xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20049999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00403
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 12, no. 54 (September 27, 2004).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c September 27, 2004
Music education for the 21st century : epistemology and ontology as bases for student aesthetic education / Jos Luis Arstegui, Robert Stake [and] Helen Simons.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 12issue 54series Year mods:caption 20042004Month September9Day 2727mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2004-09-27
EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Policy Analysis Archives EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles are indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org). Volume 12 Number 54 September 27, 2004 ISSN 1068-2341 Music Education for the 21st Century: Epistemology and Ontology as Bases for Student Aesthetic Education Jos Luis Arstegui University of Granada Robert Stake University of Illinois Helen Simons University of Southampton Citation: Arstegui, J. L., Stake, R. & Simons, H. (2004, September 27). Music education for the 21st century: Epistemology and ontology as bases for student aesthetic education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (54). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n54/. Abstract We seek to understand why persons develop their musical preferences by identifying with a particular cultural group and social background. This identification is greatly shaped by experience in their environment. Resources employed for this identification are mostly different from those employed in schools to foster academic knowledge. We argue that there needs to be renewed at tention to the epistemological and ontological bases of education to examine how we can most effectively educate for the 21st Century in a relativistic and globalized world. Our focus is on music education but with the entire curriculum near at
Music education for the 21st century 2 hand, together seeking to bring about a better intellectual, sociological, and aesthetic process of education. Our interest in music stems from a perceived necessity that persons trai ned in the arts will have special answers to the challenges of this so-called postmodern world. We offer: (1) elements of epistemology, di scussing how education and music education have traditionally been focused on propositional rather than interpretive knowledge; (2) a part icular perspective on ontology, making evident the ways that individuals construct meanings, interacting with their cultural environment in the shaping of social identity; and (3) the need, today more than ever, for a music curriculum fostering aesthetic experiences that develop interpretive understanding of reality and personal self. Characteristics of postmodernism in cultural studies will be employed throughout the paper. Epistemology School curricula are often thought of as content for learning. Reading, writing, and arithmetic contain the most traditional content. Every person expects schooling to start with this basic content. So mething similar happens in traditional music teaching, where children have to learn the basics, how to read a score, to play an instrument, and to sing accurately. The learning of this content is pursued through exposure to certain parameters of music such as rhythm, melody, et cetera. This experiential knowledge is usually considered a way to build academic skills rather than important in itself. Whatever the subject matter, students are expected to learn knowledge prioritized in the intrinsic logic of the disc ipline. These curricula have roots in the cognitive and structural psychology of Piaget, Vigotsky, Bruner and others whose purpose has been to adapt teaching to the wa y individuals learn. However transmitting content is perceived to be the main job of teachers. The emphasis is on how chosen content is acquired. Curriculum implementation is attentive to the learning process, but seldom to the point that students are to construct knowledge through ordinary social interaction among peers. As with walking and talking, the experience of construction can be more important than the content itself. Major curricula draw from two main bodies of knowledge. The first type of knowledge is based on rules for handling empirical data. Scientific knowledge is independent of observers (that is, objectiv e), ruled by cause and effect relationships (causal) and responds consistently to those rules in the same ways under the same conditions (replicative). In industrialized so cieties, it is deemed of greatest worth. A technique or ability is crafted according to a rational model aimed at attaining a predefined product or achievement or performance. As this idealized model is external to the subject, it is valued as objective and ge neralizable. Curriculum developers form rules using Â“formal definitions of concepts, acco rding to operational aspects that can be
