Connecting ideas to practice: The development of an undergraduate student’s philosophy of music...

International Journal ofMusic Education

1 –12© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0255761415581150ijm.sagepub.com

Connecting ideas to practice: The development of an undergraduate student’s philosophy of music education

Ryan Salazar and Clint RandlesUniversity of South Florida, USA

AbstractThis article considers the personal reflections of an undergraduate music education major on both the significance of his experience as a participant in the Seventh International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education, held at Michigan State University, in the United States, in June 2011, and on his place as a pre-service music teacher poised to enter the profession. The first author’s reflections regarding what the conference meant to him as a future music educator has implications for individuals who help prepare the next generation of music teachers, and scholars in all fields who desire for their work to reach a particular audience that could benefit from their work. The article takes the form of a personal narrative reflection, not generalizable to all populations of undergraduate music education majors, but certainly transferable to similar situations where undergraduates are considering waves of change in degree requirements and curricular expansion.

Keywordschange, formal, informal, philosophy, vernacular

This article materialized from an experience that the first author, Ryan Salazar, had as a co- presenter at the Seventh International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education, held at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, Michigan, United States, in June of 2011. At the time this article was written, Ryan was an undergraduate music education major at the University of South Florida, in Tampa, Florida, United States, where the second author is on the faculty of music education. Ryan was dually enrolled in the USF Honors College and the USF School of Music. Part of his undergraduate experience was doing a senior research

Corresponding author:Clint Randles, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. Email: [email protected]

581150 IJM0010.1177/0255761415581150International Journal of Music EducationSalazar and Randlesresearch-article2015

Article

at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on August 24, 2015ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

http://ijm.sagepub.com/

2 International Journal of Music Education

project, which he completed with a music education faculty advisor. By going through the research process Ryan gained an appreciation for the work of scholars and researchers in the field of music education. This caused him to express interest in doing further work of this nature.

To encourage Ryan in his pursuits, the second author suggested that Ryan consider co- presenting a philosophical paper that the second author had written, one that he was planning to present at the sociology symposium mentioned previously (Randles, 2012). Additionally, the second author imagined that a larger audience might benefit from hearing Ryan’s perspective regarding his experience at the conference in light of the topics that were being discussed in music education courses at USF, most notably change in music education curricular offerings, the value of vernacular musicianship to common school music practice, and the future of the profession. A list of selected sessions presented at the 7th International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education can be found in Table 1.

USF had just implemented a series of changes in the curriculum that added two semesters of a course titled, “Progressive Music Education Methods.” This was essentially a two-semes-ter version of what would be called “Secondary General Music” at a number of other institu-tions, and “Creative Performance Chamber Ensemble,” which was a lab performance component to Progressive Music Education Methods. Students in Creative Performance Chamber Ensemble were expected to express the skills learned in Progressive Music Methods by way of a number of recitals that would consist most notably of an hour of original music composed and arranged by them. Ryan did not take these courses, as he was already finishing his degree program, but the introduction of the courses prompted discussion and some dissent among music education majors in the program as to the value of exploring “other” ways that music could be taught in the schools and promoting “other” classes that could be a part of school music education. Ryan was privy to some of these discussions, and was in the process of evaluating his perspective on these topics. He agreed to co-present, and so attended the conference with the dual purpose of gaining experience as a presenter of academic work on an international stage and as a writer, as he planned to record his experience, thoughts, and reflec-tions in the form of an essay.

What follows is Ryan’s work, an essay on the thinking that resulted from his experiences at the international symposium. Except for minor editing on my part, the work exists here as it was shared with me upon returning from the symposium. This work is valuable to individuals con-cerned with pre-service music teacher training, especially in the United States. Music education as a scholarly activity is valuable, we suggest, to the extent that it connects with the world of practice and practitioners. Thinking deeply about what it is that we do has important implications for the future of the profession. He brings a unique perspective to our understanding from both a theoreti-cal and practical perspective. His thoughts as reflected here were transformed by scholarly work from around the globe.

Introduction

Since the early 20th century, music teachers in the United States have been trained to teach Western art music in a large ensemble setting. This traditional method of music education is based upon performing notated music, developing instrumental or vocal technique, and following the direction of a conductor. Although music educators in the US have promoted the expansion of music peda-gogy for many years (Reimer, 1965), music education remains focused on Western musical tradi-tions and large ensemble performance (Heuser, 2011). However, music educators in countries such



Salazar and Randles 3

as the UK and Finland are accustomed to a more comprehensive pedagogy, including the use of popular music, composition, and other vernacular methods (Green, 2002; Vakeva, 2006).

