0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
34 tayangan5 halaman
Will a Music Education Truly Make Your Johnny a Genius?
Dick Letts
For decades past, perhaps especially in Anglo countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, efforts of the music community to secure the place of music in the school curriculum have been frustrated. Advances are made, but as often as not lost again. Teachers and their colleagues have come to expect that so far from being won once and for all, the battle will have to be fought again and again, turning over the same arguments, the same prejudices, fighting the same fundamental ignorance of the value of an education in music...
This is a sample article from Music Forum Magazine.
Judul Asli
Will a Music Education Truly Make Your Johnny a Genius?
Will a Music Education Truly Make Your Johnny a Genius?
Dick Letts
For decades past, perhaps especially in Anglo countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, efforts of the music community to secure the place of music in the school curriculum have been frustrated. Advances are made, but as often as not lost again. Teachers and their colleagues have come to expect that so far from being won once and for all, the battle will have to be fought again and again, turning over the same arguments, the same prejudices, fighting the same fundamental ignorance of the value of an education in music...
This is a sample article from Music Forum Magazine.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
Will a Music Education Truly Make Your Johnny a Genius?
Dick Letts
For decades past, perhaps especially in Anglo countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, efforts of the music community to secure the place of music in the school curriculum have been frustrated. Advances are made, but as often as not lost again. Teachers and their colleagues have come to expect that so far from being won once and for all, the battle will have to be fought again and again, turning over the same arguments, the same prejudices, fighting the same fundamental ignorance of the value of an education in music...
This is a sample article from Music Forum Magazine.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
a
Music
Education
Truly
Make
Your
Johnny
a
Genius?
Dick
Letts
For
decades
past,
perhaps
especially
in
Anglo
countries
such
as
the
USA,
UK,
Canada
and
Australia,
efforts
of
the
music
community
to
secure
the
place
of
music
in
the
school
curriculum
have
been
frustrated.
Advances
are
made,
but
as
often
as
not
lost
again.
Teachers
and
their
colleagues
have
come
to
expect
that
so
far
from
being
won
once
and
for
all,
the
battle
will
have
to
be
fought
again
and
again,
turning
over
the
same
arguments,
the
same
prejudices,
fighting
the
same
fundamental
ignorance
of
the
value
of
an
education
in
music.
Among
the
slogans
that
recur
year
after
year,
two
suggest
music’s
basic
difficulty
with
the
curricular
decision-‐makers:
“Music
is
not
a
frill”,
and
“Music’s
place
is
at
the
core
of
the
curriculum”
(or
words
to
that
effect).
That
is
to
say,
so
many
decision-‐makers
do
see
music
as
a
frill,
and
do
not
wish
to
give
it
a
place
in
the
core
curriculum,
the
job
of
persuading
them
otherwise
is
never
done.
Some
music
educators
have
attempted
to
win
the
argument
by
shifting
ground.
Rather
than
attempt
to
convince
with
yet
another
exposition
of
the
intrinsic
values
of
a
music
education,
they
set
out
to
show
its
value
to
an
education
in
the
subject
areas
that
the
decision-‐makers
believe
to
be
important.
Basically,
there
have
been
two
approaches.
One
is
to
attempt
to
enhance
curricula
in
non-‐musical
subjects
through
an
imaginative
use
of
music:
e.g.
through
the
inclusion
of
music
from
cultures
under
study
in
social
studies,
history
or
geography.
The
other
is
to
develop
and
present
evidence
that
an
education
in
music
contributes
somehow
to
achievements
in
non-‐musical
areas.
There
is
a
considerable
amount
of
research
testing
this
proposition
and
positive
results
are
cited
widely..
The
music
community
is
very
pleased
with
this
research.
Music,
underdog
of
the
educational
system,
is
suddenly
revealed
as
undergod,
capable
of
almost
magical
influence
on
students’
academic,
personal
and
social
development.
Because
the
music
sector
uses
this
research
for
political
purposes,
we
might
wonder
about
its
rigour
in
assessing
the
work.
Does
it
present
only
properly
verified
outcomes
or
does
it
accept
with
gratitude
any
assertion
that
supports
its
argument,
no
matter
how
poorly
based?
We
will
look
at
three
reviews
of
the
existing
research:
Elliot
W.
Eisner:
Does
Experience
in
the
Arts
Boost
Academic
Achievement?
which
we
have
as
an
unpublished
manuscript
from
Stanford
University,
California,
April
1997.
Caroline
Sharp,
with
Pauline
Benefield
and
Lesley
Kendall:
The
effects
of
teaching
learning
in
the
arts.
A
review
of
the
research.
Qualifications
and
Curriculum
Authority,
London,
1998.
