUTURE PRIORITIES

LUCY GREEN

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

Somewhere in the middle, between education-in-music and music-education-

research, there is the practice of educating a person in a way designed to help him
become an increasingly skilled and knowledgeable teacher or lecturer in music, in-
cluding the continuing education of teachers or lecturers while they are in service.
This involves music education, not so much as a practice of educating learners in a
range of musical skills and knowledge, and not so much as a practice of conducting
research in music education, but as a practice of educating educators concerning
how and why they might effectively go about educating learners in a range of mu-
sical skills and knowledge; that is, educating them in how and why they might carry
out an education-in-music. I will refer to this area as music-teacher-education.
Viewed in this way, it is possible to identify three substantial subfields under the
umbrella of music education: education-in-music, music-education-research, and
music-teacher-education. No doubt there are many other ways of dividing the field,
but for now I would like to consider some of the implications of this way, particu-
larly concerning the relationship between theory and practice within each subfield.
It can be tempting—especially for commentators outside the field of music
education—to consider that education-in-music is the “real stuff” in which teachers
and learners grapple primarily with the practical skills involved in making music. By
contrast, they might suggest, music-education-research is a kind of “merely” theoret-
ical parasubject that floats above or round about the “real stuff” However, it would be
mistaken to see education-in-music as a primarily practical field and music-education-
research as a primarily theoretical field. Both fields involve practice as well as theory.
Picking up an instrument and teaching someone to play it requires an amount of
theoretical knowledge, even if that knowledge is more implicit than explicit, and even
if it is considered by other practitioners and theorists to be contentious or erroneous.
For example a teacher may prioritize finger-exercises and scales over and above pieces
of music, based on a conception that although such an approach may challenge the
student for the moment, it will produce better results in time. Such a conception is no
more or less than a theory, be it an implicit, explicit, good, or bad one. Picking up an
instrument and teaching someone to play it is also no more or less a practical activity
than, for example, switching on a computer and typing; and clearly, no less so than
‘entering a classroom or other music education context, observing what is happening
there, then returning to the computer, transcribing and analyzing data, and devel-
oping a theoretical explanation of what was observed. Even reading a book is funda-
mentally a practical activity. And music-in-education of course involves theory, too,
in the form of developing conceptual understanding of the history of music, analysis,
harmony, counterpoint, notation, and so on.
Music-teacher-education, lying somewhere between the subfields of education-
in-music and music-education-research, as suggested here, would seem to be a par-
ticularly vexed area in relation to how practice and theory are prioritized, and to give
no clear priority to one or the other. Within music-teacher-education, practitioners
produce, reproduce, give, and receive what I can only here call an education-in-
music-in-education. Music-teacher-education assumes that the teachers and pro-
spective teachers or lecturers involved have already acquired, and/or are continuing
MUSIC EDUCATION AND SOME OF ITS SUBFIELDS
a ee ee 257

to acquire, a level of skill and knowledge within education-in-music, suitable to the

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

tallies with the notion that the processes and content of their self-education are
worthwhile and ethical and, indeed, overlap with the content of formal education.
However, learning can of course take place without any education in the above
senses, and also without any teaching. When we think of a burglar who has learnt
how to pick locks, we would not normally include this learning as a part of her edu-
cation: we do not talk about a highly educated burglar, for example, in relation to her
knowledge of lock-picking, although of course the burglar maybe highly educated in
other ways. One reason for this is that picking locks is not considered a worthwhile
or ethical activity by, or in relation to the benefit of, the majority of members of a
society; although from the burglar’s point of view, and the subculture of burglars in
“
general, it may well be such. The concept of education carries with it, as mentioned
earlier, the notion that it includes skills and knowledge that are generally considered
worthwhile as well as ethical. So not all learning comes under the rubric of education.
Similarly, not all teaching would be considered to take place under the umbrella of
education. Teaching a young burglar to pick locks is an obvious example. However,
there are other aspects of learning and teaching that neither come under the rubric
of education, nor are considered to be lacking in worthiness or in ethical content. Of
course, learning how to make and appreciate a range of musics outside the bounds
of formal education, as has occurred for centuries in the folk and traditional musics
of the world, in popular musics and jazz, would fall under this categorization; and so
would the kinds of teaching that go on informally within such spheres.
One relatively new angle across all the subfields of music education today
concerns the broadening out of the concept of education itself. Music educationalists
of all kinds now place as much emphasis on understanding and furthering the prac-
tice of learning as they do on the practice of teaching. Similarly, what is included |
in the definition of teaching is opening out to a much richer array of practices than
previously. Along with this, there is occurring what can reasonably be described as a
sea-change in what music educators, researchers, and teacher-educators consider to
be worthwhile music-learning and music-teaching practices; and by turn, therefore,
what they consider to be worthwhile musical styles connected with those practices.
In short, the fields of music-education-research and music-teacher-education today
‘include a greater concern with how music-learners learn, and what they learn.
This is so, whether the learning occurs as a result of being taught within formal
or informal contexts, or of activities that are solitary and self-directed, group and
peer-directed, community-based, internet-based, or involve other characteristics;
and whether what is learnt concerns virtually any style of music to be found in the
world. The opening out of concepts of music learning and with that, music teaching
are again reflected in the contents of the current volume.
This opening out of interest, practice, and research into a diverse range of music
learning and teaching practices and musical styles, combined with the new global
communications networks and the ready availability of musics from all over the
world, goes hand in hand with current interest among many music educationalists,
concerning equality and, social and cultural difference. In all music education’s
MUSIC EDUCATION AND SOME OF ITS SUBFIELDS
r e a eee 259

subfields, practitioners are becoming increasingly aware of distinctions between

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

and music-education-research. It is close to the hearts of most music educators to

consider how we can spread engagement and enjoyment in our subject, especially
among young people, thus setting them up with opportunities for potential life-
long active involvement in music. Music-in-education, music-education research,
and music-teacher-education all have different, complementary parts to play in this
process.
 CHAPTER19

MUSIC EDUCATION:
AN UNANSWERED
QUESTION
WILFRIED GRUHN

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

A MARKETPLACE OF CONCEPTIONS

In recent times, music in schools and conservatories has focused on practical

applications that favor embodied learning. Nevertheless, there is still a broad variety
of approaches to music learning. In multiethnic and multicultural societies, educa-
tion sometimes looks like a marketplace, where scholars and practitioners advocate
262 WILFRIED GRUHN

their favored models and methodically different programs. Therefore, historical

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

EVIDENCE- BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING

What is meant by evidence-based practice in this context? As in evidence-based med-

icine, evidence-based educational practice seeks to assess the strength of evidence
by means of research-based decisions about the applied methods and the individ-
ually launched learning strategies. By this means, individual opinions and resumed
methods can be replaced by decisions that are based on more resilient knowledge
from research findings. For example, decisions concerning school structure, educa-
tion programs, or curriculum development are often based on political or ideolog-
ical conceptions instead of clear evidence derived from research. However, today’s
societies call for transparent and objective criteria in education as well as elsewhere.
This gives research in education a boost. This has been especially true for the magical
appeal of brain research to music educators. The unintended promise from brain re-
search that music might make children smarter (the so-called Mozart effect) and that
music enhances cognitive development was taken as a strong argument in educational
policies. However, many attempts to replicate the findings of the original Mozart effect
study (Rauscher et al., 1995) and two extended metaanalyses (Pietschnig et al., 2010;
Winner & Hetland, 2000) show the weakness of this argument. Research findings
cannot immediately and without constraints be implemented into educational prac-
tice. Fundamental research is never prescriptive rather than descriptive and creates
new knowledge about omnipresent problems. On the other hand, educators know
intuitively and from good practice about appropriate and inappropriate strategies.
Animal research, for example, has shown a negative effect of stress and deprivation
on brain development. This is not a guideline for a teaching method, but teachers who
MUSIC EDUCATION 263

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

ARTS AND SCIENCES

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

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

: REFERENCES

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology discovery and invention.
New York: Harper Collins.
Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., & Forman, A. K. (2010). Mozart effect-Shmozart effect: A meta-
analysis. Intelligence, 38, 314-323.
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1995). Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-
temporal reasoning: Towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters, 185, 44-47.
Serrallach, B., Grof, C., Bernhofs, V., Engelmann, D., Benner, J., Giindert, N, . . ., Seither-
Preisler, A. (2016). Neural biomarkers for dyslexia, ADHD, and ADD in the auditory
cortex of children. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 324.
Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence
shows. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3-4).
 CHAPTER 20

CUOMO Reamer eee ner er aren need reese eeseeeeesnesnoene

IMPROVING PRIMARY
TEACHING: MINDING
THE GAP

SARAH HENNESSY

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

secondary education.! A further damaging step was to encourage or force schools

to leave local authority control and become “academies.” This policy brings schools
under the direct control of the central government and gives them the opportunity
to adopt their own curricula, which may or may not include music, and to employ
unqualified teachers.’
This increasingly fragmented situation for schooling means that it is very dif-
ficult to get a clear picture of what is really going on in schools when it comes to
music. The school inspection system does not require reporting on the teaching
of music or the arts. Primary schools can choose whether to employ someone to
teach music, require their class teachers to teach it, or do nothing. There is evi-
‘dence that secondary schools are cutting time, staffing, and resources for music (see
https://drfautley.wordpress.com/). Of course, the battle to secure music's place in
the curriculum has been fought for many years, but the issues are becoming more
entrenched, and there is little challenge other than the energy and commitment of
individual teachers—and some head teachers.
I have two conflicting responses to this situation—and this is where I can move
beyond my “local” context and perhaps connect with issues that many of us share. One
response is to be profoundly depressed by the retreat from a broad and balanced cur-
riculum. While schools appear to have greater freedom to shape their own curricula,
the performativity agenda often cancels out the potential. However, increased au-
tonomy could lead in the other direction: a flourishing arts curriculum and music
taking a prominent position in the school curriculum, where head teachers recog-
nize that the arts contribute to, rather than distract from, creating a positive learning
environment. A recent project funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation aims to share
examples where this is happening (see www.inspire-music.org).
My other response is a feeling that despite having had, since 1992, a centralized
curriculum that gives a legal entitlement to music education for all children, we
still have very uneven quality of provision. Music blossoms in schools where the
principal (head teacher) values and actively supports it—through employing musi-
cally competent and confident teachers, supporting professional development, and
understanding the broad range of ways that music can flourish—and withers where
there is little understanding and minimal support.
Nationally, music has moved (after almost three decades of focusing on crea-
tive music-making) to a focus on class-based singing and instrumental tuition. In
recent years, learning in both of these activities has been supported by extra govern-
_ ment funding,’ and both these initiatives have recognized, quite rightly, the central
importance of school-based teachers’ abilities and willingness to engage and work
confidently with music. However, this recognition hasn't always borne fruit, and an
unfortunate side effect of these programs has been that, while visiting experts have
been employed to lead the work in schools, many generalist (nonmusic-specialist)
class teachers have taken a step back, considering their involvement to be inade-
quate or unnecessary.
Since the beginning of the new century, there also has been huge growth in
funded, short-term music projects (such as those led by orchestras, community
 IMPROVING PRIMARY TEACHING
oo ieee Regs he a_i aan es 267
ee id, t

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

So, recently, and for the first time, I had a student say she couldn’t and wouldn't
sing “because it felt like the X Factor”—despite my very low-key, unthreatening,
and protected approach (clearly still not low-key enough!). Research suggests that
initial teacher training programs have limited capacity to change the attitudes and
values students bring with them. Factors that contribute to changing these involve
well-supported school-based practice with sustained opportunities to engage prac-
tically with and to teach music; observing good examples of practice; and lots of
time for reflection. In a generalist program, ensuring time for addressing these, for
all students and in all settings, can be challenging, both in the context of the training
institution and in placement schools. .
In England, we are now educating as primary teachers the “products” of the
National Curriculum, first introduced in 1990. Happily, I can say thatIhave noticed,
in recent years, some reduction in the numbers who display high levels of anx-
iety and lack of confidence to do anything in music, which suggests that things are
improving (such as that more students remember making their own music in pri-
mary classes, playing instruments, and enjoying singing). The majority of students
are happy to get involved and try out teaching activities, but too often I meet uncon-
fident teachers in school who are reluctant to include music in their demonstrations
of teaching, and may not actually teach music to their classes. In schools where
music is taught by a visiting specialist, students may get very little opportunity to
be involved at all.
Out of 16 European countries surveyed in the meNet project, only six offered
initial training for primary specialist music teachers to degree level. The provision
for generalist training is very varied, ranging from, for example, a total of 120 hours
(on a three-year degree) for generalists in Poland to as little as 4 hours (on a one-
year postgraduate program in England). Every country includes music in their
curriculum guidelines or statutory framework; every document espouses the im-
portance of music education for all children .. . and there it seems to end. If one
peruses the content of many of these documents, they do not appear to take much
account of the fact that the curriculum will be largely taught by generalists, and that
the training of generalists is often inadequate, as noted by music teacher educators,
researchers, and teachers alike. One can argue that such documents are aspirational
rather than designed to reflect current practices; but, if they are policy frameworks
for future development, there needs to be more thought about implementation. If
the curriculum reflects the view that it is generalists who will teach music, then the
_ initial training of generalists must be adequate, and there must be ongoing profes-
sional development. If the curriculum is designed with an expectation of a high de-
gree of specialist musical competence in teachers then the training of good numbers
of specialists should be resourced. In England, currently, we have neither.
What is needed is both: generalists who can confidently engage in the music
learning of their classes, understand how to combine musical experiences and
learning with other subjects, lead and facilitate music-making with imagination
and enthusiasm, with the support of specialist colleagues; and enough specialists
IMPROVING PRIMARY TEACHING 269

to provide adequate support to generalists and develop high-quality music learning

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

1. The performance of secondary schools is measured by the grades achieved by pupils at

the end of statutory education (age 16) in a range of subjects that entirely exclude the
arts: see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/
english-baccalaureate-ebacc.
2. This was particularly encouraged in music and sports, the view being that performance
expertise is all that is needed for effective teaching.
3. Funding for whole-class instrumental teaching continues; the Sing Up Programme was
funded from 2007-2012 and is now funded through subscriptions (www.singup.org).
 CHAPTER 21

AO COC DUO DO OO DDS OOO ODIO OU DrIDCION UL UOCCIDOOCIICO UTIO.07,00 DITO OOO ROO UIC Ol DUG OD CUR UD COO O OOOO UC Oro CO.

INTERNATIONAL
MUSIC EDUCATION:
SETTING UP A GLOBAL
INFORMATION SYSTEM
LIANE HENTSCHKE

I was invited by the distinguished editors of this volume to write a personal com-
mentary on something that I would consider important to share with the readers.
I decided to share with you one of my concerns in relation to our lack of systematized
knowledge about international music education, which, in a way, prevents us from
thinking prospectively based on where music education is today and where it is
heading in terms of a global trend. Thus, the following text presents a step for-
ward contribution in thinking music education globally, and how putting together
the jigsaw puzzle of the accumulated knowledge of music in what I call the Global
Information System in Music Education (GISME). The central idea was presented
for the first time in my keynote address at the Sixth International Research in Music
Education Conference (Exeter, UK, 2009), and it has come from my experience as a
_ professor and researcher in music education, and especially from the unique expe-
rience and dilemmas faced as president of the largest umbrella for music education
internationally—the International Society of Music Education—ISME.
When developing a Biennium Plan 2006-2008 for the ISME Presidency, I was
confronted with the task of writing a text that would guide the policies and actions for
the next two years. The core of the plan was to work on the promotion of social and
cultural inclusion of music education practices by means of interconnecting coun-
tries and regions, in order to make a difference in the way we share our accumulated
INTERNATIONAL MUSIC EDUCATION
Sa ee
271
rar emneemomem peterbaemmsemmrisememmmnsonmrsamatimer erssunsmmpcsarneeniin=iscsenis

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

realize that most of the findings, although important, can hardly be combined into
one global picture, which in some ways would hamper our capacity to “jump out of
the fish bowl” and anticipate global trends in our profession.
Do we know where music education will be in the next 20 years? To risk a pre-
diction, we need to know where we are; we need a global picture on some basic
parameters in order to pull together what we have and think prospectively in a
global system. If we take the industry or economic systems as examples, we realize
that their work is strongly based on prospective thinking, on predictions of where
the world is heading to and how it may influence the economy, social development,
politics, and environmental issues. There is always a chance of getting it wrong, but
‘they need predictions to survive, to plan, and to move ahead.
In music education, it seems that we guide our work according to the policies
and opportunities offered by schools and universities in our countries or regions,
and we plan our work according to new theories, research opportunities, very
much influenced by the research literature from sociology, psychology, computer
sciences, and education. The research we conduct is displayed in journals, books,
conference and seminar proceedings, and other sorts of publications, but little has
been said about how music education is understood, advocated, funded, practiced,
about the policies in different parts of the world, and how the knowledge systems
are shared among and across cultures. However, in order to work toward political
insertion, draw strategies, and make a difference in the world of music education,
we need to act more proactively, internationally speaking. We need to be aware of
global political agendas nowadays working toward economic sustainability, peace,
social responsibility, environmental agendas, education for all, where music educa-
tion needs to be included. But where is the information we need to allow music to
have a political impact, and work toward (why the “D” deleted) social and cultural
inclusion across countries, cultures, and regions?
If we search on the internet about international network in music education,
hundreds of sites come up. Most of these networks are regional or cross-regional,
while others are a compilation of very important links to music education organ-
izations and research work, such as CIIMDA in Africa, Music Ednet, Arts New
South Wales, International Music Education Links, MEnet, EAS, Nordic Network
for Music Education, among others.
UNESCO, through its cultural sector, has been trying to take such a lead for arts
‘education, as it comprises 193 member states, and is the largest educational network
- available. Music education is part of arts education, which is placed under the cultural
sector umbrella. The core of UNESCO's mission is to help governments think lo-
cally through a global frame. It gathers international descriptions by commissioning
papers in different regions offering a broad picture on arts education. It produces
documents and recommendations that are then delivered to its member states.
Preparing the Second World Conference on Arts Education (Seoul, May
2010), UNESCO carried out a survey on the implementation of the Road Map for
Arts Education worldwide, whose results can be found on the UNESCO website
(UNESCO, 2009). The main goal was to collect information on arts education in
the world. The survey obtained was a return of 49%, representing 95 countries from
INTERNATIONAL MUSIC EDUCATION 273

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

Advocacy: What are the arguments used? How are the campaigns planned and
carried out? To whom are they targeted?
Policies for music education: Is music education compulsory at schools? What
is the role of social projects and community music, in the music education
_ of citizens? What are the informal learning opportunities?
Sources offunding: Government (federal/central, state or municipalities)?
Industry (music and others)? Foundations and NGOs? ~
In short, the organization that I called GISME is a global sharing platform that
would be built collectively and owned by everyone. It is a source of knowledge that
everybody could learn from, and thus feel part of the global community of music
education. In order to make it effective, we need to have access to what is happening
in different parts of the world in terms of advocacy campaigns, policy development,
and provision for music education in schools and communities. Finally, sharing
knowledge and expertise and empowering local leaders were the prime goals
guiding my thoughts to propose the expansion and strengthening of ISME Regional
Conferences around the world, an activity that will be improved and expanded by
the next generation of ISME leaders. We need solidarity and a global sharing of the
accumulated knowledge on music education, and to make this happen the profes-
sion needs to have a broad view on international music education, where we are,
and where we want to be in the next decades.