Most of my pre-service training has been focused on learning to teach music through traditional pedagogical practices. While I (the first author) have kept an open mind toward progressive music pedagogy, I never understood its purpose. I always assumed that the inclusion of popular music was inartistic and a trite attempt to increase enrollment in music courses. Attending the 7th International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education helped me understand the valuable musical opportunities afforded by progressive pedagogical practices. During the symposium, I had the pleasure of interacting with a variety of music educators who have innovative visions for the future of music education. A common assertion among these scholars was that music plays a vari-ety of social roles that are not included in most pedagogical practices. This creates tension between students’ musical interests and the traditional practices of music education. While I have always realized this sociological struggle, I never thought it was of any concern. After all, music education has maintained the same traditions for decades. However, the longevity of traditional music educa-tion does not necessarily support its perceived value.

Despite the abundance of research on vernacular methods (Finney, 2011; Green, 2006; Randles, 2012), the development of progressive music education in the US is contingent upon pre-service teachers who are willing to consider a non-traditional approach. However, some pre-service teach-ers are skeptical about the use of popular music and other vernacular methods (Davis & Blair, 2011, p. 125). By explaining how research on vernacular music making has impacted my teaching

Table 1. Selected list of presenters: 7th International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education, Michigan State University, June 19–22, 2011.

Title of presentation Name/institutional affiliation

Informal Learning Contexts: Crossing Boundaries Brian Bersh,University of Delaware

From Informal to Formal: Meanings, Values, and Impacts Related to Aural Training of Brazilian Students from a Popular Music Course

Heloisa Feichas,Federal University of Minas GeraisDarcy Alcantara,Federal University of Espirito Santo

The Band Movement in American Schools: Rewards and Consequences

John Kratus,Michigan State University

Teaching Music Improvisation as Social Interaction Augusto Monk,University of Toronto

Between the Sausage Factory and the Machine for Not Making Pancakes: Power, Authority, Aesthetics, and Creativity in an Argentine School of Popular Music

Michael O’Brien,Luther College

The Accafellas: Exploring the Music Making and Culture of an All- Male Collegiate A Capella Ensemble

Stephen Paparo,University of Massachusets, Amherst

The Musical Personhood of Three Canadian Turntablists as ‘Transformative Collaborative Practice’: Implications for Music Education

Karen Snell,Eastman School of Music

Use of Traditional Wind and String Instruments in Popular Music

David A. Williams,University of South Florida

Taking the ‘Class’ Out of Music: Social Stratification, Social Exclusion and Music Education

Ruth Wright,University of Western Ontario




philosophy, I hope to provide pre-service teachers and teacher educators with insight that can improve the development of progressive music methods.

A shift in philosophy

Encountering assumptions

In order to comprehend the implications of progressive music pedagogy, I had to realize that my perception of music education was based upon assumptions that were constructed through my formal musical experiences. I have played the trombone since fifth grade (age 10), and enjoyed playing in large ensembles, learning through formal methods, and performing Western art music. As a young musician, I admired my band director, whose instrumental expertise and conducting skill became engrained in my understanding of music education. Therefore, I came to the assump-tion that music education is defined by the formal practice of learning to play an instrument in a large ensemble. My pre-service training has perpetuated these assumptions. The majority of my teaching experiences have been focused on traditional methods of music education and the formal principles of musical performance. Therefore, I always assumed that Western musical traditions should be central to my teaching philosophy.

After listening to the research presentations at the symposium, I realized that my perspective of music education was very narrow. Understanding that music education can include a broader range of pedagogical objectives has allowed me to expand my teaching philosophy. Furthermore, inves-tigating the sociological role of music education helped me accept that formal music education has limitations for students in the 21st century.