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 54 3 observedÂ” (Christians, 2001: 117). The more impersonal and universal the expressions of knowledge, the better. We call this knowledge Â“propositional.Â” The second type of knowledge is that which is personally constructed as a consequence of cognitive and social interaction. Meanings are negotiated among participants. A person who values this typ e of knowledge reflects on the different possible meanings and comes to a judgement of what is worthwhile and meaningful for her, much as a judge weighs up different views and evidence and applies the law according to the facts of each case. Meaning in this form of knowledge is based on: (a) knowledge derived from experience rather than propositions; (b) reflective judgement applying norms in different ways in different situations; and (c) a tes t that is authentic and specific to each situation (Grundy, 1987). The implementation of rules is insufficient for the generation of meaning. These always need to be interpreted or applied with reference to the specific situation and sociocultural context. Actors and situationally relevant action are seen as more importa nt than the product achieved. Decisions, important if not all-important, are a conse quence of deliberation among participants. Knowledge is less causal, more dialogical. It is a social construction that depends on meanings negotiated among participants. Knowledge depends on interpretations that people make. However generally it is expresse d, this knowledge is not universal, but particular. We call this knowledge Â“interpretive.Â” The differences between propositional and interpretive knowledge can be readily seen in curriculum development. Savater (1997) summarizes differences among curriculum models as follows: to process information is not the same as to understand meanings. And there is an even greater difference between transforming and constructing new meanings1 (p 32). A curriculum supported by the propositional view of knowledge visualizes a teaching-learning pr ocess determined by external authority according to the intrinsic logic of each discipline and relatively independent of learner experience. A curriculum maintaining the interpretive view of knowledge visualizes teacher-student interactions in which each are regarded as composers, constructing knowledge together. Here there is little passi ve reproduction of external knowledge, but active construction of meanings by individuals in accord with present and prior experience. Process takes preced ence over product. A general curriculum, according to Grundy (1987), or an arts curriculum, a ccording to O'Fallon (1995), has different implications based on whether it draws mo st from the propositional or interpretive traditions. Academic music education has usually taken a propositional approach, emphasizing classical knowledge and disciplin ed performance. We see three reasons for this: (1) The priority on propositional knowle dge throughout the curriculum. (The arts adopt habits of the core sciences to main tain respectability); (2) The importance of technical skills in Western classical music; an d (3) The simplicity of using technical tests (e.g., to determine the accuracy in pitch of a third major interval intonation is much easier than to decide if a student comprehend s aesthetically a particular piece of music). The question of what it means to be educated is seldom pondered. 1 Quotations originally in Spanish ha ve been translated by Arstegui.
Music education for the 21st century 4 The following example adapted from case study research by Arstegui (in press), is illustrative of the split between academic and experiential knowledge as a consequence of the primacy of propositional knowledge over interpretive: In a University School of Music, the Twentieth Century Music instructor has passed out an exam beginning with the following questions: Listen to the following excerpts. For each work: Name the composer Name the work (including movement number if relevant) Answer the questions regarding the work 1. What is the term that explains the harmonic relationships between the right and the left of th e piano part towards the end of this excerpt? 2. Briefly explain how pitch is organized in this piece. Name at least one composit ional device in this work that challenges tonality. 3. The better part of this work has entrances based on a certain harmonic pattern. Describe and/or write out that pattern. And so on until they have heard 12 pieces and answered the four questions for each. A few days later, I (JLA) interviewed a student enrolled in that course who said: JLA Among all the courses in which IÂ’ve been observing you, my attention was on Music 006. Amy Yes. JLA Why are you smiling? Amy Because I was just wondering what you are going to say about it. JLA Well, the ambiance in the classÂ… Amy Nobody really cares? JLA Yes, most of students donÂ’t really care. I donÂ’t know why. Amy Because [pause] I admit my attitude in that class is not a positive one, just because of the music that they play. I think itÂ’s garbage. This short vignette illustrates a pre-eminence of propositional knowledge in music education and the neglect of persona l experience. The exam questions are on carefully selected objective knowledge. The student needs to recognize the composer, the title, the name of a term, and the lik e. The purpose is to discern propositional knowledge about Twentieth Century music in auditory presentation. The test is about propositional knowledge, a set of rules applied to aural recognition. That music happens to be greatly outside the experiential knowle dge of Amy and her classmates. To Amy, it