REFERENCES

McPherson, G., Welch, G., & Hentschke, L. (2008). Proposal of the ISME Research
Development Committee—ISMERDC. Submitted to the ISME Executive Committee.
UNESCO. (2009). Analysis of the implementation of the road map. http://portal.unesco.org/
culture/en/ev.php- URL_ID=39998URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
[accessed November 2, 2010].
UNESCO. (2010). Goals for the development of arts education. http://portal.unesco.org/cul-
ture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=39949URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
[accessed November 2, 2010].
 CHAPTER :22

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
RESEARCH IN DEFINING
THE PROFESSION OF
MUSIC EDUCATION
CHRISTOPHER M. JOHNSON

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

with their band home and make it work with the same piece with their own group.
How will they ever take information from that person working with a different piece
and use it to make their students better? What if they are watching a great choral
conductor? Can they use that experience in their bandroom? Is there any hope that
a complicated piece of new information in another area of experience will enlighten
their teaching? As a profession, we must hold out the hope that we can make those
higher-order transfers. The greater the distance from one’s areatonew information,
the more significant and perhaps difficult the transfer, but therein lies the responsi-
bility of being a professional. Making those new associations is work, but that work
is indeed what we should be doing. Though it is much easier to be dismissive, it is
‘the considered contemplation by highly educated people that brings all of us to the
level of professionalism to which we should aspire.
This unfortunate condition—the dismissal of potential for research to have
any practical use—has been exacerbated by the credence that it has been given by
researchers themselves repeating the aforementioned phrase in an attempt to create
a common reality with others. I believe, however, that they are making a critical
mistake. Though I believe establishing a common reality is necessary, this is the
wrong way to go about it. Denigrating the value and applicability of research lessens
the importance of the research product and also lessens the individuals with whom
one is trying to connect.
We are all professionals, and we should reinforce and encourage ourselves to
continue to live up to that title. Research is crucial to our profession, not only be-
cause it gives us verifiable data to continue to support what we do and help us all do
it better, but because it is the research of a profession that defines it as a profession.
Without the constant and careful creation of new knowledge, any area of pursuit
might well be better defined as a craft or a trade; only the process of continuous and
growing research defines an area of effort as a profession.
From a researcher's perspective, one must look at the research product in a
different way. When contemplating the start of another project, one is struck by how
much freedom the researcher is afforded. Everything in the field is up for examina-
tion. What should one examine next? However, although anything is available for
inquiry, there are restrictions—boundaries—placed on that potential examination
in the form of process, science, and rigor. The researcher who is driven by curiosity
does not mind the toil, but rather enjoys the puzzle that is putting together a vi-
able and worthwhile project. However, one must also recognize that many projects
. begin with one idea and direction, and then morph into something else that the
researcher clearly sees as more appropriate. Surely one can see how many great re-
search possibilities must have died on the design floor. And every now and then,
one comes across ideas that should have been abandoned but were not, because the
researcher was unwilling to relinquish an idea that should have been left behind.
However, the constraints remain—the research product must stand on its own
merit. The questions must be clearly and coherently answered. The data must be
presented honestly, with all their enlightening abilities, as well as their flaws. And
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESEARCH IN DEFINING THE PROFESSION 277

in the end, importance matters. Not only must a manuscript be methodologically

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

REFERENCE

Welch, G. (2006, July). Writing for research publications. Paper presented at the 2006 World
Conference of the International Society for Music Education, Kuala Lumpur.
 CHAPTER 23

CONSTRUCTING
COMMUNITIES OF
SCHOLARSHIP IN MUSIC
EDUCATION
ESTELLE R. JORGENSEN

Music education benefits from a community of scholarship and practice. From an-
tiquity, music teachers, as other musicians, have formed themselves into colleges,
guilds, schools, and associations. Whether in the context of individual or group
instruction, of whatever tradition or specialty, these teachers have sometimes been
music’s principal thought leaders and exponents and the means whereby musical
traditions have been forged, sustained, and transformed. Communities provide the
public spaces in which collective and individual thought and action transpire and
where ideas and practices forwarded by members are discussed, criticized, debated,
evaluated, and contested. They foster imaginative thinking of individual exponents
who, without being in these communities, may never arrive at particular ideas
and practices.’ By developing shared beliefs, values, and norms and limiting de-
- viation from these commitments, communities enable collective action on behalf
of certain goals and methods. As ideas and practices are put to the test, subjective
understandings become objectified, in the sense that they are shared widely by a
community's members. These norms provide the basis for and means of a conversa-
tion within particular communities and sometimes beyond their borders.
Still, music educational communities are a mixed blessing. Among their
disadvantages, they can ossify musical beliefs and practices. They may be so focused
on traditional practices that insularity, closed-mindedness, and parochialism on
 CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITIES OF SCHOLARSHIP IN MUSIC EDUCATION
See
Ee ee 279
EE i ee cee

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

organizations originally designed for practical rather than scholarly purposes.

In these circumstances, scholars attempt to pour scholarship into wineskins
constructed with other political and practical interests in mind. A plethora of
symposia have naturally sprung up to fill the void. These are often informally or-
ganized and framed around narrow interests; they attract subsets of scholars from
time to time. Various nationally organized, discipline-based, and topically focused
international networks, groups, and societies for research in music education have
begun to emerge that are unevenly represented around the world. The result is a
cacophony generated by activity that excludes some as it includes others; groups
may be at cross purposes, and meetings are sometimes held at conflicting times and
places. For example, immediately prior to this writing, I needed to choose among
meetings within the course of a few weeks in China, Finland, the United States,
and the United Kingdom. The costs of attending all of these important meetings
were prohibitive, especially given the lack of university support for travel and the
straitened financial circumstances in the country in which I live and work. The
burgeoning numbers of interest groups, while indicative of a lively engagement
with music education scholarship, also represent a fragmented reality of specialized
constituencies and potentially important though differing imperatives. Ironically,
notwithstanding the activity, the audiences may be smaller, and researchers, writers,
and speakers may have less influence than might be the case were there fewer or-
ganizations with wider reach. Understanding organizations is also to grasp that
once forged, they tend to have self-perpetuating tendencies. Those who control the
emerging fiefdoms and their respective constituencies may be unwilling to coop-
erate with other organizations or cede power and control of their respective groups
and organizations to others. : $
Music education ultimately exists for the public good. Its practice is an impor-
tant aspect of cultural transmission and transformation. There is an ethical imper-
ative for scholarship to benefit practice, be it immediately or over the long term.
Unlike some academic fields that can be pursued for other than practical purposes,
education in and through music occurs in the phenomenal world. Music educa-
tional thought and practice entail moving from theoretical assumptions, models,
paradigms, and the like to the messy world of practical engagements. Given the
public nature of its purposes and methods, music education naturally concerns
issues of cultural public policy. Accomplishing this task effectively requires unified
scholarly organization(s). Especially at a time when nation-states are increasingly
_ intertwined, international cooperation by, and crossfertilization among, music edu-
cation scholars can impact significantly the formation and conduct of international
cultural policy.
How might such an improved international framework or organizational struc-
ture for music education scholarship be created? The field of music education needs
an international community of music education scholars that expressly meets the
scholarly needs of this community, widens the forum in which all can potentially
speak, protects the specific interest groups that have already formed and allows
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITIES OF SCHOLARSHIP IN MUSIC EDUCATION 281

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

— . On communities and music education, see Estelle R. Jorgensen, “Music education

as community, Journal ofAesthetic Education 29(3) (autumn 1995), pp. 71-84, http://
www.jstor.org/stable/3333542; Estelle R. Jorgensen, Pictures of Music Education,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011, chap. 3. Also see Maxine Greene, The
dialectic offreedom (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), 17.
2. On social processes, see Henry Zentner, Prelude to administrative theory: Essays in
social structure and social process (Calgary: Ontario, Canada: Strayer, 1973), chap. 7.
3. On Aristotle’s concept of virtue, see Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, trans. and ed. Roger
Crisp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), sec. 11078, 31.
4. On milieu cultures, see Peter Webb, Exploring the networked worlds ofpopular
music: Milieu cultures (New York: Routledge, 2007).
 CHAPTER 24
Cee m meee rete hen eee Heer eee reese sed ede HsEHHEeHe Dee reoeseereeseaeeeenesaeassereeeHeresenes DES

INTERNATIONALIZING
MUSIC EDUCATION

ANDREAS C. LEHMANN

Music education may be, like most educational policy and advocacy issues, prima-
rily a national concern. But could and should we not also develop a broader, and
even international, perspective, especially when it comes to music education re-
search? In this chapter, I will outline a German perspective that may be informative
for non-German colleagues. Colleagues from English-speaking countries might
become aware of a hitherto unknown side of their non-English native colleagues,
while Spanish, Czech, Japanese, and all other non-English natives might experience
some déja vu.
Each country grapples with its didactic traditions, educational folkways, and
institutional constraints that require integration into the larger educational and cul-
tural agenda of the country. Thus, each country is unique when it comes to music
education in practice. Take, for example, the question of singing in German schools.
While the rest of the world was busy singing with children as a means of educating
them musically in the last half of the twentieth century, West German children were
talking about masterworks and their composers. The historical burden of naive
and propagandistic singing routines during Nazi times clamped shut the mouths
_ of the postwar generations. There was nothing to sing about: old songs were inap-
propriate, and the critical philosopher Theodor W. Adorno furthered this no-sing
attitude in critical statements about music-making that were well heeded by the
generation of postwar music teachers. At the same time, East Germany was con-
tinuing the tradition of indoctrination by song under communist-socialist rule. At
the present time, practical music-making is regaining momentum in (now united)
German classrooms, due to reasons beyond the scope of this chapter, resulting in a
didactic turn even in teacher education.
INTERNATIONALIZING MUSIC EDUCATION 283
MEARS ee __ aaa Se eee eo Re nd

Thus, even in one community of culture and language, a divided Germany ex-
perienced two types of music education—with two corresponding types of music
education research. As a result of such unique national perspectives—that under-
standably concern primarily those in the respective systems—music educators and
the associated teacher training tend to slow-cook in their national stew pots. I doubt
that Germany is an exception to this rule.
For those outside the Anglo-American language sphere there exists an added
problem: their national discourses are mainly carried out in the native local lan-
guage, hidden from the international public. Conversely, everybody is privy to the
Anglo-American discourse! German music educators read German, and American
educators read English; only a few are interested in the international perspective,
partly because they do not know what to look for in the publications (research of the
last 50 years or so was often concerned with music-making in schools, which was
not the focus in German schools as I mentioned earlier) and because they have not
been contributing to it actively (count the few German authors who have published
anything in English). Furthermore, the strong hermeneutic tradition prevalent
among German music education authors has relied on the proficient mastery of
the written and spoken word. German philosophers, such as Adorno, and writers,
including musicologists such as Carl Dahlhaus, have fostered an academic style of
writing that is difficult to bring together with the jargon of current international
research. You can guess the rest: Why sound stupid in a foreign language if you can
sound learned in your native one?
However, there might be several reasons why further global interaction in
music education and research on music learning is timely, despite barriers in lan-
guage and national traditions.
1. Music is a universal phenomenon and passed on from one generation to
the next in all countries using similar means. Therefore, recent research
on the evolution of music and musical behavior cuts across language
communities.
2. The discussion about positive transfer effects of music since the 1990s,
with its infamous “Mozart effect? along with notable advances in
neuropsychology have in many countries fueled public interest in music
education in inexplicable ways. The idea that any learning, even in the arts,
has its physiological basis that we are starting to better understand has
been favorable to music education (at least in Germany).
3. As a consequence music research has become increasingly possible
internationally—and even fashionable, as the databases reveal.
4. Fortunately, increasing numbers of non-English researchers have acquired
a reasonable mastery ofEnglish as the lingua franca of science (with
the Scandinavian colleagues leading the way). In some countries, young
researchers are even required to write their theses in English, especially
in the natural sciences. Alas, (music) education is still lagging behind,
presumably because of its often regional focus.
284 ANDREAS C. LEHMANN

Through participation in international conferences (e.g., IEME, ICMPC) or the

use of handbooks such as this one, researchers from all countries can meet, ex-
change ideas, and may even develop joint projects. They can partake in a discourse
and learn about research that their own countries would not be able to support
on their own. If we use the current windfall in public interest to connect across
borders, we may benefit from one another’s work. I am convinced that research in
music education thrives on personal contacts that center around common interests.
I have seen this happen in my own biography and that of other colleagues who have
spent some time outside Germany. However, music education everywhere prob-
ably ought to maintain a unique national flavor due to the divergent makeup of
‘their respective educational systems. And discourse on these unique aspects should
be communicated in the national languages, because it concerns the local com-
munity of practitioners who deal with those issues. But as a global community of
researchers, we should be able to include all nationalities in a common thread of
discussion that transcends local relevance and advances music education at a higher
level. If research in other areas, such as medicine or psychology, can join forces in-
ternationally, why should the situation in the arts and music be different?
Attracting local music educators (more specifically graduate and doctoral
students and professors) into the international arena can be a daunting task. The
best point of entry for them would be to attend international conferences, espe-
cially if they happen in their own countries. For this, first, for quality assurance,
research needs to be conducted using international standards and within the
peer review framework; and second, funding has to be made available to allow
students and professors to attend international conferences. National advocacy and
striving for academic excellence is paramount in this process. And in our strive for
internationalizing music education as in all (music) learning, the key ingredients
are and will be curiosity, determination, good examples, and lots of practice.
 CHAPTER 25
PROC O TORAH HOR emedereeraesanesereeeeese

EMOTION IN MUSIC
SHOR m eee een enneenerneneneeereee ret eereneneerenere

EDUCATION
RICHARD LETTS

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

This freewheeling collection of quotations is intended to display the agreement

of an array of great thinkers over more than two millennia about the centrality of
emotion to the purpose and effect of music.
I studied music in universities in Australia and the United States for a long
time—some 10 years. During that entire experience, I cannot remember more than
a few occasions when my lecturers spontaneously acknowledged that music carries
emotions (or even might be beautiful).*
Isn't that extraordinary?
286 RICHARD LETTS

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

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

Criterion

¢ Imagining and creating new works

Using skills, techniques, and processes
¢ Using codes and conventions
Interpreting and appraising the work of others
¢ Making aesthetic choices
Reflecting cultural, social, and historical contexts
¢ Presenting with purpose
« Expressing personal voice
EMOTION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 287
ee eeeis—“#’ SW

If one were to express a personal voice in music, it would appropriately be done

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

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

Table 25.1 Expressing a personal voice in music

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

Imagining and Improvising Explore and experiment with the materials of music, with
creating new a growing vocabulary of styles and increasing fluency and
works confidence in performance

Composing Make deliberate choices in selection and sequencing

of original material, with a growing vocabulary of
compositional devices, use of notation and appreciation of
intention and purpose