Sociological limitations of formal pedagogy

The formal Western traditions of music education are disconnected from the ways in which many students naturally experience music. Paynter (2002) suggested that musical experiences often occur in an “untutored” fashion, characterized by the informal act of “making up music” (p. 219). Williams (2007) proposed that students have vernacular musical abilities and interests that do not require the assistance of a music educator (p. 21). These skills can include composing original songs, performing in non-traditional chamber ensembles, exploring sound production through multimedia, and covering popular songs. For many students, their vernacular musical skills might be more refined than their ability to read notation or play a particular instrument. However, American music education remains dependent upon formal musical training that is more compat-ible with the way that people experienced music in the 19th century (Williams, 2007, p. 21). Therefore, formal methods seem exclusive because they cater to an elite portion of musically tal-ented students. As stated by Fowler (1970), “Our blunder is that we have treated music as a highly specialized type of consciousness and thus, without realizing it, fenced it off for the elite” (p. 39). Mansfield (2002) contributed to the critical analysis of music education from a postmodern per-spective, suggesting that “The idea of development of music from simple to ‘sophisticated’ (12 equal-tempered tones, semitones harmony and Western instruments) is Eurocentric, denying an aesthetics of difference and implying binary opposites and universal truths (music/non-music, har-mony/discord, rhythmical/non-rhythmical, etc.)” (p. 196). Considering these critical perspectives has helped me understand that formal music methods can marginalize the diverse role that music plays in students’ lives.

Furthermore, the traditional pedagogical approach depends upon the musical tastes of a conductor who plays the role of the “taste maker, master selector, and preserver of the best of musico-cultural




achievements” (Fowler, 1970, p. 38). In such a situation, students must accept the musical interests of the conductor, which might be different than the music that interests students. This can separate music education from students’ personal and social experiences with music. Therefore, I have ques-tioned the function of music education, and the purpose it should serve. Should music educators expand students’ musical knowledge by introducing music that they otherwise would not experience? Should music educators provide opportunities for all students to benefit from the vernacular skill of “making up music” (Paynter, 2002, p. 219)? Is music education really intended for all students, or only the elite few who are talented on a particular instrument?

While formal music methods are valuable because they broaden students’ musical understand-ing, the traditional pedagogy simultaneously disconnects learning from the way in which many students experience music. Music education might relate with more students if it is compatible with the vernacular processes through which many people experience music. Therefore, I have become interested in the inclusive nature of vernacular music methods, which utilizes progressive philosophy based upon students’ experiences.

A progressive pedagogy

The meaning of the word “progressive” has many connotations in education. Most generally, this term can be linked with Dewey’s philosophy that learning should be relevant to students’ experi-ences outside of school (Dewey, 1897). The use of vernacular methods in music education is based upon this progressive educational philosophy, because it upholds students’ experiences as a vital aspect of musical learning. Therefore, vernacular music making is progressive in the sense that it allows teachers to traverse sociological boundaries that have traditionally separated students’ school music experiences from their vernacular musical experiences.

Rather than acculturating students to esoteric Western traditions, progressive methods capitalize upon students’ social, cultural, and personal experiences with music. Therefore, this approach allows music educators to “meet our students” by considering music from their perspective (Davis & Blair, 2011, p. 133). By accepting the social role of music as a central aspect of learning, this pedagogy promotes an inclusive learning environment. However, this progressive perspective challenges my formal understanding of music education in which students are assimilated into a musical culture prescribed by the music educator. This has created challenges as I have tried to understand this shift in philosophy.

The challenges for pre-service teachers

Understanding the differences between informal and formal methods

One of the primary tensions between my pre-service training and vernacular methods was the seemingly dichotomous relationship between formal and informal music learning. My initial impression was that formal methods are the opposite of vernacular methods. Therefore, I was reluctant to consider the use of vernacular methods, in favor of maintaining the music education that I most enjoyed. However, by studying the differences between these pedagogies, I realized that these philosophies do not necessarily exist in opposition.

Research by Green (2006) has been especially beneficial in helping me understand the distinc-tions between formal and informal learning processes. The primary objectives of formal methods include the ability for students to read notation, develop instrumental or vocal technique, and per-form in an ensemble. This process is dependent upon the teacher, or music director, to lead musical growth. However, informal methods allow students to listen, perform, improvise, compose, and




choose their own repertoire in an independently creative manner. Furthermore, students can learn by watching and listening to other students rather than depending solely upon the expertise of an ensemble director (Green, 2006).