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 54 5 is garbage. She cannot understand a music so distant from her personal experience. She rejected it. The teaching had been focuse d on objective knowledge which students rejected, not on interpretive knowledge students engaged. The course followed the intrinsic logic of the discipline. Success in the course required the students, temporarily at least, to accept this logic. A curriculum giving pre-eminence to propositional knowledge disdains the relativist grounded in personal experience and in postmodern thinking. Perez Gmez (1997), for instance, states that the En lightenment which gave way to Modernity abandoned religious and feudal absolutes and placed reason-propositional knowledge techniques in their absolutist position. Th is position brings out consequences for individuals, social groups and political organization: A fervent belief in Modernity in the empire of reason has led to the search for a single model of Truth, Goodness and Be auty. It has led to establishing a perfect and objective procedure of production of sc ientific knowledge and to a consequent logical, precise and mechanical technologica l implementation, first in nature, later in economic relationships, then in the political government of people and social groups. It has led to conceiving an idyllic model of polit ical organization: To reaffirm the lineal and progressive meaning of History. To foster the knowledge of experts and in-fashion. To set a hierarchy among cultures. To define a fanciful model for human development and behaviour. To legitimate, in any case, the social Â— internal and external Â— imposition of such models. In short, to impose a particular form of civilization, which is presented as privileged (Prez Gmez, 1998, p. 21). The prevalence of logical reason can also be found in the modern concept of art. Bruno Nettl (1995), Christopher Small (1 998), Alessandro Baricco (1999) and other authors depict a concept of cultured music, ch aracterized by its spiritual content, going beyond the material facts, independent of e poch, and to be reached by those who can develop music skills enough to perform it and to listen to it. That is, a product which follows an universal model independent of the context. Adorno (1976) and Weber (in Fehr, 1988) raised the idea of cultured music as a consequence of rationality. Thus, music has increasingly become an object, as happens often in the purview of the modern society. Rationalization of music entails a conception of music as a product, elevating certain models as ideal, the referents for any other style. In the postmodern world, Western classi cal music cannot expect to maintain its privileged place in the curriculum, its resp ectability in the absence of student respect. Rationality and cultured music should also engage with emotions (Fehr, ibid.), the irrational component of music. To consider emotion a key part of cultured music, beyond technical language and skill, means that the music players and listeners will play and acquire knowledge through interpretation more than through rationalization. Hence the importance of a personÂ’s direct experien ce with music in particular contexts for gaining comprehension. If we see knowledge as socially constructed, objectivity cannot be conceived without subjectivity (Freire, 1992 ). To deny the ties between objectivity and subjectivity hides the social contradictions that objectivity entails. A curriculum model based on interpretive knowledge should make evident the contradictions.
Music education for the 21st century 6 Ontology From one point of view, human be ings are born prematurely, both physiologically and intellectually. We are born before we have the capacities to care for ourselves. Uncertainty and plasticity mark our future. Genetics counts, but it is through nurturing, experience and education that we re ach maturity. Both individual and social human development emerge from interaction with objects in the environment (Winnicott, 1971). While teacher may assume that they educate directly, in fact they actually educate indirectly through environm ents they do and do not create (Dewey, 1967). Neither natural events nor cultural heritage are our teachers, rather they are interactive links with other consciences (Savater 1997). It is easy to see that the process of teaching and learning has a vitality b eyond the content transmitted. As human development is a consequence of interacting with environment, individual and social growth is inseparable. Particular contexts in which human interactions lead to maturation, on the one hand, shape our interpretation of reality. On the other, they make up how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive and re late to others. These perceptions of self understanding and the self-other understanding, are usually called personal identity, and social identity, respectively (Lamont, 2002). The younger the child is, she says, the more important the personal identity is. And the more grownup the child becomes, the more influential the social becomes, reaching a maximum during adolescence. These identities depend on the contexts in which negotiation of meanings are made. "Thus identity, knowing, and social membership entail one another." (Lave & Wenger, 1991: 53). Identification with a particular culture usually comes by living within one of its communities. Such an identification su pposes the transmission of: (1) propositional knowledge; (2) behavioural patterns; and (3) social values deemed important in the community. Home, school, peers, and mass me dia are