Arranging Make deliberate choices in selection, manipulation

and sequencing of existing material, with a growing
understanding ofthe capabilities of the instruments at
their disposal and a developing personal style

Recording Use conventional and graphic notation in calligraphic and

digital form; make audio and video recordings of works at
various stages of development
288 RICHARD LETTS

an understanding . . .? “identifying ideas and feelings,” and “exploring the emerging

wm «

musical ideas based on personal experiences, stories, play, feelings, themes, pictures
and other stimuli in their immediate world.” A long list of “key questions” includes
this one: “Do students listen to a range of repertoire with a variety of music genres,
and identify ideas and the feelings* the music generates in them?”
Feelings are at least mentioned and are included in an appropriate way (al-
though those are the only instances in two pages of detail). That;yhowever, is the last
we hear of them. There is no mention of the emotional realm in the Guidelines for
Years 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12, except that in the latter there is a question “Do students
express positive values about music?”—not the same issue. The compilers of these
documents might respond that children were put on the right track in the early
years and would be aware of emotional content henceforth, but even if that argu-
ment were to be taken seriously, the fact is that many students receive no music ed-
ucation until the later primary or elementary years or more often, secondary school
(or never—but that also is another issue).
How would the emotional aspects of music be included in a curriculum, given
that basic curricular structure is unlikely to change? How can the emotional realm
be specified except through another layer of cognitive concepts and language (likely
to kill it stone cold dead)?
There seems to be very broad agreement that a serious music education will
be based on a curriculum that is sequential, continuous, and developmental. So far
as the inclusion of emotion is concerned, there is no problem around the concept
“continuous.” “Sequential” seems to present difficulty. It is easily possible to put in -
order of increasing difficulty musical concepts and movement skills. On the other
hand, while a skill in naming emotions or differentiating between them could be
developed, it is difficult to see the opportunity for sequential instruction. While
there are some developmental issues at play in the early years, we know from re-
search that by the age of seven, children are distinguishing emotions in music at
more or less adult levels.
So perhaps there cannot be a curricular structure built around emotion in
music. It is expected of a curriculum, even if it is not sequential, that it gets us from
A to Z, and is in some way cumulative. Perhaps this progress is more easily struc-
tured around cognitive skills as concepts, and the emotional content is attached, in
particular to the music itself, but also to concepts.
Perhaps the purpose is to characterize the affective content of music with
increasing nuance. The training therefore is in recognizing musical content but also
in developing an increasingly fine-grained perception of “its” emotional content
(really the emotions aroused in the listener) and in developing the ability to apply
language to name the emotions. It is therefore also a type of training in an aspect of
verbal literacy.”
Some analysis of general characteristics of music that affect the perception of
emotional content probably is possible and applies across most if not all Bentes.
Here are some examples.
EMOTION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 289
Se eee

- Proximity to and departures from physiological norms, for example:

+ The beat’s relationship to the normal walking pace—normal, slower, or
faster than normal and the implication of level of vigor or effort.
+ Similarly, the perceived level of vigor or effort relating to volume
of sound.
+ Behavior of pitch, rising or falling, shaping; pitch moving to extremes of
range, depending on what is normal for the sound producer—trumpet,
cello, tenor, and so on. (Composers achieve intensity by writing the famous
high C for tenor voices, making clear the effort to sing it, associating it with
other emotional “highs” expressed by the music. The high C for the tenor is
middle range for the soprano; no drama inherent there.)
¢ Dissonance versus consonance, as perceived in the musical genre and the
work itself.
« Harmonic tension and release, as perceived in the musical genre and the
work itself.
¢ Rhythmic regularity/irregularity, as perceived in the musical genre and the
work itself.
¢ Rate of change of significant musical events, as perceived in the musical
genre and the work itself.
¢ Level of novelty, as perceived within the genre.
Such perceptions as the above depend on the listener’s familiarity with respec-
tive genres and the normal expectations within them. “Redundancy” of musical in-
formation depends on individual perceptions, which depend largely on familiarity
with genre.”° As an example only, a listener from a non-Western country without
any knowledge of Western harmony may hear a sequence of notes making up a
Western ninth chord as five novel sound events, whereas the Western listener may
hear them as a way of presenting the single event, a ninth chord. The first time a
Westerner hears a ninth chord, it is a novel event that may surprise. The hundredth
time, it has a “redundancy, it has passed into the language, the normal expecta-
tions, and will not carry the emotional energy of novelty. An expectation will also
have built up about the range of normal, expected musical events that follow a ninth
chord, and if expectation is realized, there is redundancy, if not, some sort of nov-
elty, tension, feeling. Of course, this is not to say that without novelty, expressiveness
is lost.
Extracting cognitive and affective meaning from music thus can depend on a
deep familiarity with the genre.
There is much research, many reports and books that describe the relationships
between music and the emotions. It is hardly uncharted territory.
While our curricular interests may here focus on perceptions of emotion “in
the music” and what it is in the music that causes them, there are other types of
developmental benefit possible from the relationships between music and emotion.
The opening up of emotional life through the proxy of music might be
a nonthreatening way of enlarging and integrating the whole person. Music
290 RICHARD LETTS

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

Bloom's taxonomy of the affective realm" has been an important theoretical

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

Gordon wrote this about the process of composing his horn concerto, Lightfall.
Emotion fueled his work; formalist considerations obstructed it. Of course, it must
be acknowledged that for some great composers, formal structures are primary."
EMOTION IN MUSIC EDUCATION 291

POCO RHO m HH ere ere esr reneresenseseseesensevees tee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee ey

1. Susanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite,
and art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 19 42.
2. Julius Portnoy, The philosopher and music. Humanities Press, New York, 1954.
. Aristotle, Problems, trans. W. Hett, Heinemann, London, 1952, 920a, 3-7.
. also took instrumental lessons privately. There was the teacher, me, and the music—
and the goal of expressive performance. Naturally, anything could be discussed,
including the emotional content of the music or, if you like, the emotions that the
music might arouse in the listeners. The teachers were not bound by institutional
requirements. Teachers and students of singing cannot escape emotions; they are
named in the lyrics.
.. though there was Hanslick.
. Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and meaning in music, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1956.
7. Robin Pascoe et al., Augmenting the Diminished, Report of the National Review
of School Music Education, Department of Education, Science and Training,
Canberra, 2005.
8. A distinction has long been made between feelings, emotions, and moods. According
to Arnold and Gasson, feelings are “those affective states where the psychological
reference is principally to the subject”; they involve a reaction not to an object, but
to the sense perceptions connected with it. Emotion is concerned with the effect of
such an object on the person and implies a need for possession of the object; it is a
motivating force. A mood is a protracted feeling state that is not ascribed to a particular
sensation, but that reflects the total inner state, the total functioning of the organism.
M. B. Arnold & J. A. Gasson, “Feelings and emotions as dynamic factors in personality
integration,’ in Arnold, The Nature of Emotion, Penguin, London, 1968).
. But, writes Langer, music presents directly to our understanding “subtle complexes of
feeling that language cannot even name.” See Langer, Philosophy in a New Key, pp.174-
208, for a more extended consideration of these issues.
10. Meyer, Emotion and meaning in music.
il B. S. Bloom, D. R. Krathwohl, & B. B. Masia, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
affective domain, McKay, New York, 1964.
12. B.-L. Bartleet, P. Dunbar-Hall, R. Letts, & H. Schippers, Sound links: Community
music in Australia, Griffith University Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre,
Brisbane, 2009.
1%. J. W. Davidson & J. M. M. Good, Social and musical coordination between members of
a string quartet: An exploratory study, Psychology of Music (2002), 30, 186-201.
14. Gordon's diary can be read at www.hornconcerto.net, installment 19.
 CHAPTER 26

RRR RRR RRR ER RR RRR RRR AREAS SASSER SESSA SSSR SAU R SSNS SEES E SS ES ESSE SSSR ESN SEES ESSE ESSER ESSE EE ES STEED

MUSIC EDUCATION
FROM A SLIGHTLY
OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE

HAKAN LUNDSTROM

Music education is a large field that embraces a wide variety of practices, depending -
on the specific aims and whether the purpose of this education is to educate profes-
sional musicians, amateurs, listeners, or anything in between. Here, I am concerned
with the ways that people get to know enough about music in order for them to
be able to learn songs or tunes and to transmit these to others, This interest stems
from the position that the oral transmission of music forms the basis for a living
music culture and, as a consequence, tor the existence of amateur and professional
musicians.
Children’s traditions are, of course, central to this practice, and their traditions
aré strong. Some years ago music teachers in Sweden, who took courses in order
to obtain formal diplomas, undertook projects in my classes where they asked one
child to pick a song and teach it to another child two other children in the class (out-
side the lessons), and these children taught the song to two others and so forth, so
that in the end the song had passed through the whole class, and the results could be
compared and discussed. This technique worked because the children, aged around
10-13, had the capacity to learn, adapt, and pass on a song. When undertaking this
activity, one of the trainee teachers stumbled across a new children’s game song
that he had never heard before. He tracked it down as it spread all over his school-
yard and then on to other schools in the area, all the time appearing in more or
less an altered form. What he witnessed was a spontaneous process of the “song
chain” described above, and a sign that this form of children’s culture was alive and
MUSIC EDUCATION FROM A SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE PERSPEC
ae
r eee a e TIVE 293

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

Music LEARNING IN AN ORAL CULTURE

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

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

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

AN ANTHROPOLOGY VIEW ON LEARNING

Turning now to learning in the perspective of anthropology and ethnomusicology,

Alan P. Merriam’s point of departure was that “culture as a whole is learned beha-
vior, and each culture shapes the learning process to accord with its own ideals _
and values” (Merriam, 1964, p. 145). Thus one can expect to find great variations
in learning processes from one culture to another, Referring to John Gillin, he
concludes that:
¢ Culture provides the conditions for learning
¢ Culture systematically elicits appropriate responses
¢ Culture, through its products or agents, provides reinforcements
¢ The culture of a society therefore has certain self-perpetuating tendencies,
so long as the human population that manifests the culture does not die out
(Gillin [1948] quoted in Merriam, 1964, pp. 161-162)

Enculturation is seen as “the process by which the individual learns his culture”
(Merriam, 1964, p. 146) and can be subdivided into

¢ Socialization: the process of social learning as it is carried out in the early

years of life
¢ Education: the directed learning process, both formally or informally
carried out
¢ Schooling: “those processes of teaching and learning carried on at specific
times, in particular places, for definite periods, by persons especially
prepared or trained for the task” (Herskovits, 1948, p. 310)

Social anthropologist Paul Bohannan refines these ideas by distinguishing be-

tween habituation and education: “In habituation, human beings learn those aspects
 MUSIC EDUCATION FROM A SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE 295
nnnEnnerrnmnenmennmnmeemrenmen
Coosa a neneeemermemmereere
ee

of culture that are not regarded in the culture as specifically learnable techniques. In
education they are taught—specifically taught—the techniques” (Bohannan, 1963,
p. 18). Canadian ethnomusicologist Francis Corpataux makes a further distinc-
tion: “imitation is a voluntary act. By impregnation, I am referring to learning that
occurs through immersion in the local culture” (quoted in Ilari & Pablo, 2002, p. 11).
The agents involved in learning/teaching processes are, for example, family, es-
tablished musicians, the ceremonial practitioner, mothers, fathers, other children, and
so forth. The techniques of learning and teaching that are mentioned in the literature
include motivation, guidance, reward (helping, giving, praising, allowing), demon-
stration, practicing, directed learning, and imitation. Proper schooling exists in such
systemized activities as “the bush school, organized usually in connection with pu-
berty rites and initiation” (Merriam, 1964, p. 155) and in apprenticeship (p. 157).
The survey related above of Kam Raw’s learning experience in his home village
includes all the types of learning mentioned above. Together they constitute his en-
culturation with regard to singing and music:
¢ Habituation, impregnation: children’s songs, songs for children, certain
social songs, certain ceremonial songs, and certain instruments
e Education: shaman songs
« Schooling: adult songs learnt in the “field school”
These processes fit equally well with my own music education while growing
up in Sweden. I ended up as an amateur performing musician while focusing on
musicology studies:
« Habituation, impregnation: children’s songs, songs for children, music, jazz/
rock/pop and folk styles
« Education: folk tunes and early popular tunes learnt from my grandfather
(who played a small accordion) in sessions during a succession of summer
holidays
« Schooling: music lessons in school, instrumental lessons in afternoon
community music school and by private teachers

Still I do not feel that my music learning has been fragmented. In one way or
another the different learning situations constitute a whole for me. It is very likely
that these categories will fit almost everybody—though the three categories may
be of different proportions—and probably everybody who cares for music is able
to navigate through the different parts and integrate them into a complete learning
profile on the personal level.

SOME CHALLENGES FOR MUSIC EDUCATION

From the perspective of anthropology or ethnomusicology there are thus a number

of diverse ways that people learn music. While there is much cultural diversity some
296 HAKAN LUNDSTROM

major categories can be defined. From this perspective music education in the sense
of schooling is one of several learning modes and perhaps not even the central one.
From the perspective of music education, music schooling is the central form
of learning. Learning that takes place outside the school situation is also acknowl-
edged and often referred to as informal. It is true that research in music educa-
tion, as well as practice, in recent years has come to embrace much more of the
informal learning situations. Still there is a difference between extending a field of
practice or research from the inside and applying a totally outside perspective to the
whole field.
When the perspective with which an object is looked at is changed, the positions
and relations between its parts will change—the way the picture in a kaleidoscope
changes when it is turned around, even though the parts that make up the picture
are the same. Some parts that seem peripheral in the original perspective may stand
out as central in the new perspective, and the other way around. For me, this out-
side perspective has made two factors stand out as extremely central ones to music
learning. Both lie in the sphere that Merriam called socialization that was further
specified to embrace learning by habituation or impregnation:
e The ability to relate to music by learning, adapting, transmitting
e The capacity for parents to transfer this ability to their children
Even though children’s culture seems to be surviving (Marsh, 2008) it cannot
be taken for granted that it will always do so and definitely not that it will survive
in every society in the world, for example in places that experience war or similar
situations. Likewise there is no guarantee that parents will “automatically” know
how to sing or make music with their children. In Beijing, developments in modern
times have caused changes in the self-understanding and identity of mothers, which
is now the theme for a research project, called Mommusicing, in which the use of
music in mother-child interaction plays a central role. This is an example of the
complementary functions of music education/research and informal music learning
(Xie & Xiaoming, 2009).
Some challenges for music education follow from this:

¢ The challenge to understand the position of music education in the whole

spectrum of music learning: This kind of worldview would make it natural
for music educators and researchers to note changes in the learning contexts
outside the school and react to them, for example, in collaboration with
ethnomusicologists and music sociologists.
« The challenge for music education to regard itselfascomplementary to other
ways of learning music—rather than as of a different species: Given that the
music educator's aim is to help children or school pupils to develop their
personal “learning profile,’ this would involve supporting the competences
children bring with them to school, particularly those associated with oral
learning and transmission; furthermore, to regard methodologies developed
within music education as pieces in a puzzle that may be combined with
 .

