VI Colloquium: October 22 - 25, 1998: Toronto, ON
"Cultural and Social Influences on Music Teaching and Learning"


How can students be guided?
Cathy Kassell

Taking the guiding operative from the above question, "how can students be guided," as well as Jack Heller's question, "What is the goal of music education?" suggests a blueprint and direction for examining the practical applications of Ideal no 2.

In order to address adequately Keith Swanwick's point that "formal music education tends to create its own subculture which may or may be neither culturally authentic nor musically rich," it is helpful to situate the discussion in a broader and more inclusive scope. Roberta Lamb and Eleanor Stubley articulate the problem this way, "We are so isolated in our curriculum that we see only our own reflection." Two non-mutually exclusive interpretations could apply here; that music education as a discipline is isolated in the field of general curriculum, and that each of us are isolated within music curricula because we are only able to see our own culture's reflection. Each has powerful ramifications and necessitate close examination of the choices we make as educators as to the goal of music education, as well as to the goal of education.

The Problems of "Covering" all musics, or as Wayne Bowman succinctly stated it: "Teach whose music and why?"

One of the misconceptions that the multicultural movement has addressed is the notion that it is necessary or even possible to include every culture in a curriculum. While not directly transferable to the specific issues of music education it is helpful to consider how multiculturalists and educators in history and language arts have grappled with the problem of cultural inclusion.

Through the 60's-80's it was thought that an understanding of one's own knowledge of oneself would enable one to understand others. Unfortunately what was once conceived as a jumping off point became a way of grouping cultures under specific headings. While it had been hoped that this "ethnic studies" approach would attract members from diverse groups it succeeded in attracting culturally specific members. This eventually metamorphosed into the belief that if education is to be multicultural it must emphasize EDUCATION as the primary focus not multicultural education. In order to infuse the construct "multicultural" into the entire education process multicultural education became a pedagogical issue, not a curricular design issue.

For language arts and [the study of] history this pedagogical decision was based on several factors. Realizing that [language arts teachers] can't teach every novel from every culture decisions had to made that were based partially on the multicultural vision that using Education, defined in terms of liberating pedagogy, would provide a starting point. Consequently, each discipline has begun to move away from what was once considered the traditional way to teach, moving toward a progressive vision based on general learning theories as well as research on teaching. This vision is based on asking questions, tackling the notion of "truths" and perspectives, and validating the ways in which people incorporate different learning styles or "learning strategies" (T. Gates). For instance, historically, the oral tradition of literacy was not validated in the [European-American and, increasingly, other] classrooms. And certainly the same (and more) can be said for music education.

Roberta Lamb and Eleanor Stubley situate this problem in music education by pointing out that we have become fairly "adept at recognizing pluralities of musics, but that we need to become more adept at recognizing pluralities of music education." The MayDay tenets clearly take the position that there is no one specific culture to study, so the question is again, "Teach whose music and why" (Bowman)? Joan Russell based her curricular decisions on community issues, and [the requirement to make] political decisions, as well as a reflective process and informed judgment on what was missing in her specific community and context.

Clearly we don't want to prescribe methodology and yet clearly the MayDay Ideals suggest that we do want to move away from a model of teaching that has disengaged students from what they experience as music and what music teachers have often taught as music. These Ideals suggest a progressivist view of education, one in which education is a process of growth not merely a process of cultural transmission. While there is no specific way of teaching prescribed within the MayDay Ideals there are assumptions about teaching and learning that could transcribe to a pedagogy of teaching. As Kathy Armstrong pointed out, in Africa the highest compliment one can be given is that one is "Trying;" a learning assumption that permeates this culture which says, "this is what learning is about, continued growth."

Pedagogy

For the Africans, the goal of education is life long learning. If we agree that we want to "guide students to advance their aspirations for identifying and serving the musicianship needs called forth by different musics and situations" (letter "C", Ideal 2) and agree that it is not possible to address every culture, then our goal might be to equip students so that they might eventually advance their aspirations on their own, or as Kathy Armstrong framed her own goal of education, "I hope that it excites them to go on." This would necessitate equipping teachers with the necessary tools to provide this kind of environment. As Joan Russell said, "The more resources a teacher has to call upon, [the more help she has] to make choices within different contexts." If we could restructure our own teaching in ways that would let our students know that there was no "single answer" (Lamb & Stubley) or a right way to answer [musical questions] this would provided the foundation for a teaching curriculum that also validates pluralistic cultures and musics. Lamb and Stubley addressed this when they asked us to "look for opportunity, rather than answers."

Again, it would be sensible to examine how other disciplines have handled this. Examining the choices we make through how Lamb and Stubley envision education, suggests moving away from a transmission model of pedagogy to a constructivist model. In a constructivist environment, students are invited to incorporate the learning strategies that best make sense to them, rather than try to learn within an arbitrary set of rules that adults develop (Au, 1993). In comparing a constructivist model with a transmission model the differences are immediately apparent. In the traditional environment, teachers impart knowledge to students creating a transmission model. In a transmission classroom the teacher treats the student as if they are blank slates, waiting to receive the information teachers will impart. In a constructivist model teachers and learners begin with an experience within a context and then pull and build on those skills that flow from the whole. In each of the three musicking and discussion sessions on Saturday the performers allowed the conference participants to experience and then respond.

However, as music educators we are concerned with standards and quality, and as such a musical framework must coexist within a general framework of education. Agreeing that there is not one way to listen, David Elliot addressed these points by providing a framework to help guide the teacher/learner. John Shepherd, in responding to a question of David's responded, "It is perfectly reasonable to try to teach students how students of that [other] culture might listen."

Restructuring the curriculum

In the US there is a movement toward restructuring curriculum so that the man made construct between disciplines becomes less delineated. What ramifications this may have for music education is difficult to say and yet, if music educators are to become part of a broader educational goal--as demonstrated by the Ideals and the speakers at the Toronto Conference--it would seem that the answers become even more difficult. While seeming to speak blasphemously at this conference, Jack Heller's point that "The study of world cultures (including music) should be the responsibility of what is called Social Studies (sociology/anthropology) in US schools," bears consideration. To immediately discount Jack's point is to discount the way other disciplines are looking at organizing knowledge and information. If the purpose of education is not hooked into [providing] "coverage" but [striving for] a broader take on giving student tools for entering other music cultures (and as Ted Sizer put it, "less is more") it makes decisions problematic. An open inclusive philosophy that suggests examining music education in ways that examine knowledge and information differently and suggests examination of "Who asks the questions, and who listens," (Lamb & Stubley) is not specific only to music education. While their interpretation of "evolving from within as well as shaping" (Lamb & Stubley) was probably not intended to address the reification of music as a subculture, it demonstrates how we can become part of the broader educational discussion by bringing to the playing field the qualities that have always been indicative of an arts education as well as shaping our discussion of education based on a more informed conception of the purpose of education.

References

Au, Kathryn. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Banks, James. (1993). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Allyn Bacon.