Bernard
West,
compiler:
The
Importance
of
School
Music.
Music
Industries
Association,
Berkshire
UK,
December
1997.
The
Forward
to
The
Importance
of
School
Music
says
this:
“There
is
now
overpowering
proof
linking
the
learning
of
music
by
children
with
significantly
improved
abilities
in
a
host
of
other
subjects.
This
seems
to
be
particularly
the
case
when
children
start
to
learn
music
at
a
very
early
age.
This
booklet
sets
out
the
evidence
supporting
MIA's
case
that
the
Government,
in
aiming
radically
to
improve
education
in
the
UK,
could
make
no
better
start
than
introducing
one
instrumental
music
lesson
every
day
for
each
pupil.
It
includes
a
digest
of
the
key
evidence
so
far
published.
The
following
pages
show
that
despite
reducing
slightly
the
time
spent
on
other
subjects,
five
music
lessons
a
week
would
actually
increase
children's
learning
in
the
other
disciplines.
Apart
from
the
unique
ability
of
music
to
be
a
general
learning
accelerator,
there
are
many
fine
byproducts
of
increased
music
lessons,
such
as
the
character-‐building
effects
of
music
in
teamwork,
coordination
and
self
discipline.
Neither
must
we
forget
that
the
UK
Music
Industry
is
both
a
major
exporter
and
a
major
employer
with
recognised
huge
growth
prospects
-‐
an
ideal
industry
in
which
many
of
today's
school
children
can
find
employment
in
adulthood.
On
the
basis
of
the
evidence
in
this
booklet,
we
at
the
MIA,
the
association
representing
all
aspects
of
musical
instrument
supply
in
the
UK,
do
not
flinch
from
calling
for
the
Government
to
insist
on
teaching
the
4
R's
-‐
the
fourth
being
rhythm'.”
Nothing
ambiguous
about
that
agenda!
A
few
pages
later,
the
compiler
claims
to
foreshadow
the
detail
of
the
argument:
“The
research
summarised
in
this
booklet
proves
that
learning
music
helps
children
as
young
as
3
by
improving:
·
artistic
ability
and
neatness
·
speech-‐fluency
in
native
and
foreign
languages
·
reading
ability
·
memorising
capacity
·
reasoning
capacity
·
time
management
skills
·
team-‐working
and
social
skills
·
learning
ability
·
problem-‐solving
ability
·
ability
in
maths,
science
and
engineering
·
ability
to
handle
performance
pressure
(stress).”
The
following
overview
of
the
research
only
two
pages
later
begins
by
noting
a
number
of
discoveries
about
brain
form
and
function
related
to
musical
activity;
for
instance:
listening
to
music
increases
blood
flow
velocity
in
the
two
arteries
that
run
through
the
centre
of
the
brain;
the
part
of
the
brain
that
controls
the
thumb
and
fifth
finger
of
the
left
hand
is
much
larger
in
string
players
than
in
non-‐musicians.
“Empirical
research”,
it
says,
“has
yet
to
be
carried
out
to
demonstrate
beyond
doubt
increased
aptitude
in
any
of
the
skill
areas
listed
[above],
but
it
seems
logical
to
assume
that
if
the
brain
can
be
affected
by
music
in
the
ways
mentioned…it
could
be
as
easily
affected
in
other
beneficial
ways.”
The
logic
is
not
reassuring.
That
is
as
close
as
the
publication
gets
to
any
reservation
about
the
research
results.
It
goes
on
to
cite
experiments
in
Hungary
on
the
development
of
children
taught
with
the
Kodaly
method,
a
large
experiment
in
Switzerland
and
a
number
in
the
USA.
All
the
experiments
cited
purport
to
show
positive
and
interesting
results,
but
there
is
virtually
no
mention
of
experiments
which
fail
to
do
so,
nor
any
assessment
of
the
quality
or
rigour
of
the
experiments.
This
publication
embodies
the
problems
that
arise
from
the
desire
to
use
the
research
for
propagandist
purposes.
Sharp’s
book
is
a
review
of
the
research
literature
on
the
effects
of
arts
teaching
and
learning,
commissioned
by
the
School
Curriculum
and
Assessment
Authority.
In
the
music
world,
we
tend
to
think
that
only
music
is
proposed
as
affecting
academic
and
other
non-‐arts
performance,
but
research
purports
to
show
similar
effects
for
other
art
forms.
The
following
text
is
selectively
extrapolated
from
the
Summary
in
Sharp’s
study.
“Relevant
material
was
identified
by:
database
and
Internet
searches;
a
request
through
the
Council
of
Europe
and
CIDREE
(a
European
educational
research
network);
and
by
personal
requests
for
information
to
key
people
and
organisations
in
the
UK.