MUSIC EDUCATION FROM A SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE 297

eS a a eS ee eee

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

REFERENCES

Bohannan, P. (1963). Social anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gillin, J. (1948). The ways of men. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Herskovits, M. J. (1948). Man and his works. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
lari, B., & Pablo, M. (2002). Children’s songs around the world: An interview with Francis
Corpataux. Music Education International, 1, 3-14.
Lundstrém, H. (2010). I will send my song. Kammu vocal genres in the singing of Kam Raw.
Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground. Global tradition and change in children’s songs and
games. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology ofmusic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Xie, J., & Xiaoming, K. (2009). Discussions on mom identity consciousness in Mommusicing.
In Yu Danhong (ed.), 7th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Music Education Research (pp. 540-
547). ISME Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, China, June 24-28, 2009. Shanghai: Baljia
Publishing House.
 CHAPTER 27
eee ee mee eee R HERE HERR ER HEHEHE ESE EREEHE EERE SER HEHE ER EE EERE EER REE ES HERES SASE ERE ES ERE SES ENNS

RESEARCH ISSUES
IN PERSONAL MUSIC
IDENTIFICATION

CLIFFORD K. MADSEN

I shall never forget that special day in fourth grade when my mother returned from
a long trip and surprised me with a brand new cornet. I remember just looking at
the case for a long time, then carefully opening it. It was absolutely magnificent.
I can still see it now—vividly. It was a bright golden instrument lying in a rich red
velvet background. If] try hard I can still smell the inside of that new case: A strange
mixture of new velvet lining and valve-oil. Even after six decades it is permanently
stored in my memory.
Having been initially recruited into the Tonette class, I had instant success
and could play any number of songs quickly and easily—it was really, really fun,
Coming from a very large family of extremely modest means | knew we could
not afford a regular horn and was delighted to be able to play a school instru-
ment for free. It was an ED mellophone, an instrument surely created by the Devil,
with piston values and difficult to hold. Yet the most awful thing about it was its
horrible intonation. Regardless, I thought it was wonderful. It was much better
than the plastic Tonette, and I could get half steps and play different tunes, and
if Iworked at it I could make it play almost in tune, except for the 1, 2, and 3
buttons held down together. Evidently my band director noticed my budding pre-
cociousness and was very encouraging. I found out later that he had approached
my parents and almost insisted that I get a new instrument. Of course that was
not possible but as I later discovered my sweet mother began a long project to-
ward saving money for the purchase of that new cornet. Much, much later I truly
understood just how difficult that purchase was for my parents. Se very quickly
RESEARCH ISSUES IN PERSONAL MUSIC IDENTIFICATION
a 299

after getting that new instrument I became almost permanently attached to it in

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

and the psychological issues relating to self-concept and personal motivation, we

will not change the attitudes surrounding applied music. If an aspiring performer
“needs” to study with a distinguished teacher or has the propensity to eulogize his
present teacher regardless of competence or reputation, as some of my data indicate,
then it seems useless to suggest other avenues for professional development outside
the traditional apprenticeship model. This issue has both pedagogical as well as psy-
chological implications. ~
In addition, in the process of developing an evaluation instrument of under-
graduate music instructors I inadvertently found that students rated their present
applied music teacher a full standard deviation higher than any other classroom
music professor. Curiously, ifa student became upset with his or her current applied
teacher, and changed teachers, the previous teacher was then rated almost two full
standard deviations below the “new” teacher. Whereas the new teacher then re-
ceived the same high evaluation as did the original teacher, but only when the rater
was presently studying with that particular teacher.
If a person's self-concept is as strongly tied to her instrument, as these pre-
liminary data seem to suggest, then all other issues should take this into account.
Indeed, the strong personal identification connected to one’s instrument needs a
great deal of study. The apparent inability of most adult musicians to deal with self-
concept if not connected with their musical instruments needs rigorous investiga-
tion. Perhaps it is this extremely strong identification that results in the need to
study with the “right teacher.” For example, it is not uncommon for applied music
students to actually follow a current applied teacher across the nation, and some-
times the world, to maintain the apprentice relationship. Of course it is not neces-
sarily limited to applied music study but definitely needs clarification.
I am aware of excellent research investigating aspects of personality and in-
strument selection, as well as studies that address a person’s proclivity for a certain
musical timbre. However, I think other fruitful areas of investigation should address
sociological issues, especially regarding status. In the formative years, particularly
in adolescence, it seems that social issues are paramount. During these formative
years most often peers have a great deal of influence on each other. The desire to
not only “fit in” but to be recognized seems very important. If a violinist can play
the Vivaldi A Minor with aplomb, as opposed to still squeaking in a public perfor-
mance, then the youngster is held in high peer esteem. When a trumpet player can
triple-tongue through a Vandercook solo, or if a pianist can quickly negotiate a fast
Kobalevsky performance; or if any youngster can get to conduct (any group) or be
the leader as with a drum major or student leader, this receives strong positive peer
approval. Alternately, if someone is still struggling with his instrument and does not
receive positive praise, then he will often quit. Sometimes belonging to a revered
group is what maintains the desire to continue. If it is powerful enough this per-
severance will probably be strong—extremely strong—until the group disbands. If
a student does nof connect with another similar group with which to identify, the
desire to continue working diligently diminishes.
RESEARCH ISSUES IN PERSONAL MUSIC IDENTIFICATION 301

If it is determined that achieving some peer status in the developmental years

might have a strong impact on identity and subsequent career goals, then music
educators should provide these experiences with the aim of providing complete
peer performance immersion that has a good chance for a positive outcome. Across
the years other identities and activities might override these initial phenomeno-
logical experiences, but the career trajectory already will be in place. When we feel
both empowered and personally connected, the desire to continue seems especially
strong—my own analysis suggests that every musician still remembers that first
instrument.
 CHAPTER 28

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

ANDREW J. MARTIN

On the one hand, diverse performance domains such as music, school, sports, and
work are seen to be quite distinct. On the other hand, it is evident that they share a
great deal in common. In all these domains, for example, participants are required to
apply themselves over a sustained and disciplined period of time, “switch on” in key
performance settings, cope with the rigors and challenges of competition, bounce
back from inevitable setback, and wrestle with self-doubt and performance slumps.
‘Indeed, my recent research and that of others has confirmed these hypothesized
congruencies across music, school, sport, and work (Martin, 2008a, 2008b). Given
this common ground, it is reasonable to suggest that some of the yields and insights
derived from diverse performance psychology domains are relevant to individual
and group preparation, perseverance, and performance in music. This commentary
provides an explanation of five exciting directions that I believe have the potential
to contribute to research, education, and practice in music education: (1) integra-
tive and multidimensional motivation, (2) buoyancy and resilience, (3) adaptability,
(4) personal bests (PBs), and (5) interpersonal relationships.
PREPARATION, PERSEVERANCE, AND PERFORMANCE IN MUSIC 303
ee gee ee ET

INTEGRATIVE AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL

MOTIVATION
CLR DR eee eee eee ce ee er ee ie ee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ei)

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

BUOYANCY AND RESILIENCE

Maintaining motivation through relatively smooth and successful phases of life is

not difficult for most people. However, life is not always smooth and successful.
The music domain, for example, is one in which challenge, setback, adversity, and
pressure are a reality of life at some stage in every musician's life (Martin, 2008a,
2008b). Thus, there is a need to understand music-related adversity and how
musicians deal with it.
304 ANDREW J. MARTIN

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

ADAPTABILITY

More recent work has suggested that whereas buoyancy and resilience are impor-
tant in helping individuals through adversity and challenge, an attribute referred to
as “adaptability” is important in helping individuals through change, uncertainty, _
novelty and transition. That is, a distinction has been made between dealing with
adversity and dealing with change—a distinction articulated by the terms buoy-
ancy and adaptability respectively (Martin, 2012; Martin, Nejad, Colmar, & Liem,
2013, 2014). Adaptability has been proposed as individuals’ adaptive self-regulation
in the face of uncertainty, change, transition, or novelty (Martin, 2012; Martin et al.,
2013, 2014). It has been suggested that these regulation efforts take place in three
core domains of functioning: cognition, affect, and behavior (Martin, 2012; Martin
et al., 2013, 2014). Thus, musicians who are adaptable are proposed to be capable of
purposefully and effectively adjusting their thought, emotion, and behavior when
they are presented with new performance demands, novel music pieces, changes in
group members or directors and instructors, and transition from one level of profi-
ciency to another (Martin, 2012).
_ Research into adaptability is now under way (for recent results, see Collie,
Holliman, & Martin, 2016; Martin et al., 2013, 2014), and there are important
questions to address as researchers explore the potential of this construct for
explaining competence and achievement in various performance domains. The
music domain, with the inherent change and novelty that characterize practice and
performance regimes, would be an ideal focus for adaptability research. This re-
search might ask: What is the role of adaptability in assisting musicians to succeed
through periods of flux, challenge, and change? Do changes in adaptability lead
to changes in subsequent learning, perseverance, and achievement outcomes in
PREPARATION, PERSEVERANCE, AND PERFORMANCE IN MUSIC 305
a

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

PERSONAL BESTS

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

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Educational psychology researchers have also investigated factors supportive of

individuals achievement motivation (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Indeed, a pervading
306 ANDREW J. MARTIN

theme in influential motivation theories is the role of significant others in shaping

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

CONCLUSION

There are numerous potential yields and insights derived from diverse performance
psychology domains that are relevant to individual and group preparation, persever-
ance, and performance in music. A challenge for future research and practice will be
for educational psychologists and musicians to work cooperatively in order to more
_ fully understand these processes as they apply in various facets of music education.
By incorporating into our teaching and research these frameworks, constructs, and
processes, music educators will be better positioned to enhance learning, compe-
tence, and achievement in music students. Just as education and training in other
applied domains such as education, sport, and work orient to promising new psy-
chological constructs and processes to optimally engage, energize, and activate their
stakeholders (e.g., teachers, sportspeople, employees), so, too, can music educators
benefit from the application of these constructs and processes. Hence, the syn-
ergy of cutting edge research and theory in music and psychology offers important
opportunities for music educators as they seek to instruct and inspire future gener-
ations of musicians.
PREPARATION, PERSEVERANCE, AND PERFORMANCE IN MUSIC 307

REFERENCES
POO m meres aren ase resenereeerenesseeseeeereseee THT e em meee ream e meee eee Heese HEHEHE HEE HESH SESH EEO ER EE HEHE EE EHD E REE ES

Collie, R. J., Holliman, A. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability, engagement, and aca-
demic achievement at university. Educational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01443410.2016.1231296
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
Purrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic en-
gagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and en-
gagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal ofEducational Psychology,
77> 413-440.
Martin, A. J. (2008a). How domain specific are motivation and engagement across school,
sport, and music? A substantive-methodological synergy assessing young sportspeople
and musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 785-813.
Martin, A. J. (2008b). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidi-
mensional framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135-170.
Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A develop-
mental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college
students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794-824.
Martin, A. J. (2012). Adaptability and learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the sci-
ences of learning (pp. 2339-2342). New York: Springer.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 327-365.
Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2016a). The role of personal best (PB) and dichotomous achieve-
ment goals in students’ academic motivation and engagement: A longitudinal investiga-
tion. Educational Psychology, 36, 1285-1302.
Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2016b). The role of personal best (PB) goal setting in students’
academic achievement gains. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 222-227.
Martin, A. J., & Liem, G.A. (2010). Academic Personal Bests (PBs), engagement, and achieve-
ment: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 265-270.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoy-
ancy: Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and
cognate constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 353-370.
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2013). Adaptability: How students’
responses to uncertainty and novelty predict their academic and non-academic outcomes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 728-746.
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2014). From measurement to
modeling: A case study of the development and implementation of the Adaptability Scale.
London: SAGE.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
 CHAPTER 29

MUSIC THERAPY IN
SCHOOLS: AN EXPANSION
| OF TRADITIONAL
PRACTICE
KATRINA MCFERRAN

Where does music therapy belong in the school team—allied health, well-being, ex-
pressive arts? The place of music therapy in schools has always involved a negotiation
rather than a comfortable assumption about belonging. One important part of the dis-
cussion has been the relationship between music teachers and music therapists, and in
some schools, the availability of both professionals results in a great deal of overlap (i.e.,
the intuitive and empathic music teacher and the skills-oriented music therapist), while
in.others, the combination results in two distinct possibilities for engaging with music
(the curriculum-focused music teacher and the relationship-oriented music therapist).
Rather than being a professional distinction, in reality, this has often become very per-
sonal. Having acknowledged that one part of the relationship between music therapy
and music education is actually a relationship between the music therapist and music
educator, it then becomes necessary to consider a whole range of ecological influences
that influence the practice and perception of music therapy in schools.
In this commentary, I will outline a handful of theoretical influences that seem
important to the discussion of “where to put music therapy” from my position as an
Australian academic located in a music conservatorium, under the leadership of a
music educator (who, not by coincidence, is one of the editors of this book). I will
use this position as a platform to look out and around, and take the opportunity to
comment on how the validity of music therapy in schools is argued internationally,
which in reality is mostly based on English-language literature from England and
MUSIC THERAPY IN SCHOOLS 309
e e ee tsi

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

has become a critical target for many programs in schools. Whether it is framed as
well-being or self-esteem, the expanded agenda for schools has led to a more overt
emphasis on the importance of emotional development within music therapy prac-
tice. Perhaps surprisingly, the link between music and emotions is broadly accepted
but infrequently addressed in the music therapy research literature. Outcomes are
more frequently contextualized within psycho-dynamic, developmental, or behav-
ioral frameworks that are indirectly related to emotional well-being. Schools are
usually understood as the location for intellectual rather than emotional work; for
skills rather than pure expression. It is allowable to address emotions if doing so will
lead to greater educational outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness is challenging
to accrue since processes are mostly internal and links to other improvements are
often difficult to explicate.
Music therapy in schools is now changing as the educational context expands
to acknowledge the validity of multiple types of intelligence that incorporate, to
some degree, emotional intelligence. Although the impact of these changes has
not yet reached the music therapy in special education literature, music therapists
working in mainstream settings have enthusiastically embraced it. However, the
expanded focus on emotional well-being within school settings demands a recon-
sideration of appropriate theoretical frameworks for music therapy and the rede-
velopment of models of practice. The emergence of community music therapy has
provided such an opportunity, and examples of collaborative practice in schools
are appearing. Participatory theoretical frameworks are used to emphasize under-
standing the whole of the young person in context, with regard to both the systems
that surround them and the cultural and historical contexts that influence their ex-
perience of music therapy. .
Distinguishing different theoretical influences is useful insofar as it explains
any confusion that may exist about why music therapists practice in different
ways in different school settings, both around the globe and around the corner.
Potentially more useful to young people, though, is the adoption of an eclectic
approach to practice that places students at the center of the therapeutic encounter.
Eclectic (rather than exclusive) approaches to music therapy with adolescents are
increasingly documented, although mostly beyond U.S. and UK borders. An ec-
lectic model allows the music therapist to select the most appropriate approach to
address the unique needs of each student, and also for the professional to identify
with a theoretical stance that best suits her own abilities and philosophical beliefs at
a given moment in time. It acknowledges that “music therapy in schools” is a broad
agenda and by logical extension, suggests that it would be a mistake to limit interna-
tional practice to one approach. An eclectic model supports different students, with
different needs, in different places, to experience reflexive and individualized music
therapy programs. Whether the combination of music and relationship provides
motivation, insight, expression, or simply support for the students is far less impor-
tant than whether they “feel better” at the end.
MUSIC THERAPY IN SCHOOLS 311

An inclusive and expansive approach to music therapy in schools is neces-

sary for the future growth of the discipline. This includes not only traditional (to
music therapy) theoretical influences from behavioral, humanistic, and psycho-
dynamic psychological theory but also the incorporation of participatory influences
grounded in ecological perspectives. This is in keeping with trends within the
music therapy discipline, and in the not-so-distant future, I anticipate an even
greater trend toward collaborative approaches, where music therapists, music
educators, and other professionals share their knowledge in consultative, or at
least transdisciplinary, approaches that work toward the well-being of students in
schools. An eclectic approach provides a platform for the unique needs of each stu-
dent to be met through music and places the student in the center surrounded by
music, relationships, and care.
 CHAPTER 30

EMBRACING NEW
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES:
| NOW AND INTO
THE FUTURE
BRADLEY MERRICK

Recently, I was in a computer shop with my 10-year-old son buying a new com-
puter. The assistant processed the purchase via a mobile, handheld device and began
to look for an application to show me, touching the screen several times without
success. In the background my son said “use the search function” and slid his finger
onto the screen, guiding the slightly bemused assistant to the application in a matter
of seconds. In a slide of the finger, the digital literacy of this Gen Z native was op-
erating totally differently to his Gen X and Y counterparts, displaying an intuitive
understanding about the handheld device that seemed embedded in his psyche
through his own unique experience with similar technology. Like this experience,
new digital technologies are an integral part of the daily activity that all young
students employ in much of their work and play.
This type of experience happens daily for most teachers, parents, and
communities of learners. It also highlights a basic everyday fact for music teachers,
which is that students of today are generally very autonomous individuals, who
explore and define their own learning in a very different manner from the way
students did when we were at school.
New digital technologies and creative approaches to communicating’ and
accessing information are expanding daily at a rate that hardly could be imagined
just decades ago. Such technologies cater to divergence in learning styles, combining
_ EMBRACING NEW DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
ee ee eee 313

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

The use of new digital technologies (i.e., learning how to play an instrument via
YouTube, creating an online performance of an ensemble in real time and sharing
it with others via video or audio, developing an electronic performance portfolio
with reflective audio comments, annotations, and videos of practice sessions) can
be closely aligned with the emerging research into informal approaches to learning
music. These are in distinct contrast to the more traditional modes of instruction
that have been present for hundreds of years. Bs
We are at a point where we would do well to consider changing the lens through
which we shape our own pedagogy and understanding of musical development to
ensure we embrace these emerging technology “natives,” allowing students to bring
their innate knowledge and skill into the classroom without them fearing that their
digital literacy is not important or valued. For some students, this connection with
new technology may provide the doorway through which a future performer, film
composer, or sound engineer is able to tind their distinctive “digital” voice.
Change is something that does not come easily, and technophobia still explains
why many music teachers are reluctant to use new technologies. Conversely, students
have never been more motivated and engaged to use new digital technologies,
learning and embedding a sophisticated level of digital literacy in many of their
tasks each day through their use of mobile devices in the playground or on the
train if they cannot access it in class. Much of the current discussion internationally
seems to focus on the factors that underpin successful teaching, but my suggestion
for music teachers is to reflect on how students learn in everyday lite and the means
by which they can develop their own personal voice in an ever-changing world, As
educators in a digital world, it is essential that we continually remodel our learning
intentions and assessment processes to accommodate the creative and cqllaborative
approaches to learning that are emerging almost daily,
My thinking is driven by an assumption that successful teaching comes from
building meaningful and authentic connections with students in our classrooms,
If my 10-year-old son is able to teach a computer salesman two and a half times
his age plus his father something new in a split second, one wonders how much
unharnessed creative potential can be unleashed in our music classrooms. Shifting
our roles, listening to the experts (even if they are younger than us!), and consid-
ering how our music curriculum can parallel the emergence of new technologies
deserves more emphasis as we consider the future direction of music education and
music education research,
 CHAPTER 31