By considering the subtle differences between formal and informal music learning, I was able to accept the pragmatic view of progressive methods. The goal is not necessarily to refute the value of performance or formal methods. To do so would contradict the inclusive nature of this progres-sive pedagogy. Rather, this is a fundamental shift in perspective toward a more comprehensive pedagogy:

Because the two models are based on differing principles, it need not be inferred that they are mutually exclusive. Granted, the existing model precludes musics other than classical, save for the scattering of a few electives across the surface. But the conventional model was neither designed for, nor made pretences about accommodating new developments. The emergent model, however, readily embraces the existing one due to a foundation based on the values of assimilation and integration. In essence, classical music, because it is part of the contemporary landscape, is subsumed by the new model. (Sarath, 1995, p. 32)

This has helped me realize that although formal methods are exclusive of many kinds of music making, vernacular methods are based upon a comprehensive and inclusive approach. Therefore, vernacular methods can accept the formal traditions familiar to myself and other pre-service teach-ers, while providing a transition toward a more comprehensive pedagogy. By emphasizing the inclusive nature of vernacular methods, this progressive pedagogy might become more appealing to formally trained pre-service teachers.

Studying the difference in objectives between formal and vernacular music methods helped me understand the flaws in my teaching philosophy. I realized that a strict focus on performance could restrict students from using their innate musical skills. However, vernacular music methods value the musical competencies that students already possess and can use beyond their school experi-ences. By including these vernacular skills in the music classroom, music education can become more accessible and culturally relevant to a larger portion of students.

Terminology – understanding the progressive context

The research on progressive music pedagogy utilizes terms that have unconventional connotations, especially for pre-service teachers who are formally trained. For example, a common term such as “creativity” has traditional implications that change when used in the progressive context. This can create resistance toward innovative practices, because the language seems to complicate music education with unfamiliar standards. Once I realized the implications of language associated with vernacular music making, this pedagogy seemed much more pragmatic. The following section discusses the terminology and philosophical concepts that might hinder other formally trained pre-service teachers from fully comprehending the value of progressive music pedagogy.

Popular music. For many years, music educators have resisted the inclusion of popular music because of the notion that it is inartistic or associated with negative aspects of youth culture (Fowler, 1970). Furthermore, since popular music will likely thrive without music education, music educators might feel the need to broaden students’ musical experiences and preserve the traditions of Western art music. Given these philosophies, the inclusion of popular music might result in tension, especially among pre-service teachers in the United States.

As I engaged in the discourse at the symposium, I had mixed reactions to the inclusion of popu-lar music. Initially, I thought that popular music was an inartistic alternative to formal practices,




intended “to pander to pupils’ tastes” (Green, 2006, p. 102). Therefore, the premise of vernacular music methods remained obscure to me until I realized that the inclusion of popular music is more than a shift in repertoire. Including popular music allows music education to focus on the complex aural and creative processes (composition, improvisation, arranging) by which popular musicians create music.

These vernacular processes are important, because they provide the opportunity to develop musical skills that are sometimes restricted by formal methods. Previous research described by Williams (2007) suggested that many teachers in the United States focus on teaching students to sing and perform instruments within large ensembles. These two outcomes align with the first two national standards developed by the Music Educators National Conference (currently the National Association for Music Education). However, vernacular music methods meet a much wider range of learning objectives. In fact, the process of creating popular music can be closely aligned with the first seven national standards (National Association for Music Education, 2015):

1. Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music.2. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music.3. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments.4. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines.5. Reading and notating music.6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music.7. Evaluating music and music performances. (MENC, 1994)

As I have considered vernacular music methods in the context of music education in the US, I have realized that this approach can provide a much more comprehensive music education that meets the standards set for the profession. However, the use of this progressive pedagogy was perplexing because I thought that the use of popular music was simply a shift in repertoire, rather than a shift in the process of creating music. This tension was perpetuated by the notion that ver-nacular music methods are inartistic when compared with formal music methods. In order to fully comprehend the value of vernacular music methods, I had to realize that this pedagogy incorpo-rates a variety of complex skills that could enhance the quality of music education.

The music educator. The greatest struggle I encountered during my pre-service training was the dichotomy between teaching and performing. As a pre-service teacher, the majority of my training was focused on performing an instrument. Therefore, my teaching philosophy was based upon the assumption that “Teaching is an art and the teacher must be an artist” (Gehrkens, 1964, p. 39). In particular, I have assumed the belief that the music educator is a performing artist. However, ver-nacular methods shift the role of the music educator. Rather than assuming the role of an expert performer, the progressive music educator creates a learning community that values students’ expertise.