The
main
focus
was
on
recent
published
studies
of
research
into
arts
activities
for
children
of
school
age.
Criteria
for
inclusion
were:
that
the
study
should
contain
empirical
evidence
of
the
effects
of
arts
education
on
learning
in
non-‐arts
areas
(e.g.
improvements
in
other
subject
areas,
or
emotional
and
social
development).
In
total,
81
books,
articles
and
papers
were
obtained
from
the
initial
searches.
The
majority
were
rejected
because
for
instance
they
were
theoretical,
descriptive,
or
polemic
rather
than
empirical.
There
are
22
relevant
studies
included
in
the
review.
Seven
of
these
are
literature
reviews/meta-‐ analyses
and
15
are
empirical
studies.
Most
(17)
originated
in
the
USA;
there
was
also
literature
from
Canada,
Switzerland,
(UK)
and
South
Africa.
There
are
16
studies
focusing
on
or
including
music.
In
the
majority
of
cases,
the
design,
analysis
and
interpretation
of
the
data
could
be
described
as
adequate
or
good.
However,
there
were
two
common
weaknesses.
The
evaluation
reports
often
lacked
information
about
the
content
of
the
programme,
the
sample
characteristics
and
the
research
methods
used.
Secondly,
there
was
a
tendency
for
some
authors
to
over-‐emphasise
positive
results,
without
acknowledging
less
positive
findings
or
exploring
alternative
explanations.”
The
study
examines
the
22
sources
one
at
a
time,
finds
many
wanting
but
some
revealing
interesting
and
reasonably
well
substantiated
results.
The
music
studies
as
a
whole
are
neither
more
nor
less
compelling
than
those
in
other
art
forms.
Some
studies
showed
negative
results.
Sharp
calls
a
spade
a
spade.
She
reaches
these
conclusions
overall.
·
“Although
there
are
interesting
indications,
there
is
simply
insufficient
consistent
and
compelling
evidence
at
this
time
that
arts
education
will
necessarily
lead
to
positive
non-‐arts
outcomes.
On
the
basis
of
the
evidence
presented
in
the
22
studies,
the
case
for
the
broader
outcomes
of
arts
education
should,
therefore,
be
considered
not
proven.
·
It
is
possible
that
specific
experiences
can
make
a
valuable
contribution.
There
may,
for
example,
be
an
association
between
exposure
to
some
kinds
of
music
and
the
development
of
spatial-‐temporal
skills.
However,
it
cannot
be
said
that
arts
teaching
will
automatically
contribute
to
pupils'
learning
in
other
subjects.
Whilst
some
experiences
may
contribute,
other
experiences
may
not.
Further
research
may
be
able
to
shed
light
on
those
particular
experiences
which
have
positive
non
arts
outcomes.
·
There
are
indications
that
certain
aspects
of
arts
learning
may
be
particularly
effective
with
younger
children.
Further
research
is
needed
on
the
effect
of
the
arts
on
different
sub-‐groups
·
The
available
evidence
suggests
that
transfer
of
learning
from
one
subject
to
another
is
not
easy
to
achieve.
People
do
not
automatically
apply
existing
skills,
knowledge
or
attitudes
to
new
situations.
More
research
is
needed
into
the
circumstances
in
which
transfer
of
arts-‐related
learning
can
be
achieved.
·
Among
the
studies
included
in
the
review
were
examples
of
programmes
which
deliberately
set
out
to
teach
non-‐arts
skills,
such
as
mathematics
and
reading,
through
the
arts.
While
some
of
these
provided
evidence
of
gains,
it
is
important
to
consider
whether
the
outcomes
of
such
teaching
methods
compare
favourably
with
those
achieved
by
other
mathematics
and
reading
programmes.
·
There
is
a
need
for
further,
high
quality
research
to
identify
the
specific
experiences
that
can
enable
artistic
development
and
provide
a
broader
contribution
to
learning.
The
research
will
also
need
to
explore
the
extent
to
which
it
is
possible
to
fulfil
both
of
these
functions
simultaneously.”
Eisner
reviewed
the
experimental
and
correlational
studies
of
the
relationship
between
arts
courses
and
academic
achievement
published
from
1986
to
1996.
So
far
as
was
possible
he
looked
at
those
studies
published
in
refereed
journals
that
showed
not
only
results
but
also
the
data
and
methods.