CHALLENGES FOR
RESEARCH AND
PRACTICES OF MUSIC
EDUCATION

BENGT OLSSON

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

concerts or religious events. An overview of such an approach in this volume

involves a span from brain research to different kinds of vocal and instrumental
teaching and learning and community music activities. Moreover, issues on special
needs and music therapy as well as the life-span perspective have to be involved. All
together these issues form the basis for a researched-based music education, but
what kind of problems does this research explore? And what kinds of problems are
not explored? .
First of all, music education is a matter of learning. The knowledge of learning
issues in research of psychology, sociology, and brain research is substantial, but
still we do not have full control of the learning process. Why do not all children
learn the same thing, in spite of receiving the same kind of teaching? What are
the obstacles for such a development? Although the traditional concept of musi-
cality as the main predictor of learning has been abandoned among researchers
for ages, it persists among many practitioners. How can research-based knowledge
of learning processes not only be communicated to teachers but also promoted as
useful in their daily work? Among parents and school authorities you will find a lot
of demands for evidence-based research and a more efficient education. How can it
challenge present activities in schools? The core issue here is the interface between
reliable research projects and practitioners’ deep experience of music education.
The transformation of new knowledge to practitioners is not easy to achieve since
both the researcher and the teacher need to understand each other’s background
and knowledge in order to be successful. The researcher's focus on well-defined
projects may seem too limited for the holistic approach of a practitioner. Themes -
like “motivation and psychological needs,” “philosophical perspectives of learning”
“music learning and teaching in infancy and early childhood, and so.on in this
volume not only are appropriate ways of presenting research to the public but also
follow scientific rules of linking the most suitable theories and methods to the re-
search problem. However, from the practitioner's perspective this is not always the
best approach since a starting-point in practical teaching and learning problems
often integrate several of these labels. This contradiction between a narrow research
perspective and a broad practitioner approach gives rise to a need for new ways of
formulating research problems and, at the same time, new ways of thinking about
didactical theories. Thus, the future music teacher must be educated in research,
and more research must have a connection to music education in practice. This also
stresses the demand for new ways of discussing the quality of research. The tradi-
tional academic and disciplinary mode 1 research (Gibbons et al., 1994) has to be
supplemented by a transdisciplinary mode 2 context of application. What we need
here is some kind of “social epistemology,’ in which research theories are not only
studied in the narrow sense based on traditional quality criteria, but also discussed
in a wider context, including practitioners’ as well as nonpractitioners’ teaching
experiences. Moreover, there is a field of tension between two concepts of quality
integrated in the two modes: qualities based on criteria of scientific quality and qual-
ities based on criteria of relevance to the praxis field. This social approach, including
CHALLENGES FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICES OF MUSIC EDUCATION 317
era s

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

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

REFERENCES

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). New
production of knowledge—The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: SAGE.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,
corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology
Review, 18, 315-341.
 CHAPTER 32
Same e mene ners eennee ere rvs cv ar Cony eee Te Te ee es ee eee eee eee eee ee ee ee iy

ALL THEORIED UP AND

NOWHERE TO GO

BENNETT REIMER

This volume is a magnificent demonstration that a new age of theoretical sophis-

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

My impression of the yearbooks influence is that it was enormously powerful

in the thinking of those close to it; that is, emerging scholars such as me, working
toward the doctorate in music education and hungering for substantive ideas that
would provide a convincing basis for my own contributions to the betterment of
my chosen vocation. I devoured it, relished it, and pledged to myself that I would
someday offer similarly productive ideas that had the potential to move our field
forward. I was not alone in this, with the book nourishing the small but growing
number of budding scholars at that time in their quest for enlightenment.
Did its influence extend beyond that of further, improved theory production?
Did it change the nature of the programs of music instruction available in the
schools of the United States and the practices of teachers in those programs? Will
this volume, given its clearly superior expertise and stunningly wider content, serve
primarily or entirely to generate and illuminate further theory-making as its major
contribution? Or will it, in addition, cause programs in the schools to be improved,
even transformed, in their obligation to provide instruction powerfully relevant to
the theoretical constructs this volume presents?
These questions, I would argue, can be answered with some reasonable de-
gree of certainty. I make this claim in light of a central fact: music programs in
US. schools have remained remarkably, even confoundingly, stagnant and predict-
able since the singing schools some 30 years ago in the American colonies, since the
first acceptance of music as a curricular subject in the Boston public schools over
170 years ago, and since the founding of the Music Educators National Conference
(MENC) over 100 years ago. This despite the continual (although slow) growth of
theory throughout all that time and its burgeoning in recent years.
Scholarly, research-based efforts in our profession have clearly fostered impres-
sive growth in further theory, both in breadth and in depth. Their influence on
school programs and practices, however, can fairly be regarded as inconsequential.
I will mention several conditions in music education that support the separation of
theory from practice.
First, much theoretical work in music education, as in many if not most other
fields in education, is not intended to be relevant to substantive change in the
practices of school teachers. Instead, its purpose is to affect other theoretical work.
Perhaps, as a by-product, or down the road, concrete changes in practice might
ensue, but for many who do theory that is not the primary or even anticipated goal,
and for some it is a goal unrelated to their professional self-image.
Adding to that self-contained situation, few practitioners outside the theoret-
ical community are prepared to engage, or interested in engaging, in the difficult
work of mining the rocky terrain of theory to uncover the jewels for application that
might be buried there. So they remain undiscovered.
Second, even scholarship and research aimed directly at application is often,
even usually, uncertain in its guidance to music teachers. Both in theory and in
practice, education is by far the most complex, least predictable endeavor in which
humans engage. In education, including music education, for every seemingly clear
directive as to what to do and why to do it there are countless exceptions. Every
 ALL THEORIED UP AND NOWHERE TO GO
SE 321
ee

seemingly unassailable conclusion encompasses a host of doubts and alternatives.

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

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

REFERENCES

Henry, N. B. (ed.) (958). Basic concepts in music education: Thefifty-seventh yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Music Educators National Conference (MENC). (1994). National standards for arts edu-
cation. What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston,
VA: MENC,
 CHAPTER 33

MAKE RESEARCH, NOT

WAR: METHODOLOGIES
AND MUSIC EDUCATION
RESEARCH

WENDY L. SIMS

Research in music education as a field of endeavor may be relatively young as compared

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

researchers and teachers of teachers and researchers we should not tolerate these
kinds of behaviors in our classes, seminars, and professional meetings.
Quantitative research, qualitative research, mixed methods research, name-
your-favorite-type of research—all are ways of examining questions that researchers
believe are important to ask, not religions or ideologies or political parties. Yes,
different methodologies have different underlying assumptions, but they all do
have underlying assumptions, as well as established methodologies and accepted
ways of documenting the legitimacy/validity/trustworthiness of the process and its
product. All of these can be taught and learned, and don't require secret passwords
or loyalty oaths for transmission, or passports for crossing boundaries.
' Music education researchers don’t need to define or divide ourselves by the
types of research we choose to do. We should feel the need to defend our choices
only with respect to how well they address our research questions, not against some
abstract set of presumed “nonbelievers,” as too many authors still seem to feel the
need to do. We need not “take sides,’ set up “camps,” or hurl salvos at those whose
research pursuits are different from our own, but rather should attempt to under-
stand the differences, and respect and value them.
The Greek playwright Aeschylus is quoted.as stating that “in war, truth is the
first casualty” The Research Methodology Wars are not different—rumors run
rampant, often begun by disgruntled would-be authors whose submissions are not
accepted by prominent research journals. Granted, it is difficult to read comments
from reviewers and editors who do not find one’s work to meet their standards, or
perhaps who see the value in the work, but do not find the manuscripts to match
the mission of their journals. Yet to leap defensively from these typically thoughtful
comments and feedback to “they don’t like my kind of research,’ and from there to
generalize beyond one’s own experience to “they are biased against [my kind of] re-
search” is inappropriate at best, dishonest at worst. Those who aggressively malign
journals and their boards and perpetuate untruths about what does and does not get
published demonstrate the veracity of Aeschylus’s words.
To reiterate, it is the research questions that should drive the methodology. Our
time and efforts should be put into deciding what it is we really want or need to
know. Debates about what we should be studying, and how best to go about an-
swering our questions, are healthy and stimulating. Honest and open debate about
which methodology best suits which research question is also worthwhile, and
not what I’ve been decrying here. My concern is with those who start from the
‘methodology rather than the questions, proclaiming their chosen method the only
worthy method, unable to find value in the choices other researchers make and thus
dismissing them out of hand, unwilling to consider that we can learn a great deal
when issues are addressed from multiple research perspectives.
As musicians and music teachers, we don't need to like or perform all styles and
genres of music, whether string quartet or opera or hip-hop, but should be able to
understand and value the best each has to offer, and respect those who do enjoy and
choose to pursue them. As music education researchers, we don't need to engage in
MAKE RESEARCH, NOT WAR 325

all types of research ourselves, but should be able to understand and value the var-
ious methodologies and identify their strengths and weaknesses, and respect those
who pursue any of them if they do so with high standards and rigor.
As a researcher, conference attender, editorial committee member, and journal
editor, I have encountered enough of the negative attitudes and rumors described
here to know that although they should be passé by now, unfortunately, they per-
sist. Recruiting coconspirators, erecting parapets, and battling among ourselves is
only destructive, and a waste of energy that should be put into identifying impor-
tant research questions, undertaking quality research, and nurturing open-minded
young researchers. We are still too small a research community to revert to childish
and adolescent behavior when we should instead be moving steadily forward into a
stable, productive maturity. It is time to put aside animosity, bury the rumors, and
focus our best efforts on making research, not research wars!
 CHAPTER 34

THE PREPARATION
OF MUSIC TEACHER
EDUCATORS:
A CRITICAL LINK

DAVID J. TEACHOUT

The idea that professional practices evolve to meet continually changing needs in
society would seem to be axiomatic. One needs only to notice changes in such pro-
fessional areas such as medicine, technology, and engineering to see grand models
of evolved practice, informed particularly by the type of sustained and specialized
research that characterizes those fields. In music education, however, teaching prac-
tice and learning goals have changed very little over time. For example, think of how
understanding in the medical sciences and subsequent protocols for practice have
evolved over the past 100 years; then compare those developments to changes in
music education over a similar time period.
Several authors in these volumes describe a number of forward-thinking ideas
and practices, such as incorporating experiences that engender learner agency
(Wiggins & Espeland, chapter 9, volume 2); making meaningful connections from
the child's point of view (Barrett & Veblen, chapter 10, volume 2); exploring com-
munal creativity as an expression of the students’ own pedagogical values (Lapidaki,
de Groot, & Stagkos, chapter 4, volume 5); and framing creativity as a practice
(Burnard, chapter 1, volume 5). However, Bowman (chapter 2, volume 1) explores
an important question regarding the role and function of music in education and in
personal development. It is through that exploration that we are brought to realize
that current practice in music education, which is characterized generally by the
THE PREPARATION OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATORS
SERR E Gees aa aaa nanan aeathe Dela ital a, BI 327
ec

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

students pursuing a doctorate in music education with the goal of becoming music
education professors and contributing to music teacher preparation programs).
Colleges and universities in different parts of the world implement vastly different —

and distinctive training programs. For example, it is common in many European

and Australian institutions for advanced studies to consist mostly of regular
meetings between the student and her major professor for the expressed purpose of
preparing and defending a dissertation that uncovers new knowledge in a particular
field. If, along the way, the student and professor decide that the student needs to
develop expertise in a particular area or research technique, a course or two might
be recommended. Such coursework is pursued as needed, when needed. In con-
trast, institutions in the United States typically offer a sequence of standard courses olS
UCS
l—F

intended to provide a baseline of expertise in content and research skills. Near the
completion of the curriculum, a comprehensive exam is administered to ensure
the student is “ready” to pursue work on his dissertation. Common to both models
is that the successfully defended dissertation serves as the capstone experience. In
addition, common to both models is the assumption that the doctoral candidate
will transfer the learning of content delivered throughout a program of study into
successful strategies for fulfilling one’s teaching and research responsibilities in ways
that will also move the music education profession forward. Such an assumption
may be unrealistic.
Most individuals who pursue a doctorate in music education have achieved a
substantive degree of success as music teachers. Quickly, however, they find that
having taught music successfully does not ensure success with teaching others to —
teach music. Undergraduate students enter more strongly socialized as performers
than as educators and bring a great deal of naivete about the music edueation pro-
fession and its purpose for society. Music education professors must recognize the
powerful and often covert sociological influences that affect how young teacher
candidates think and how they think of themselves as professionals. Further, music
education professors must create a genuine “need-to-know” mindset in teacher
candidates such that these neophytes will begin to look beyond re-creating how they
were taught and develop a degree of comfort with searching for and implementing
forward-thinking practices that are not widespread currently. Unfortunately, the
type of pedagogical training that directly acknowledges and addresses the develop-
mental processes of undergraduate music education majors is not commonplace in
doctoral preparation. Doctoral students may learn about major sociological tenets
though coursework, but rarely are they given the opportunity to apply that know-
ledge to the training of undergraduates with the regularity needed for such peda-
gogical applications to become “owned” by those future professors.
Training in research seems to suffer from a similar type of gap between “book
knowledge” and the thoughtful, effective application of that knowledge. Most
individuals entering a doctoral program have had little or no prior experience
with research. Consequently, skill as a researcher represents one of the steepest
learning curves an individual must negotiate as she progresses through a program.
THE PREPARATION OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATORS 329

A doctoral student may pursue one or more research projects, work that may or
may not be associated with courses. These initial projects typically involve simple
designs and simple research questions, which are appropriate for individuals
learning to develop independent research skills. However, once out in the field and
under the pressure to produce a number of publications over a relatively short time,
the chances of identifying and pursuing a line of research that will impact the pro-
fession consequentially are unlikely. Contrast this outcome with a different one that
could result from substantively different training. Imagine a doctoral program in
which students “apprentice” within established teams of faculty researchers, per-
haps from several different university campuses. Each team would pursue an on-
going set of investigations that explores a critical issue in music education. Students
would be assigned ancillary duties initially, but could be given increasingly greater
responsibilities over time. All the while, they would be immersed in a rich envi-
ronment influenced by the seasoned perspective of senior faculty serving as team
leaders. Under this scenario, newly minted music education professors would be in
a much better position to pursue substantive research issues important to the pro-
fession. Unfortunately, such a scenario is not typical.
It seems we recruit bright, capable people into the higher education profession,
but we are not as effective in giving them the tools to supersede current practices of
the profession. This might be good news, however, because it signals an opportunity
to substantively and positively impact the profession. A similar opportunity exists
in the fact that very little research exists on music education doctoral students, their
training, and the effects of that training. The more we can learn about doctoral
students and their training, the better tools we will have to utilize this critical link to
implement change in music teaching practice.
 CHAPTER 35

MUSIC AND THE ARTS:

AS UBIQUITOUS AND
FUNDAMENTAL AS THE
AIR WE BREATHE

RENA B. UPITIS

I awoke this morning chilled by the February cold. I pulled on a fleece over my
flannel nightgown and made my way downstairs to light a fire in our cook stove.
Within seconds, the dry cedar kindling started to crackle—winter music of the
highest order—and I felt the tension leave my shoulders. As I boiled water for my
morning tea, I lamented the fact that I had an administrative meeting at the uni-
versity later in the day, and that I would later have to change into something more
fitting for an academic gathering. I decided to wear the same thing I had worn the
day before and be done with it. As someone who prides myself on not spending a
lot of attention on what I wear, it was a relief to slip into the dark brown sweater and
olive green jeans I had left by my bedside the night before. I had time to pick just
the right necklace to wear around the big cowl neck, with earrings to match, before
running to the door.
As I was pulling on my boots, I found myself thinking about an article I read a
few years ago by Fiona Blaikie (2007), “The Aesthetics of Female Scholarship.” This
article has stayed with me, popping up at the least expected moments (as when I am
getting dressed on a frosty February morning). It is not only because of the visual
images contained therein that the article stays with me. It is because Blaikie has
made me profoundly aware that the act of choosing one’s clothing is a ubiquitous,
and at the same time, a symbolic act. It is an act that is rarely discussed in academic
MUSIC AND THE ARTS
Se ee ee 331

circles, but one that communicates much meaning. Because whether I like it or
not, I admit that I am communicating meaning when I choose to wear the same
comfortable clothes three days in succession. Or when I choose to wear an emerald
velvet dress to go to the opera. As Blaikie writes:
The objects that one chooses to place on or near one’s body have inherent
significance. The . . . presentation of one’s body in clothing signifies a sense of ease
or dis/ease, a sense of clothed bodily comfort or not, a sense of or a repression
of the aesthetic, a sense of what is correct and appropriate for dress in relation to
one’s acceptance by a particular audience, a desire to belong or be accepted by a
particular scholarly group, and most of all, a sense of oneself. (p. 2)
Blaikie presents a series of poems and portraits of four women that “serve to
examine, interpret and re/present multiple situated meanings” (2007, p. 24). Citing
works of Bourdieu (1984, 1985), Levi- iat (1963), Lurie sie and hag (1993),ay
Blaikie makes the claim that