In knowledge-building communities, the teacher is a participator and co-learner, a more expert learner. Yet, the teacher’s own knowledge does not limit what is to be learned by the students (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993, p. 211). As the situated learning theorists Lave and Wenger (1991) put it, “mastery resides not in the master but in the organization of the community of practice of which the master is part” (p. 94). “In expert environments, growth is cumulative even if not every-one is an expert, whereas in non-expert environments expertise is an anomaly” (Westerlund, 2006, p. 122).

Westerlund’s discussion of knowledge-building communities challenges my previous assump-tion that expertise is reserved for the music educator. Throughout my music education, I have been




accustomed to sitting in rehearsals in which the director tells students how to be “musical.” However, the use of progressive methods values students’ skills, knowledge, and vernacular exper-tise. Randles (2010) compared the role of the music educator in this context to a music producer:

Producers on the other hand take what artists or musicians bring to the table, in light of what has gone before, and encourage them to reach for states of being that are new – sometimes never thought of before. The producer seeks to bring out what is good about the musician that is already there (p. 112).

The role of music producer allows the music educator to create a more diverse and personal learn-ing experience. Furthermore, this can broaden students’ musical skills and refine their interests beyond the Western traditions of notation and performance. However, such pedagogy requires a more progressive philosophy that is centered upon students’ experiences.

Student-centered learning. During the symposium, I realized that vernacular music methods are primarily focused upon students’ musical interests and experiences. At first, I thought that the emphasis on student-centered learning was a great tactic for advocates of vernacular music mak-ing, because music education might be stronger if it is more student-centered. However, I have always understood myself as a student-centered teacher because of my desire to help students grow as formally trained musicians. After all, even formal methods are student-centered, because they are based upon teaching students to perform notated music on an instrument or voice. Therefore, I have realized that the progressive philosophy is not merely student-centered. More importantly, progressive methods provide a learner-centered pedagogy.

Instead, there is talk of an education that is learner-centred, and where there is personalized learning addressing the needs of the child as a consumer and producer of education. Indeed, the notion of personalization proposes that education, like other services, should be designed, co-produced and co-delivered involving intimate consultation and expanded choice (Leadbeater, 2005). The child is indeed the centre of attention (Finney, 2011, p. 2).

The term “learner-centered” epitomizes the function of vernacular methods. In this pedagogical approach, learning is personalized based upon vernacular skills that students can use beyond the classroom. Furthermore, learning is “co-produced” with the teacher (Finney, 2011, p. 2). The pri-mary focus is not on the musical expertise of the teacher, but on the musical abilities and interests of students. This decentralizes the role of the music educator and provides the learner with a more prevalent voice in his or her education.

It is imperative for pre-service teachers to understand that vernacular methods shift the role of the music educator away from the exclusive role as performer or musical expert. To some, this might seem to diminish the role of the music educator. However, it elevates the profession to a more personal level in which music educators can help students expand their musical skills. Furthermore, shifting the role of the music educator places a greater deal of creativity in the hands of the student, creating a learner-centered learning environment that is more compatible with the ways in which students experience music.

Creativity. “Creativity” is an ambiguous term that has tacit assumptions based upon the pedagogical context. I have come to understand musical creativity as the act of learning to play an instrument, interpreting notation, and collaborating with other musicians in a large ensemble setting. However, the research at the symposium criticized these pedagogical techniques as limitations of creativity, suggesting that dependence on notation and a conductor perpetuates compliance (not creativity) among music students. In the realm of progressive pedagogy, creativity holds a much deeper mean-ing as a source of autonomy and divergent thinking. This places an emphasis on student independ-ence to explore music and construct personal meaning.




Initially, I couldn’t understand the creative value of vernacular music methods because I had been trained to evaluate music education based on the musical product. Therefore, I had to realize that this philosophy shifts music education from a focus on the traditional musical product toward a focus on the musical practice and process. This realization allowed me to expand my view of musical creativity.

Creativity in the progressive sense implies that students are the creators of their musical experi-ences. This contrasts with formal music education in that reading notation is a replication or inter-pretation of the musical creativity experienced by the composer. By allowing students to compose, improvise, and arrange their own music, this pedagogy utilizes creativity in its most fundamental sense – the act of “making up music” (Paynter, 2002, p. 219). This can provide students with a divergent and independent learning experience that rarely exists in American schools.