Eisner
complains
that
many
of
the
studies
claim
that
in
one
way
or
another
arts
courses
strengthen
academic
performance,
but
that
it
is
often
difficult
to
discern
any
basis
for
the
claim,
or
that
the
basis
can
be
shown
to
ignore
obvious
alternative
hypotheses,
or
that
the
experiment
can
be
shown
to
support
some
other
hypothesis
than
the
one
asserted
–
for
instance,
rewarding
mathematical
performance
by
showing
televised
music
lessons
might
show
the
effects
of
reinforcement
on
learning
in
mathematics
rather
than
a
study
of
the
contributions
music
makes
to
academic
achievement.
Some
programs
set
out
to
improve
a
non-‐arts
skill
such
as
writing
through,
for
instance,
experience
in
drama
and
writing
courses;
but,
says
Eisner,
the
aim
of
such
a
study
is
not
to
teach
drama,
with
some
sort
of
flow-‐on
to
writing,
but
to
teach
writing.
“Reports
of
the
effects
of
arts
education
on
academic
achievement
appear
to
be
most
notable
in
programs
that
are
specifically
designed
to
help
students
with
reading
problems
learn
to
read
through
the
arts.
As
educationally
virtuous
as
such
effects
might
be,
these
programs
are
specifically
designed
to
teach
reading;
the
arts
are
resources
to
this
end.”
Then
Eisner
makes
a
very
important
point.
“It
must
be
granted
that
the
achievement
of
transfer
of
learning
is
an
ambitious
and
noble
aim.
It
has
been
so
since
Thorndike
(1914)
did
research
to
test
his
theory
of
identical
elements
around
the
turn
of
the
century.
Some
contemporary
social
scientists
such
as
Lave
(1994)
have
little
optimism
that
transfer
can
be
very
wide.
Learning
or
cognition,
they
claim,
is
situated
and
its
utility
is
limited,
more
or
less,
to
contexts
like
the
ones
in
which
it
is
situated.
Yet
it
seems
obvious
that
some
transfer
must
occur,
otherwise
learning
would
be
so
situation
specific
that
it
would
not
occur
elsewhere.
After
all,
no
two
situations
are
ever
identical;
time
changes
among
other
things.
However,
when
we
talk
about
the
effects
of
arts
education
on
academic
achievement
in
reading
or
in
mathematics,
we
are
expecting
transfer
of
wide
scope.
To
expect
that
is
to
expect
a
great
deal.
At
this
moment
I
can
find
no
good
evidence
that
such
transfer
occurs
if
what
we
count
as
evidence
is
more
than
anecdotal
reports
that
are
often
designed
for
purposes
of
advocacy.”
In
a
way,
Eisner
has
his
own
political
agenda,
but
it
is
one
that
is
based
squarely
on
the
intrinsic
values
of
the
arts
in
education.
“Why
be
concerned
about
the
relationship
of
the
arts
to
academic
achievement?
(This)
takes
us
back
to
first
principles.
When
a
body
of
work
in
a
particular
field
of
study
makes
significant
and
valuable
contributions
to
a
wide
array
of
skills,
dispositions,
or
understandings,
the
value
of
that
field
increases.
We
all
like
"toofers"
[two-‐for-‐one];
and
if
we
can
get
them,
so
much
the
better.
Thus,
I
have
no
objection
what-‐so-‐ever
if
experience
in
the
arts
helps
raise
test
scores
in
math,
reading,
or
sentential
calculus.
Problems
begin
to
emerge
when
the
values
for
which
the
arts
are
prized
in
schools
are
located
primarily
in
someone's
version
of
the
basics,
when
those
basics
have
little
or
nothing
to
do
with
the
arts.
The
perils
of
such
justification,
whether
those
justifications
pertain
to
the
so-‐called
basics
or
to
versions
of
arts
education
that
regard
its
primary
function
as
fostering
cross-‐cultural
understanding,
are
profound.
The
core
problem
with
such
rationales
for
arts
education
is
that
they
leave
the
arts
vulnerable
to
any
other
field
or
educational
practice
that
claims
that
it
can
achieve
the
same
aims
faster
and
better.
If
one
wants
to
help
students
understand
the
life
styles
of
other
cultures
it
strikes
me
that
anthropological
studies
would
be
more
direct
route
and
even
if
we
imagine
for
a
moment
that
they
weren't
the
most
direct
route,
to
use
the
arts
primarily
to
teach
what
is
not
truly
distinctive
about
the
arts
is
to
undermine,
in
the
long
run,
the
justifying
conditions
for
the
arts
in
our
schools.
What
instrumental
justifications
of
the
kind
I
have
described
also
do
is
to
legitimate
the
marginal
position
assigned
to
the
arts
by
those
looking
for
such
justifications.
When
arts
educators
accede
to
their
expectations
it's
a
way
of
saying,
"You're
right,
the
arts
are
not
really
important
in
their
own
right.
Their
importance
is
located
in
their
contributions
to
more
important
subjects.””