-d, interpreted and subve Paaee with Blaikie’s claim. And in the con-
text of musiceeromerreng 1would suggest that our traditional views of music literacy
have been largely confined to the genres associated with the Western canon. One
of the great contributions of this volume is the number of chapters that explore
music literacy in a wider sense, such as those describing pluralism in secondary
education (Allsup, Westerlund, & Shieh, chapter 16, volume 2) and the chapter that
considers how students learn through YouTube and smartphones (Webb & Seddon,
chapter 13, volume 3).
Every day we make choices about clothing and other forms of artistic com-
munication, whether those choices are made haphazardly or deliberately. Because
those choices are daily ones, they are ubiquitous and therefore easily unscrutinized
or ignored. Yet another ubiquitous art form in most of our lives is music—not so
much the music we make, but the music we choose to listen to, or find ourselves
listening to whether we choose it or not. Like pulling on a pair of old jeans without
thinking about the broader issues of communication and literacy that such an act
entails, the music we listen to can also be unexamined when we listen to music ha-
bitually. And when those habitual patterns are not explored on a conscious level,
they may not be considered in terms of their intersection with our roles as music
educators and scholars.
Most of us listen to music every single day. Sometimes we listen to music by
choice—from favorite radio programs to carefully selected playlists for mp3 players,
to evening music emanating from a home entertainment system while dinner is
being prepared. Sometimes we hear music that is not of our choice—when coming
down hotel elevators or while waiting at intersections in the summertime when car
windows are down and radios are blaring.
At our university, I teach the music methods course for pre-service elemen-
tary teachers. I start the course by asking pre-service teachers about their music
listening habits. Most of my pre-service teachers prefer listening to light or hard
332 RENA B. UPITIS

rock, some have tastes that include funk or country, and a few (very few) listen reg-
ularly to classical music or jazz. But every single person listens to music. While we
might differ in our tastes and habits, future teachers consider music a fundamental
part of their lives, as do I. And at the beginning of each course, very few pre-service
teachers can conceive of ways to connect the music that entices them on a personal
level with the music they are expected to teach. ;
As my work with these pre-service teachers unfolds each term, I am always
newly struck by the ways the school music curriculum seems disconnected with
the music that the pre-service teachers enjoy in their daily lives. ‘This disconnection’
iscommon for students as well: what 10-year-oldsare listening to on theradio or!
on YouTube is afar cry from the music curriculum that aims to teach them how to /
hold a:recorder or to read music notation on the grand staff.AsLucy Green (2002)
observed (and discusses in chapter 18, this volume), “music education has had rela-
tively little to do with the development of the majority of those musicians who have
produced the vast proportion of the music which the global population listens to,
dances to, identifies with, and enjoys” (p. 5). And yet there is ample research—much
of it cited throughout this volume—that tells us how informal music learning is a
powerful and important teacher (e.g., Adachi & Trehub, chapter 2, volume 2; Chen-
Hafteck & Mang, chapter 4, volume 2).
Young musicians who develop skills outside of formal teaching settings learn
from their peers through direct interaction, observation, and apprenticeship, and
from listening to performance clips (Green, 2002; Jaffurs, 2004). In my experi-
ence, a group of teenagers in rehearsal seems like a fragmented undertaking. There
can be several conversations going on at once, even while music is being played;
disagreements can sprout up that appear to have no immediate resolution; false
starts abound; and all of this activity is punctuated by bursts of laughter and loud
exclamations of praise or criticism. The surprise for me is that the outcome is often
impressive: garage bands frequently demonstrate strong ensemble and evoke emo-
tional responses from their audiences, and members of the bands display consider-
able skills as instrumentalists (even if they don’t read music!)
This kind of informal music learning has been characterized as “learning-
in-the-making, in which relationships are made between the past and present,
the inner and outer, the self and others” (Christou, Davis, DeLuca, Luce-Kapler,
& McEwen, 2007, p. 64). In the arts, this learning-in-the-making almost always’
involves physical objects—instruments, paints and brushes, costumes, paper, wax,
and metal. Scholars have observed how learning that involves physical objects
(which could easily be clothing or music) can alter class discourse in unexpected
and welcome ways. One professor, for instance, “noticed that [by making use of
ordinary loved objects in the classroom setting] the sense of collaborative meaning
making deepened and the connections among respective ideas seemed easier to
highlight... and that the power of art experienced bound us to each other in a new
way’ (p. 79). Art experienced is not just music on the concert stage—it is clothing,
it is the frenetic rehearsing of a garage band, it is the role that ordinary loved objects
play in our daily lives (Dissanayake, 1995; Noddings, 1992).
MUSIC AND THE ARTS
ree
ee eee ee 333

Classic scholars like Grumet (1988), Giroux (1992), Eisner (1998), and Langer
(1953) claim that identity formation in teenagers, including their views of their
sexuality, class, and other social categorizations, is shaped by their readings of
family members, peers, and the images and texts as seen in films, television, and
music. Increasingly, these texts are portrayed also in graphic novels and internet
images and sounds—the ubiquitous art forms that are not always present in
schools.
My plea, here, is not to switch from the Western canon to music as embodied in
the popular culture. Rather, it is to suggest that if we ignore the personal connections
students have to music (or ignore the messages that they are sending us with the
clothes they choose to wear), then we are missing an opportunity to expand their
music literacy beyond the music forms that are already ubiquitous in their lives.
Such expansion can help ensure that music is experienced deeply. And it is only
through deep connections to the disciplines, to one another, and to physical ways
of knowing that students will develop the sensibilities and skills they need to thrive
in our present world.

Collectively, we destroy 31.5 million

hectares of tropical rainforests each year (Rainforest Foundation, 2016). In so doing,
we destroy thousands of species each year, so that 50% of all species are at risk of dis-
appearing completely by 2050 (Rainforest Alliance, 2016). As Rachel Carson (1962)
observed more than a half-century ago, we are the only species that has changed the
nature of the earth. The learning that can occur through music and the arts—in all
of their forms—can help us find new ways of being, and new levels of mindfulness
that we need to heal the planet. When we give students time to play and learn from
one another, in both formal and informal ways, and time to create, to perform, to
argue, to wonder, to appreciate—then we also give them ways to question the ubiq-
uitous and to become aware of the impact of their daily choices.

REFERENCES

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

Eisner, E. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Giroux, H. (2992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education.
New York: Routledge.
Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Ambherst: University of
Massachusetts Press. ~
Jaffurs, S. (2004). The impact of informal music learning practices in the classroom, or
how I learned to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22,
189-200.
Langer, S. (2953). Virtual powers. In Feeling and form: A theory of art. (pp. 169-187).
“New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Lurie, A. (2981). The language of clothes. New York: Random House.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Rainforest Alliance. (2016). See http: Pererecramforest- alliance.org/issues/ wildlife [accessed
October 21, 2016].
Rainforest Foundation. (2016).See http://www.rainforestfoundation.org/commonly-asked-
questions-and-facts/ [accessed October 21, 2016].
 CHAPTER
36
Pee Pe eerie eee b aT Lit iiern Terran) i kan

THERE IS NOTHING
COMPLEX ABOUT
A CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT

PETER R. WEBSTER

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

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

never been—we will need to attend seriously to the weakest characteristic of our
research: that is, our lack of a viable unifying structure within which to carry out
our work. (p. 200)
a
ae

He goes on to argue that our research literature is: “disunified to the point of chaos.
Painfully apparent by the tables of contents of our many research journals, which
by the way, seem to proliferate like dandelions.” He argues that many are “random
scattering of single studies that are unconnected in substantive ways” (p. 200).
I remain unconvinced that it is as bad as Reimer suggests. There are many
researchers in our field who have followed a research agenda and have tried to
integrate the results of their work into practice. Examples include work on music
memory, sight-reading, aptitude, creative thinking, improvisation, composition
in the schools, technology effectiveness, music perception and cognition, music
preference, motivation, home practicing, teacher-student interaction, self-
efficacy, and many others. This very handbook and others like it are testimony
to this attempt to advance our profession through research and its application to
practice. Some of the work has had an impact on our profession, as can be seen
in advances in curriculum design and published curricula materials, aptitude
and achievement testing, self-assessment models, portfolio designs, interdis-
ciplinary teaching, reflective practice, teacher questioning, computer-assisted
instruction, multimedia implementation, the National Standards, and other
developments that have some, if not a direct, connection to the work of those
that do research.
Having said this, I realize that the record is not always clear in this regard and
we must do better. The fault lies with teacher education in large part. I feel that we
have failed our students over the years by not doing more to teach about systematic
inquiry from the day that a young 18-year-old sits down in front of us in the intro-
duction to music education class. We have not really taught our novice teachers how
to be professionally curious—how to be thoughtful about their practice and give
them the tools to do this. Perhaps if we were to weave into our music education in-
struction the mindset that comes with research and assessment and not treat these
THERE IS NOTHING COMPLEX ABOUT A CORRELATION COEFFICIENT Ba7
2 AEA tir a se alla ad eect sh et fcc ee 8

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

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

Well said.
338 PETER R, WEBSTER

REFERENCES

Bresler, L. (1995). Ethnography, phenomenology and action research in music education,

Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 4-16.
Burton, S. (2004). Where do we begin with inquiry-based degree programs? Journal ofMusic
Teacher Education, 14(1), 27-33.
Conway, C. (2000). The preparation of teacher-researchers in preservice music education,
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 9(2), 22-30.
Conway, C., & Borst, J. (2001). Action research in music education, Update—Applications of
Research in Music Education, 19(2), 3-8.
Hourigan, R. (2006). The use of the case method to promote reflective thinking in music
teacher education, Update—Applications of Research in Music Education, 24(2), 33-44.
Reimer, B. (2008). Research in music education: Personal and professional reflections in a
time of perplexity. Journal of Research in Music Education, §6(3), 190-203.
Strand, K. (2006). Learning to inquire: Teacher research in undergraduate teacher training,
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15(2), 29-42.
Teachout, D. (2005). From the chair; How are we preparing the next generation of music
teacher educators? Journal ofMusic Teacher Education, 15(1), 3-5.
 CHAPTER 37

DEWEY’S BASTARDS:
MUSIC, MEANING, AND
POLITICS
PAUL WOODFORD

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

in the musicological literature that teachers can now draw on to demonstrate how
music is often used to shape the public’s understandings of history and politics (and
vice versa):
Music teachers, historians, and philosophers also need to seek a better under-
standing of the political forces and ideologies that have shaped their own perceptions
and understandings of the profession and its problems. Some very important work
has already been done in this area, but we need more hard- hitting political histories
of music education that seek to expose the perhaps less seemly side of the profession
by revealing how it has been manipulated by the powerful and often too quick to
jump on educational bandwagons. For example, it would be a revelation to teachers
to learn that the aesthetic education movement that arose in America during the
late 1940s and 1950s was in certain ways a product of the Cold War. Motivated by
anticommunist hysteria, prominent education reformers had been calling for greater
emphasis on the development of abstract intellectual abilities over preparation for
ey
l
a
g
e

democratic citizenship so that the country could better compete with the Soviets.
Music educators felt compelled to justify their school and university programs by
claiming that the study of great music developed the kinds of abstract intellectual
abilities and emotional resources that might be perceived by rich capitalists and the
military industrial complex as contributing to the country’s military, economic, and
cultural superiority. Music in education had to be reconceived as an academic disci-
pline, that is, “as an objective and unbiased producer of knowledge for its own sake,”
divorced from the world and its problems (Efland, 1988, p. 263). Music educators
quickly jumped on the aesthetic education bandwagon with its slogan “Music for
its own sake” and declared that music and music education had nothing to do with
politics (Reimer, 1959; McCarthy & Goble, 2002). Few stopped to consider the pos-
sible consequences of political avoidance for music teachers and their students or
to challenge the assertion made by Leonhard and House (1959) that teaching for
democratic citizenship would only result in musical delinquency.
The really odd thing about this was not so much that professional leaders denied
that music and music education had anything to do with politics, but that they con-
tinued to be drawn to John Dewey’s philosophy of art and education. Dewey (1934)
blamed capitalism for many of society's problems, including art's “segregation from
the common life,’ and would have objected to the idea of teaching music purely
for its own sake (pp. 14-15). Nor, for obvious reasons, would he have approved of
the notion of teaching for connoisseurship that was gaining ground among music
educators. He also, incidentally, warned against emphasizing “beyond all reason the
merely contemplative character of the esthetic” (p. 10). Given these contradictions
and inconsistencies in educational values and political purposes, it seems inexpli-
cable that music educators in the 1950s would continue to be drawn to Dewey’s phi-
losophy, and especially since his socially progressive ideas were anathema to those
on the political right. It might well have been professionally risky at the time for
music educators to adopt his philosophy wholesale. Their solution to this problem
was to bastardize his philosophy by stripping away its political content. Thereatter,
DEWEY
>
S BASTARDS 341
I

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

REFERENCES

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

Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education, New York; Oxford
University Press.
Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1959/1972). Foundations and principles of music Education,
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
McCarthy, M., & Goble, J. S. (2002). Music education philosophy: Changing times, Music
Educators Journal, 89(1), 19-26.
Reimer, B. (1959). What music cannot do. Music Educators Journal, 46(4), 40-48.
Swartz, D. L. (2003). From critical sociologist to public intellectual: Pierre Bourdieu and pol-
itics. Theory and Society, 32(5/6), 791-823.
Taruskin, R. (2004). The poetic fallacy. Musical Times, 145(1886), 7-34.
Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY; Cornell
University Press.
Woodford, P. (2010). Democratic elitism or democratic citizenship? ‘The politics of music,
meaning, and education in Cold-War America. Eufonia: Didactica de la Musica, 50, 23-33.
 PO OPER TOTO E ODOT OHHE OSE DHEEEEE ES ESE HEHEHE EEEeD eee eee eee ee eee eeee ee eee!

A analytic philosophy, 72
academic buoyancy, 304 animation (activation/inspiration), 243
academic entrepreneurship (AE), 241-246 animosity among researchers, 323-325
acculturation/enculturation anthropology
oral transmission of music, 294 ethnomusicology. See ethnomusicology
of sonic experience, 4 of learning processes, 294-297
in younger children, 136 See also culture
activation/inspiration, 243 anxiety
adaptability, 304 multidimensional model of motivation, 303
adapted classes and equipment. See special primary music education teachers, 267
abilities and special needs students “applied music’, 108
adolescence argumentation, 249-251
disenchantment with formal music learning, 155 arguments, 70
personal music identification, 299-301 art, 340
adults and adult music learning artistic communication, 330-334
higher education for. See colleges and “artistic expression” and “arts expression”
universities (terms), 41
influence of music on people’s lives, 317 arts and sciences, 263
music teachers. See teachers arts education, 41
parents. See parents assessment, 62
teachers. See teachers attention deficit disorder, 263
advanced studies by teachers, 248, 249, 328, auditory cortex, 214
335-338 aural. See hearing
advocacy aural-visual-kinesthetic (multimodal) activities,
for music education, 188-191 173, 215
for primary music education, 265 authenticity of music or performance
AE (academic entrepreneurship), 241-246 ethnomusicology, 108-110, 118
aesthetic appreciation in philosophy of music philosophy of music education, 77
education, 76, 77 relativistic value judgments, 109, 110
affective responses, 134, 290 superiority of certain musics, 108-110
age autonomous learners
0-5. See infancy and early childhood motivation, 145-151, 156-158
5-12. See primary music education See also critical thinking
12-18, See adolescence
-related changes, 135-137 B
agency, 8 babies. See infancy and early childhood
aging. See elders behavior
amotivation, 147 extrinsically motivated, 146
See also motivation intrinsically motivated, 145-147
amusic brains, 11 musical, 4
344 INDEX