Although the goal is to provide students with a more vernacular musical experience, I am not suggesting that students should not play instruments or read notation. Rather, I am stating that my formal training restricted my understanding of innovative pedagogical practices. I believe that much of the tension between progressive music methods and traditional methods is caused by the inability to comprehend these differences in philosophy, or to accept variations of these philoso-phies. Many pre-service teachers might struggle to comprehend alternatives to traditional music pedagogy, because any alternative seems radical. However, progressive philosophies provide an opportunity to develop inclusive pedagogical practices that can enhance the creative and learner-centered function of music education.

Reservations

While coming to terms with my pedagogical assumptions has allowed me to reconstruct my teach-ing philosophy, the extent to which I apply the innovative methods described at the symposium remains uncertain. This is largely due to the fact that I have never observed or experienced these methods in a school setting. Furthermore, there is little research regarding the practical application of progressive methods in the United States. While teachers in other countries have adopted a more diverse curriculum, the well-accepted traditions in U.S. music education might hinder the inclusion of vernacular methods.

One struggle is that large ensemble performance is often used as evidence that American music education is “alive and well” (Heuser, 2011, p. 293). Therefore, administrators, parents, and other teachers might question the value of music education if there is not a clear difference between the music that students make at home and the musical opportunities provided at school. This could also leave the practice of music educators vulnerable to criticism from those who do not understand the value of informal learning. Such a situation could create tension between the intended goals of the progressive music educator and the traditional musical product that schools expect. Therefore, eliminating the boundaries between school music and popular music could inadvertently make music education a more controversial curricular issue.

Furthermore, vernacular music pedagogy is faced with the challenge of objective and accurate assessment. If music educators approach assessment in a purely objective manner, learning might become “reduced and abstracted from musical experiences and from personal and social mean-ings” (Finney, 2002, p. 121). Since the process of music making is perhaps most meaningful to the musician, it inherently resists purely objective or factual assessment. This could be controversial given the increased emphasis on assessment in American schools.

Brophy (2008) suggested that, “The subjective nature of quality in musical performance makes accurate assessment difficult” (p. 47). Although progressive methods are not based solely upon performance, the assessment of vernacular music making continues to place the music educator in




a subjective position. During my undergraduate experiences, I learned that vernacular music meth-ods develop covert skills that would be particularly challenging for a teacher to meaningfully assess. For example, during an instrumental music course taught by Dr. Randles, I participated in a covering music project. I had the opportunity to arrange and perform a popular song in a chamber ensemble with four other pre-service teachers. During this project, we analyzed a popular song of our choice, and arranged the song for vocals and instruments. This activity improved my ability to critically analyze a piece of music, to collaborate with other musicians, and to creatively engage with the facets of composition. These skills were evaluated through journal entries, rehearsals, and a final performance. However, these methods of evaluation could not extensively demonstrate my musical growth. Only I could accurately determine the extent of my personal progress, because my growth was implicitly based upon my previous musical experiences.

Another concern is the potential challenge of creating lesson plans based on informal learning methods. Throughout my teacher training, I have been introduced to the imperative necessity of creating a structured lesson plan based on the national, state, and school standards. Furthermore, setting clear objectives and methods of evaluation is crucial for music teachers who need to dem-onstrate how their pedagogical approach will lead students toward success. However, vernacular music making is somewhat contrary to this prescriptive approach. The vernacular process liberates the teacher from prescribing a path toward success in order to allow students to construct their own musical understanding based upon their interests and experiences. While the teacher is an impor-tant part of the learning process, setting rigid learning goals could hinder the independent and crea-tive nature of vernacular music making.

The challenges regarding curriculum design, assessment, and lesson planning are particularly evident in American schools. Allowing students to construct meaning based upon their own experi-ence requires a type of flexibility that could be controversial in this era of school accountability. However, considering the inclusion of vernacular music making may be crucial to maintaining and advancing the field of music education.

Conclusion

The 7th International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education was effective in addressing issues of progressive music education. Through a sociological perspective, many of the research presentations investigated the modern construct of music education and offered suggestions for more culturally relevant practices. By viewing music education as a field impacted by society and culture, I have gained a stronger understanding of my own teaching philosophy, insight into inno-vative pedagogy, and a new perspective regarding the future of music education.

In order to accept the pedagogical implications of vernacular music making, I first had to realize that my teaching philosophy was based upon narrow assumptions. My experiences as a formally trained music student led me to believe that music education should be based upon formal Western traditions. However, music educators around the world have used more progressive and inclusive pedagogies for many years. Therefore, I came to realize that the future of music education does not have to remain exclusively based upon traditional practices.