behaviorism, 168 research, 253, 262, 263

“belongingness” in cognitive neurosciences, 189
generally, 166, 199 on learning process, 316
See also transformative musical engagement neuromusical, 207, 208
bimusicality, 116, 117 neuroscientific information explosion, 206
blogging, 313 sensitive periods in early childhood music
body movement learning, 216, 217
brain development and function, 213 sensorimotor cortex, 215 —
multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities, size of brain, 210
173) 215 underlying architecture, 4
“book of questions”, 261 white matter, 215
brain development and function See also cognitive development
generally, 4, 206-224 business entrepreneurship, 241-246
auditory cortex, 214
basic information vs. practical application, Cc
208-214 capitalism, 340
body movement, 213 casual learning, See informal playing and learning
cerebellum, 215 cerebellum, 215
cognitive neurosciences research, 189 ceremonial or ritual music
cognitive processing, 213 engagement with music in everyday life, 315, 316
corpus callosum, 215 oral transmission of, 293-295
developmental psychology and musical childrearing, 31
development, 134 children
diffusion tensor imaging (DTT), 208 ages 0-5. See infancy and early childhood
effects of music learning on brain structure, 214, ages 5-12. See primary music education
215, 216 ages 12-18. See adolescence
electroencephalography (EEG), 207 church music. See ceremonial or ritual music
emotion, 214 citizenship
event-related potentials (ERPs), 207 as reason for music education, 265 |
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), values of citizens in education, 233-236
208 class system. See social class
gray matter, 215 cognitive development
intelligence, 209, 210 and music education, 262, 263
learning process research, 316 See also brain development and function
magnetoencephalography (MEG), 207 cognitive skills, See critical thinking
memory. See memory collaboration, 2.43
mental speed, 211 colleges and universities
metacognitive skills. See critical thinking advanced studies by teachers, 248, 249, 328,
motivation, 214 335-338
multimodal integration areas, 215 arts as part of expectations for college-bound
musicality localized to specific part of brain, 211 students, 234
- musically intact brains, 11 doctoral programs in music education, 248, 249
neural plasticity, 214 music education majors, 247-251
neuro-didactics, 212 revenue-producing university courses and
neuromusical research, 207, 208 programs, 241-246
neuro-pedagogy, 212 undergraduate music education students,
neuropsychology, 189 335-338
neuroscientific information explosion, 206 colonialism, 259
performance, 217, 218 commercialization
positron emission tomography (PET), 207 of music education, 261, 262
processing efficiency, 211 of universities, 242
oe a = Se
communication
artistic, 330-334
noncontrolling, informational
language, 157
See also definitions
communications technology. See technology
“communicative-cultural studies” (term), 41
communities of practice (COPs), 278-281
communities of scholarship, 278-281
See also colleges and universities
community
explanation of, 194
learners’ layered interactions with, 170
comparative music education, 38—40, 107, 259
compulsory instruction in music
generally, 20, 21
international contexts, 40, 46
without qualified teacher to deliver
curriculum, 46
See also holistic learning
computer technology. See technology
concerts. See performances
congenital amusics, 10
contact zones, 177
contextual learning
importance in educational process, 197
international contexts, 40, 41
transformative musical engagement, 169-172
continuing education
entrepreneurial processes requiring ongoing
learning, 243
music education courses, 232, 256
pluralism in, 195-198
controlling vs. autonomy-supportive teachers,
148-151, 156-158
conventional ys. unconventional musical
content, 135, 136
COPs (communities of practice), 278-281
copying. See imitation
corpus callosum, 215
creativity
individual, 113
in musical development, 129
in music education, 62, 265
in workforce, 265
critical thinking
generally, 167-169, 176-179
vs conformity and “fitting in,” 32
developmental psychology and musical
development, 129
vs moral/political thinking, 340, 341
reflection on future action within profession,
225-342
transformative musical engagement, 167-169,
176-179 :
cross-cultural music
generally, 85-103
cultural diversity in music education, 86-90
ethnomusicology, 116, 117
See also international contexts
cross-disciplinary projects, 244
cultural diversity, 86-90
impact on development, 85-103
visionary practices in music education, 96-98
culture
generally, 85-103
acculturation. See acculturation/enculturation
enculturation. See acculturation/enculturation
ethnomusicology. See ethnomusicology
internationalizing music education, 283
models of formal and informal learning, 93-95
“open-earedness,’ 135
transformative musical engagement, 170
See also cross-cultural music; globalization
curriculum
democracy in education, 198
development and reform of, 44-49
effect on motivation, 158
emotional aspect of music, 286-290
enjoyed vs. curriculum music, 332
as “essentially contested concept,62
flexibility in primary music curriculum, 266
paradigm shift, 163, 167, 168
See also transformative musical engagement
cyberspace. See Internet; online and web-based
music and learning
D
D.A. (Doctor of Arts), 248, 249
databases. See global] information systems
definitions
music education, 261
teaching, 258
deliberate practice and deliberate playing, 13
deliberative learning, 67
democracy in education
generally, 188-206
cognitive neurosciences research, 189
community, explained, 194
context, importance in educational process, 197
continuing music teacher education, 195-198
curriculum visions, 198
346
democracy in education (cont.)
developmental psychology and
neuropsychology, flourishing musical
abilities independent of other cognitive and
affective systems, 189
education as existential in nature, 193
holistic learning, 189
link with social reform, 188
music education, 250
advocacy for, 188-191
sustainability of programs, 192-194,
200-201
networks of schools, teachers, students,
families, and stakeholders, 201
politicized citizenry and, 188
promoting social inclusion through engagement
with music, 198
reflexive paradigm, 196
sociopolitical contextualization of music’s
values, 190
students as protagonists of learning, 193
systems of domination, 196
in teacher education, 195-198
teachers as philosophers, 197
desire to engage with music, 12-14
development
generally. See identity, development, and
engagement
brain. See brain development and function
emotional, 133-137, 214
musical. See developmental psychology and
musical development
developmental psychologists, 263
developmental psychology and musical
development
generally, 124-142
affective responses to music, 134
age-related changes, 135-137
cognitive aspects, 128-130
cognitive responses to music, 134
conventional vs. unconventional musical
content, 135, 136
critical thinking and creativity, 129
education's effect on developing sense of musical
identity, 132
emotional development, 133-137
and engagement, 124-142
flourishing musical abilities independent
of other cognitive and affective
systems, 189
genetic influence on development, 129 _
INDEX
lifestyle choices, 131
musical competencies, 128-130
musical preferences and tastes, 135, 136
nurturing musical environment, 129
reciprocal feedback model of musical response,
133-135
self-concept, 130
social/personal development, 130-133
sociocultural perspective, 126-128
technical mastery of skills, 129, 130
technology's effect on listening to music, 136
tone-deafness, 129
universality of music, 128-129
dialogical inquiry, 178
dialogical thinking, 251
diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), 208
digital technology. See technology
disability in music, 10-12
disabled students. See special abilities and special
needs students
discrimination, 259, 260
diversity, cultural, 86-90
impact on development, 85-103
visionary practices in music education, 96-98
doctoral programs in music education, 248, 249
Doctor of Arts (D.A.), 248, 249
DTI (diffusion tensor imaging), 208
dyslexia, 263
E
early childhood. See infancy and early childhood
ears. See hearing, sense of
economic prosperity, 265
Ed.D. and other advanced degrees, 248, 249
educare vs. educere, 22-26, 29
education
generally, 8-10
defined, 61
effect on musical identity, 132
as “essentially contested concept,’ 62
existential nature of, 193
place of music in, 19-37
schooling as synonymous with, 21
educational networks. See global information
systems
educational psychology research, 302-307
educational scientists, 263
education-in-music subfield, 255-260
educators’ commentaries, 225-342
EEG (electroencephalography), 207
effective and autonomous learners
 motivation, 145-151, 156-158
See also critical thinking
elders, 317
elections, 233-236
electives, 321
elementary education. See primary music
education
emotion
generally, 285-291
commentaries from scholars and educators,
285-291
emotional aspect of music in curricula, 286-290
guidelines for student learning, 286, 287
music therapy. See music therapy
perception of emotional content in music, 289
“redundancy” of musical information, 289
table of student concepts and competencies, 287
taxonomy of affective realm, 290
emotional development
generally, 133-137
brain development and function, 214
emotional intelligence, 310
employment
university professors, 242
workforce creativity, 265
enculturation
oral transmission of music, 294
See also acculturation/enculturation
engagement
complexity of people's engagement with music in
everyday life, 315-318
See also identity, development, and engagement
English language, 283
enjoyment, 13
enthusiasm, student, 239
entitlement to music education, 266
“entrepreneurial university’, 242
entrepreneurship, academic (AE), 241-246
environmental sound experiences, 170
epistemology, 168
equal opportunity. See democracy in education;
discrimination
ERPs (event-related potentials), 207
ethics
influence of music on people’s lives, 317, 318
in music-making, 28
in philosophy of music education, 63
ethnomusicology, 256, 259
generally, 104-123
authenticity, 118
bimusicality, 116, 117
“comparative musicology,’ 107
defined, 104, 107
egalitarian value judgments, 109, 110
fieldwork, 105, 106
fusion of cultures, 11
identity, development, and engagement, 104-123
improvisation, 117, 118
individual creativity, 113
inside perspective, 106
music as constantly changing, 111
music as unitary phenomenon, 110, 111
“new ethnography,’ 116
oral transmission of music, 294-297
preservation of musical traditions, 105
processes of change and of cultural relationships,
106, 107
professional societies and institutions, 120
relationship of ethnomusiculogy with music
education, 108, 109
relationship of music to culture, 112
relativistic value judgments, 109, 110
scholars vs practicing artists, 104, 105
superiority of certain musics, 108-110
of talent, 119
transmission of music from generation to
generation, 114, 115, 119
event-related potentials (ERPs), 207
evidence-based practice, 262-263
exclusion. See discrimination
expectancy-value theory, 153
experiential learning, 243, 244
experts, 156
external regulation, 146
F
failure, 244
fascism, 339
feminization. See gender issues
fieldwork, 105, 106
flow experience, 155
fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging),
208
formal learning
complementary to other ways of learning, 296
influence of music on people's lives, 317
See also school programs
fun, 13
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
208
funding, 266
fusion of musical genres, 111
348 INDEX

future directions high school years. See adolescence

for music education, 53-55 historical understanding
in profession, 225-342 colonialism and imperialism, 259
music therapy, 309
G public music education, 252, 253
gender issues, 259 technology in music, See technology
generalist classrooms, 40 holistic learning
generalist teachers, 267, 268-269 advocacy for music education, 189
general music education, 321 “arts education” (term), 41
generative learning environments, 166 democracy in education, 189
genetic influences, 129 “music education” (term), 40, 41
Gen Z digital literacy, 312-314 primary school. See primary
global information systems, 270-274 music education
language barriers, 271
predictions, 272 I
prospective thinking, 272 identified regulation, 146
systematized knowledge about international identity, development, and engagement
music education, 270 generally, 2-225
UNESCO, 272, 273 adolescent peer status, 299-301
globalization § ages O-5, See infancy and early childhood
competitiveness as reason for music education, ages 5-12. See primary music education
265 ages 12-18, See adolescence
within music education, 259, 265 brain function, 206-224. See also brain
transformative musical engagement, development and function
communication and participation in choise of instrument, 14
globalized world, 176-179 complexity of people's engagement with music in
See also international contexts; everyday life, 315-318
internationalizing music education compulsory instruction in music, 20, 22
goals conformity and “fitting in” vs. ethical
of education and instruction, 22, 26-33, 33-35 discernment, independent thought, and
instrumental music goals of students, 237 creative dispositions, 32
of musical instruction and curricula, 33-35 congenital amusics, 10-12
transformative musical engagement, 169 cultural diversity, 85-103
goal theory of motivation, 154, 155 deliberate practice and deliberate play, 13
good enough music education, 266 democratic education, 188-206, See also
“good taste”, 76 democracy in education
gray matter, 215 desire to engage with music, 12-14
guidelines for student learning, 286, 287 developmental psychology and musical
development, 124142
H disability in music, 10-12
habitual action, 27-29 education
habituation, 294 impact of, 8-10
harmonics, 289 place of music in, 19-37
harvest songs, 293 enculturated accumulation of sonic
health. See wellness experience, 4
hearing, sense of enjoyment as predictor of ongoing
auditory cortex, 214. See also brain engagement, 13
development and function ethical sensibilities, 28
multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities, ethnomusicology, 104123. See also
173, 215 ethnomusicology
tone-deafness (TD), 11, 12, 129 formality of education, 20, 21
higher education. See colleges and universities fun as predictor of ongoing engagement, 13
INDEX
ne a a
fundamental right of children to valuable
musical experience and instruction, 25
goals of education and instruction, 22, 26-33
habitual action, 27-29
importance of music education for, 29-31
informal learning, 13
“inherent” value of music for, 24
international perspectives, 38-60. See also
international contexts
intervention to remedy music disability, 11
“intuneness,” 11
loosely structured activities, 13
love of music, 20
motivation, 143-162. See also motivation
musical behavior, 4
musicality, 5
“musically intact” brains, 11
“musical”/"not-musical,” 8
music educators
expertise of, 25
preparation of, 30
negative musical experiences, 8
neuroplasticity, 4
neurosciences and brain research, 206-224. See
also brain development and function
new contexts, 188-206
“nonsingers,’ 7
nurturing, 4, 9
opportunities for music learning, 5
personal/educational development, 26-29
philosophical inquiry, 23
philosophy of music education, 61-84. See also
philosophy of music education
pitch (musical memory) development, 11
place of music in education, 19-37
playing for the love of the instrument, 13
practical sensibilities, 28
profound and multiple learning difficulties
(PMLD), 12
schooling as synonymous with education, 21
severe learning difficulties (SLD), 12
social, cultural, and environmental settings, 5
specialists, 25
special status for music in education, 32, 33
teachers, 300
tone-deafness (TD), 11, 12, 129
training vs. education, 22-25, 30, 31, 61
transformative musical engagement, 163-186.
See also transformative musical engagement
value of musical experience for, 20
visual feedback software, 11
imitation, 295
349
imperialism. See colonialism
impregnation, learning by, 295
See also oral transmission of music
improvisation, 117, 18
inclusivity. See “belongingness”
income stratification. See social class
independent learning. See critical thinking
indigenous music. See cross-cultural music;
ethnomusicology; international contexts
infancy and early childhood
infant learners, 317
maturation and sensitive periods in early
childhood music learning, 216, 217
influence of music on people’s lives
generally, 315-318
complexity of people's engagement with music in
everyday life, 315-318
ethics, 317, 318
formal vs. informal learning, 317
infant learners, 317
intercultural music education, 317
metaphysical discussions of genesis of life, 315
motivation for learning, 317
older learners, 317
informal playing and learning
generally, 13
choices regarding listening habits, 330-334
identity, development, and engagement, 13
influence of music on people's lives, 317
new ways of being and new levels of
mindfulness, 323
See also oral transmission of music
information systems, global, 270-274
inherent value of music, 24
inside perspective, 106
inspiration, 243
instructors. See teachers
instrumental music
choice of instrument, 14
commentaries from scholars and educators,
237-240
enthusiasm of students, 239
goals of students, 237
“just in time” learning, 239
“music education” (term), 40, 41
playing for the love of the instrument, 13
self-directed learners, 239
students in charge of learning process, 238
teachers, 237-240
web-based learning, 237-240
YouTube as teacher, 237
integrated arts, 40
350 INDEX

integrated regulation, 146 interventions, 11

intellectual nihilism, 69 intrinsic motivation, 145 a

intelligence, 209, 210 introjection, 146

interculturalism intuneness, 11
generally, 259, 317 : iPods. See technology
influence of music on people’ lives, 317
See also enculturation; globalization J
interdisciplinary communication, 263, 264 job security, 242 .
internal-external motivation continuum, 146 just in time learning, 239
internal ys. external sustainability of music
programs, 192-194, 201 K
international contexts kinesthetic learning, 173, 215
generally, 38-60 knowledge
advocacy for music education, 42-44 knowledge sharing. See global information
“artistic expression” (term), 41 systems
“arts education” (term), 40, 41 research gains, 275-277
“arts expression” (term), 41 systematized, 270
common purpose of educators, 38
“communicative-cultural studies” (term), 41 L
comparative music education, 38-40 language
compulsory music education, 40, 46 noncontrolling, informational, 157
contexts in which music teaching and learning See also definitions
occurs, 40, 41 language barriers
curriculum development and reform, 44-49 in global information systems, 271
educational policy concerning music education internationalizing music education, 283
vs provisions made within schools, 42 learners, 168
future of music education, 53-55 agency of, See agency
generalist classrooms, 40 learning, 62
historical examination of international teaching adult. See adults and adult music learning
and learning, 38-40 entrepreneurial processes requiring ongoing
identity, development, and engagement, 38-60 learning, 243
“integrated arts” (term), 40 experiential, 243, 244
“music education” (term), 40, 41 formal. See school programs
political, social, cultural and technological complementary to other ways of
changes, 46-49 learning, 296
professional networks and forums, 51-53 influence of music on people's lives, 317
status of music in public education, 41, 42 goals of. See goals
See also globalization guidelines for student learning, 286, 287
internationalizing music education informal. See oral transmission of music
generally, 282-284 generally, 13
barriers in language and traditions, 283 choices regarding listening habits, 330-334
English as lingua franca, 283 influence of music on people's lives, 317
“music education as national concern, 282, 283 new ways of, 323
reasons for, 283 : opportunities for music learning, 5
international music education, 270 self-directed
Internet instrumental music, 239
transformative musical engagement resulting self-education vs. formal education, 258
from, 169-172 skills, 156
See also online and web-based music and learning disabilities. See special abilities and
learning; technology special needs students
interpersonal relationships, 306 legitimacy of music
 *
INDEX
——————————————
————eeeeeeeeeeee
—— 351
eeeeEeeeeSeEEEEEEESEEEESESESFENE

generally, 62 See also online and web-based music and

See also authenticity of music or performance
lifelong learning
entrepreneurial processes requiring ongoing
learning, 243
See also adults and adult music learning
lifestyle choices, 131
listening habits, 330-334
literacy. See language
lobbying, 189
location, 171
logic, 61, 62, 70, 71, 79
love of music, 20
M external regulation, 146
magnetoencephalography (MEG), 207
malpractice, 63
marketing and marketability
academic entrepreneurship, 241-246
See also commercialization
master-apprentice tradition, 156
master’s degree in music education, 248
maturation, 216, 217
media
attacks on public music education, 254
See also online and web-based music and
learning; technology
MEG (magnetoencephalography), 207
membership. See “belongingness”
memory
“amusic” brains, 11
See also pitch
mental illness therapy. See therapy
mental speed, 211
mentoring
apprentice tradition of music learning, 156
See also experts
MEP (music education philosophy). See
philosophy of music education
metacognitive skills. See critical thinking
metaphysics, 315
methodology, research, 323-325
middle school years. See adolescence
military industrial complex, 340
mindfulness, 323
mistakes
and experiential learning, 244
public music education successes and
failures, 254
mobile technologies, 312-314
learning; technology
moral/political thinking, 340, 341
motivation
generally, 143-162
amotivation, 147
autonomous motivation, 145-148
support for, 148-151, 156-158
brain development and function, 214
choosing to discontinue music participation, 151
coaches’ influence, 148
controlling vs. autonomy-supportive teachers,
148-151, 156-158
expectancy-value theory, 153
extrinsically motivated behavior, 146
flow, 155
goal theory, 154, 155
identified regulation, 146
for instrumental music. See instrumental music
integrated regulation, 146
internal-external motivation continuum, 146
intrinsically motivated behavior, 145-147
introjection, 146
learning goals, 154
master-apprentice tradition of music
learning, 156
mismatch of skill and challenge, 156
and noncontrolling, informational language, 157
and nurturing, 156
performance goals, 154
personal interest, 154
self-determination theory (SDT), 144, 145
self-determined, 151, 152
self-efficacy, 152
situational interest, 154
task value, 153
transformative musical engagement, 174-176
motivation research, 303-306, 317
multiculturalism. See interculturalism
multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic) activities,
173, 215
multimodal integration areas, 215
musical acculturation. See acculturation/
enculturation
musical behavior, 4
musical competencies, 128-130
musical identity. See identity, development, and
engagement
musical instruments. See instrumental music
352 INDEX

musical interventions, 11 special needs students. See special abilities and

musicality special needs students
defined, 5
localized to specific part of brain, 211 N
See also identity, development, and engagement national concerns, 282, 283
musically educated, 4 national music curriculum, 234
musical meaning negative musical experiences, 8
generally, 98-99 negative music education, 8
See also identity, development, and neural plasticity, 214
engagement neuro-didactics, 212
musical memory. See memory neuromusical research, 206-224
“musical”/”not-musical” identity, 8 neuro-pedagogy, 212
music appreciation, 62 neuroplasticity, 4
music disability, 10-12 neuropsychology, 189
music education neuroscience, 206-224
communities, 278-281 cognitive neurosciences research, 189
defined, 261 information explosion, 206
ecosystem, 327 interdisciplinary dialogue, 263
evolution of, 327 See also brain development and function
internationalizing. See internationalizing newborns. See infancy and early childhood
music education new contexts, 188-206
knowledge sharing. See global information See also democracy in education
systems new ethnography, 116
music teaching vs. music learning, 257 newspapers, 254
organizational challenges, 278-281 non-formal learning. See informal playing and
subfields, 255-260 learning; oral transmission of music
teachers. See teachers novice teachers, 335-338
virtual communities, 279 nurturing and supportive environments
music education philosophy (MEP). See generally, 4, 9
philosophy of music education for developmental psychology and musical
music-education-research subfield, 255-260 development, 129
music educators. See teachers motivation, 156
music facilitators. See experts for transformative musical engagement, 166, 174
musicians, 131, 132
musician-scholars, 247-251 O
music identification, personal. See identity older people. See elders
music literacy, 333 online and web-based music and learning
music research. See research instrumental music, 237-240
music specialists knowledge sharing. See global information
generally, 25 systems
See also experts music educational communities, 279
music teachers. See teachers transformative musical engagement, 169-172
music therapy ontology, 77
generally, 259, 308-311 “open-earedness’, 135
commentaries from scholars and educators, opportunities for music learning, 5
308-311 oral transmission of music
and emotional intelligence, 310 generally, 292-297
Every Child Matters agenda, 310 anthropological and ethnomusicological issues,
history of, 309 294-297
No Child Left Behind agenda, 309 as basis for living music culture, 292-297
INDEX
ceremonial music, 293, 294
children’s musical traditions, 292, 295, 296
commentaries from scholars and educators,
294-297
complementary formal learning, 296
enculturation, 294
habituation vs. education, 294
harvest songs, 293
learning by impregnation, 295
parents teaching children, 293
“song chain” process, 292
orature. See oral transmission of music
ordinary language philosophy, 72
organizational challenges, 278-281
P pitch
parents, 293
pedagogy and pedagogical practices
knowledge sharing. See global
information systems
special abilities and special needs students,
259, 260
peer relationships, 306
performances
brain development and function, 217, 218
goals, 154
motivation, 154
personal agency. See agency
personal interest, 154
personal music identification. See identity
PET (positron emission tomography), 207
Ph.D. programs, 248, 249
philosophy of music education
generally, 23, 61-84
“aesthetic appreciation,’ 76, 77
analytic philosophy, 72
arguments, 70
authenticity of performances, 77
body of evidence, 63-65
conceptual analysis, 70, 72, 73
creativity, 62
definition of education, 61
definition of philosophy, 65-70
ethics, 63
“good taste,” 76
“intellectual nihilism,” 69
legitimacy of music, 62
logic, 70, 71, 79
logical understanding of music and music
education, 61, 62
353
malpractice, 63
music as basic survival need, 61
ontology of musical works, 77
ordinary language philosophy, 72
pedagogical assumptions, beliefs, and
concepts, 62
philosophical method, 70-72
philosophical paradigms, 72-75
Vs. positivistic research, 64
“postmodern,” 73, 74
quietism, 72
serious vs. popular music, 77
“synergistic,” 79
synoptic approach, 73
understanding musical works, 77
development in “amusic” brains, 11
musical memory development, 11
place
of music in education, 19-37
in transformative musical engagement, 171
pluralism, See democracy in education
PMLD (profound and multiple learning
difficulties), 12
politics
effect on music education, 233-236, 265
effect on music in school curriculum, 46-49
lobbying, 189
moral/political vs. reflective/critical thinking,
340, 341
music shaped by, 339-342
politicized citizenry and democracy in
education, 188
praxial philosophy of music education, 341
segregation from common life, 340
teachers’ perceptions and understandings of, 340
popular culture, 333
positivism
vs. philosophy of music education, 64
positivist epistemology, 168
positron emission tomography (PET), 207
postmodernism, 73, 74
practice vs. theory in school programs
generally, 319-322
electives, 321
general music offerings, 321
reformers’ views, 321
stagnation and predictability, 320
status quo, 321
theoretical work in music education, 320
354 INDEX

praxial philosophy of music education, 341 Q

preservation of musical traditions, 105
pride in music profession, 247-251
primary music education
generally, 265-269
advocacy agenda, 265
basic/minimum entitlement, 266
commentaries from scholars and educators, -
265-269
“flexibility” in curriculum, 266
funding of music/arts education, 266
generalist vs. specialist teachers, 267, 268-269
“good enough” music education, 266
high-quality teaching of singing,
legal entitlement for all children, 266
teacher anxiety and lack of confidence, 267
problem-solving. See critical thinking
professionalism, 247-251
professional networks and forums
ethnomusicology, 120
international contexts, 51-53
profound and multiple learning difficulties
(PMLD), 12
psychology and psychologists
generally, 302-307
commentaries from scholars and educators,
302-307
developmental psychology. See developmental
psychology and musical development
educational psychology research, 305
interdisciplinary dialogue, 263
interpersonal relationships in achievement
motivation, 306
motivation research, 303-306
music therapy. See music therapy
peer relationships, 306
teachers
research on preparation, perseverance, and
performance in music, 302-307
teacher-student relationships, 306
therapy. See therapy
psychotherapy. See therapy
public music education
generally, 252-254
assumptions concerning, 254
commentaries from scholars and educators,
252-254
history of, 252, 253
media attacks on, 254
successes and failures, 254
See also primary music education; school
programs
quality of life. See wellness
quietism, 72
R
radio, 254
“realness” of music or performance
ethnomusicology, 118
philosophy of music education, 77
relativistic value judgments, 109, 110
real world vs. research, 275-277
reciprocal feedback model of musical response,
133-135
recitals. See performances
redundancy of musical information, 289
reflection on future action within profession,
225-342
reflective/critical thinking, 340, 341
See also critical thinking
reflexive paradigm, 196
rehearsal. See practice
relativistic value judgments, 109, 110
religious music. See ceremonial or ritual music
research
critical reflections and future action, 225-342
denigrating value and applicability of, 276
knowledge sharing. See global information
systems
methodology, 323-325
vs. real world, 275-277
revenue
revenue-producing university courses and
programs, 241-246
taxes to support local schools, 233
ritual. See ceremonial or ritual music
S
“saving music education’, 248, 249
scholars
commentaries on future action within
profession, 225-342
ethnomusicologists as, 104, 105
scholarship and practice communities, 278-281
schooling, 21
See also education
school programs
electives, 321
general music offerings, 321
media attacks on, 254
practice vs. theory in, 319-322
predictability and stagnation in, 320, 321
primary school. See primary music education

Let
ae
POeeae
e
INDEX
eeee ee eee 355

reformers’ views, 321 music therapy for. See music therapy

self-education vs. formal education, 258 pedagogical methods for inclusion of, 259, 260
stagnation and predictability, 320, 321 specialists
status quo, 321 generally, 25
successes and failures, 254 master-apprentice tradition, 156
theoretical work in music education, 320 specialist teachers, 267, 268-269
See also formal learning; public music education special status for music in education, 3
self-concept, 298-301 spiritual music. See ceremonial or ritual music
adolescent peer status, 299-301 spontaneous chanting, singing, and
development of, 130 instrumental play. See informal playing
effect of teachers on, 300 and learning
See also identity students
self-criticism, 249-251 as protagonists of learning, 193
self-determination theory (SDT), 144, 145, 151, 152 resiliency of, 174
self-directed learning undergraduate, 335-338
instrumental music, 239 supportive environments, See nurturing and
self-education vs. formal education, 258 supportive environments
See also critical thinking sustainability of music programs, 192-194,
self-efficacy, 152 200, 201
self-esteem “synergistic” philosophies, 79
generally, 146, 199 synoptic approach, 73
reason for music education, 265
self-identity. See identity systematized knowledge, 270
sensorimotor cortex, 215
serious music, 77 ilk
See also authenticity of music or performance talent
severe learning difficulties (SLD), 12 as “essentially contested concept,” 62
singers and singing, 11 ethnomusicology, 119
harvest songs, 293 taxonomy, 290
song chain, 292 TD. See tone-deafness (TD)
situational interest in music, 154 teachers
skilled music leaders. See experts advanced studies, 248, 249, 328, 335-338
skills learning anxiety, 267
instrumental music. See instrumental music commentary on future vision, 248, 249, 326-329,
metacognitive. See critical thinking 335-338
mismatch of skill and challenge, 156 education of music teachers, 256-260, 326-329,
technical skills development, 129, 130 335-338
SLDs (severe learning difficulties), 12 educators’ commentaries on future action within
social class, 5 profession, 225-342
social development, 130-133 evolution in music education practice, 327
social interactions, 170 generalist vs. specialist teachers, 267, 268-269
social networks, 313 identity development, 300
social reform, 188 instrumental music, 237-240
social responsibility, 200-201 interdisciplinary dialogue, 263
social values. See culture listening habits, 330-334
sociocultural perspective, 126-128 novice teachers, 335-338
sociopolitical contextualization, 190 perceptions and understandings of political
software. See technology meaning of music, 340
song chain, 292 personal music identification, 300
special abilities and special needs students as philosophers, 197
generally, 263 pluralism in teacher education, 195-198
music education for, 259, 260 preparation of music teachers, 326-329, 335-338
356
teachers (cont.)
primary music education teachers, 267
research on preparation, perseverance, and
performance in music, 302-307
responsiveness to and anticipation of society’s
needs, 327
and self-concept of students, 300
teacher-student relationships, 306
tech-savvy music educators, 312-314
teaching
defined, 258
as “essentially contested concept,” 62
music teaching vs. music learning, 257
of others to teach music, 328
research-based teaching and learning, 262, 263
training in, 328, 329
technical skills development, 129, 130
technology
generally, 312-314
effect on listening to music, 136
Gen Z digital literacy, 312-314
learning styles, 312-314
mobile technologies, 312-314
online. See online and web-based music and
learning
technology-savvy music educators, 312-314
and transformative musical engagement,
169-172, 174
web-based. See online and web-based music
and learning
teen or teen-age years. See adolescence
television, 254
tenure, 242
terminology. See definitions
theory vs. practice
philosophy of music education, 341
subfields of music education, 256, 257
therapy
generally, 259, 308-311
See also music therapy
tone-deafness (TD)
developmental psychology and musical
development, 129
identity, development, and engagement, 11, 12
sense of hearing, 11, 12
total immersion, 155
training vs. education, 22-25, 30, 31, 61
transculturation. See culture
transformative musical engagement
generally, 163-186
INDEX
behaviorist, 168
being vs. becoming a music learner, 164, 166
classification of learners, 168
contact zones, 177
critical thinking, 167-169, 176-179
dialogical inquiry, 178
generative learning environments, 166
in globalized world, 176-179
goals, 169
impact of technology on, 169-172, 174
in information era, 169-172
layered interactions, 170
learning contexts, 169-172
motivation, 174-176
nurturing and supportive environments
for, 166, 174
paradigm shift in, 163, 167, 168
participatory cultures working toward, 166
place and location of, 171
positivist epistemology, 168
principles of transformative pedagogy, 177, 178
resiliency of students, 174
supportive learning environments for, 166
values associated with, 174-176
zones of complexity, 172
zones of interaction, 177
transformative pedagogy, 177
transmission of music from generation to
generation, 114, 115, 119 i
U
undergraduate music education students,
335-338
See also colleges and universities
universality of music, 128-129
universities. See colleges and universities
Vv
virtual learning environments (VLEs). See
Internet; online and web-based music
and learning; technology
vision
multimodal (aural-visual-kinesthetic)
activities, 173, 215
software providing visual feedback, 1
visionary projects, 241-246
visiting artists, See experts
vocabulary. See definitions
vocal and choral music. See singers and singing
voting, 233-236
INDEX 357

W yi
war, 339 YouTube, 237, 314
websites. See Internet; online and web-based See also online and web-based music and learning
music and learning
wellness, 265 Z,
white matter, 215 zones of complexity, 172
workforce creativity, 265 zones of interaction, 177
world music. See cross-cultural music;
ethnomusicology; international contexts
 a ay ‘
see
PH oe ae Pia ae

EM ec = : _ bes

PERF) Wee? Geleyey voile aba Nay) ae iets

. ' m a; cs >
i Mitte As

— f
ee el : 3 1s wa}te ny aid ,
: Aas , AN
sac . : y
ba : ’ Pe > 3 eee iti heraee ’ reevires setaif a

eae ; a - . ’ “x : bDLITEY te onse' javea bh

Pt 7 nf Pata H ~
i ' rs ~ Gaal, Wort th qyolier tacsadtia
ares ; ‘

. ; ne tx

e ‘ ry Kam t . Zz Fam hs =
ee a ; 2
ae 4 <a ~
= SS > i "
7 Jes
=
Se,
pose — —

. ~

~
b =u ~ =
f

: x “ —
= > - Ps
— > as, —*
a
:
’ a

es =
rt ' ae.
225 .

~ —— ~~ - ~ J a

- »
a
a

, x
s
2}
‘

2
~ 7

- _
, r
“ 7 . q

———— 2
£ s ‘

. ~
: por ‘
n
.
»
‘

‘ * '
. ¥ oe
. '
5 i i‘ ;
¢ Provides a framework for future action within the profession of music education
¢ Describes how music education can achieve even greater political, theoretical, and

professional strength
¢ Examines a wide variety of teaching environments and individual attributes

GENERALE EDITORS
Gary E. McPherson & Graham F Welch

VOLUME EDITORS
Gary E. McPherson & Graham F Welch

CON PRIBU PORS

Harold F Abeles, Nick Beach, Wayne D. Bowman, Liora Bresler,
Patricia Shehan Campbell, Richard Colwell, Robert A. Cutietta, David J. Elliott,
Sergio Figueiredo, Lucy Green, Wilfried Gruhn, David Hargreaves, Sarah Hennessy,
Liane Hentschke, Donald A. Hodges, Christopher M.Johnson, Estelle R. Jorgensen,
Andreas C. Lehmann, Richard Letts, Hakan Lundstrém, Raymond MacDonald,
Clifford K. Madsen, Andrew J. Martin, Marie McCarthy, Katrina McFerran,
Gary E. McPherson, Bradley Merrick, Dorothy Miell, Graga Mota, Bruno Nettl,
Bengt Olsson, Susan A. O*Neill, Johnmarshall Reeve, Bennett Reimer,
James Renwick, Huib Schippers, Wendy im Sims, David
J. Teachout, Rena Upitis,
_Peter R. Webster, Graham F Welch, Paul Woodford

OXFORD ae aw, | ISBN 978-0-19-067443-4

UNIVERSITY PRESS
>

www.oup.coml
| | |
if . Ty 5 9 "780190°674434
Cover image: Redshinestudio/Shutterstock.com