Next, I had to realize the sociological limitations of formal methods. Pedagogy based solely upon Western traditions ignores the social context of music and separates learning from students’ vernacular musical experiences. However, American music educators have preserved formal peda-gogical traditions for decades. Holding to a static form of music education has placed this field in jeopardy by excluding students who are not interested in formal methods of music making. While music education should expand students’ musical experiences, I suggest that this can be accom-plished in a more sociologically compatible manner through the use of vernacular methods.




Including popular music and accepting the social role of music in students’ lives can introduce diversity into the music curriculum. This diversity can expand students’ formal and informal musi-cal skills through a philosophy of inclusion.

Most importantly, I had to realize that vernacular music making is not simply a shift in reper-toire. The use of popular music allows students to experiment with the creative skills used by popu-lar musicians. In some senses, vernacular methods such as composition, improvisation, and the use of multimedia can introduce more complex musical skills that are more aligned with the national standards in the United States. Furthermore, the inclusive nature of this pedagogy allows music educators to supplement their formal methods with vernacular methods, without completely aban-doning the Western traditions of formal pedagogy.

As I prepare to enter the field, I feel empowered by the opportunity for change. However, I also feel pressured by the risk of transforming pedagogical practices. Therefore, I have reassessed my own philosophy of music education in order to understand the most pragmatic goals for music education in the 21st century. I encourage other pre-service and in-service teachers to embrace the challenges and consider the opportunities provided by a more progressive approach toward music education.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Brophy, T. (2008). Assessment in music education: Integrating curriculum, theory, and practice. Chicago, IL: GIA.

Davis, S. G., & Blair, D. V. (2011). Popular music in American teacher education: A glimpse into a secondary methods course. International Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 124–140.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54(3), 77–80.Finney, J. (2002). Music education as aesthetic education: A rethink. British Journal of Music Education,

19(2), 119–134.Finney, J. (2011). Music education in England, 1950–2010: The child-centred progressive tradition.

Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Fowler, C. B. (1970). The case against rock: A reply. Music Educators Journal, 57(1), 38–42.Heuser, F. (2011). Ensemble-based instrumental music instruction: Dead-end tradition or opportunity for

socially enlightened teaching. Music Education Research, 13(3), 293–305.Gehrkens, K. W. (1964). The teacher as artist. Music Educators Journal, 51(1), 39.Green, L. (2002). From the Western classics to the world: Secondary music teachers’ changing attitudes in

England, 1982 and 1998. British Journal of Music Education, 19(1), 5–30.Green, L. (2006). Popular music education in and for itself, and for ‘other’ music: Current research in the

classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 101–118.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.Leadbeater, C. (2005). The future of public services: Personalised learning. In OECD (Eds.), Schools of

tomorrow: Personalising education (pp. 101–114). Paris, France: OECD.Mansfield, J. (2002). Differencing music education. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 189–202.National Association for Music Education. (1994). National content standards. Retrieved from: http://

musiced.nafme.org/resources/national-standards-for-music-education/Paynter, J. (2002). Music in the school curriculum: Why bother? British Journal of Music Education, 19(3),

215–226.


http://musiced.nafme.org/resources/national-standards-for-music-education/

http://musiced.nafme.org/resources/national-standards-for-music-education/



Randles, C. A. (2010). Creative identity in music teaching and learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3435102)

Randles, C. (2012). Teacher as writer and producer. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 46(3), 36–52.Reimer, B. (1965). A new curriculum for secondary general music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in

Music Education, 4, 11–20.Sarath, E. W. (1995). Is the paradigm shifting without us? The need for fundamental reform in contemporary

musical training in the USA. International Journal of Music Education, 25(1), 29–37.Vakeva, L. (2006). Teaching popular music in Finland: What’s up, what’s ahead? International Journal of

Music Education, 24(2), 126–131.Westerlund, H. (2006). Garage rock bands: A future model for developing musical expertise? International

Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 119–125.Williams, D. A. (2007). What are music educators doing and how well are we doing it? Music Educators

Journal, 94(1), 18–23.



Connecting ideas to practice: The development of an undergraduate student’s philosophy of music...

Documents

Transcript of Connecting ideas to practice: The development of an undergraduate student’s philosophy of music...