the major agents of cultural transmission and the identification process. Familial acquisition of functional knowledge, e.g., getting dressed and wiping, ethical norms, and beliefs, will shape social identification dramatically because of the strong affective nature of such learning: The main determinant of our social atti tudes is not our wish to be loved or loving, but the fear of not being loved any more by those whom we will consider important for every moment of our lives. Â… What we learn in the family environment has an indelibly pervasive influence on us. In favourable cases, it will purify highly valuable moral principles that later will weather the storms of life. In the unfavourable, it will give root to prejudgements that afterwa rds may be impossible to eradicate (Savater, 1997, p. 58). School remains one of the most influential agents for socialization and the consequent development of identity with a pa rticular culture. There are several reasons. First, school is the formal institution pur posely created for such interactions. Second, it is a powerful organizer of student experi ence (Fernndez Enguita, 1997: 22). It establishes frames of behaviour such as: to keep silent or to speak, to move freely around or to be sat down, et cetera. And third, it is the first formal and bureaucratic institution in which children gain an access of their own. In school, teachers often ignore the cu ltural environment creating instead their own activities and experiences for lear ning. Students, however, acquire knowledge
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 54 7 through both and this becomes significant for future learning (Holland, Lachoite, Skinner & Canin, 1998). Learning occurs in and between the socio-cultural contexts of every person and the activity. Every identi ty adopts a position with regard to that knowledge. This is the key to student volunt ary assimilation of learning where there is identification with content and their cult ural roots, or for resistance to it. When education is defined by the objectivity of the subject matter, students with different backgrounds may appear to be treated the same. This can be good for students, including some of the more able students, who respond to such an objective approach. It can be detrimental to those who do not. Ig noring the influence of social factors in individuals' learning implies that, at leas t for the moment, personal uniqueness is unimportant. Students considered homogen eous have many social differences, all shaping the business of becoming educated. Homogeneity illuminates inequality. The issue of identity and its influen ce on student learning is the main concern of the critical curriculum approach, With learning depending on the contexts in which it occurs, the content and its transmissi on will be shaped by the particularities of each learning context. In learning a dynami c activity, socially constructed rather than something external to be acquired, there is li ttle value in recipes for the dissemination of information. Social factors such as gender, et hnicity, social class, age, and the like will influence what teachers teach and students learn, and how. These circumstances affect both the social context of gene ral learning (e.g., Apple, 1982), and the social context of music learning in particular (Swanwick, 1988 ). They configure musical identity according to the contexts in which students experience music, each different from another (Lamot, Op. Cit.). This music identity in turn modifi es the social identity of each and every person. The following illustration of how musical preferences have an important role in the construction of a studentÂ’s social identity comes from case study research carried out in a secondary education music class in Spain (Arstegui, 2000). Several subgroups of students were found. They could be iden tified according to: a place each group occupied in the classroom; their gender; their attitude, disciplined or undisciplined; and their integration into the larger group, a little or a lot. Along with spatial location in the classroom, music preferences were key to denoting differences. The main group, especially the girls, liked the Spice Girls, th e English musical group in fashion at the time. Two roguish boys preferred wind band music because one of them belonged to his village's band. A group of four mischievous girls rather liked flamenco music. One of the two boys less integrated in the class enjoyed playing and listening to Heavy Metal music; the other liked Bakalao music, a type of di sco music popular among certain young, drugrelated groups. At least for these teenagers, cultural values of music prevailed over intrinsic musical values. Music helped define their attachment to a recognizable subgroup as did their clothes, language and habits. These students did not appreciate the way their music was treated in class. Music listened to by adolescents is usually not considered Â“musicÂ” at school (Shepherd & Vulliamy, 1994). And teenagers themselves often reject the idea that their personal knowledge and identity acquired through 'their music is intermingling with the academic. A teaching approach respecting the studentÂ’s prior experience might reduce the visible gap between the two types of knowledge. For music education for most people, the greater knowledge emerges from personal ex perience. Interactions constructing identity
Music education for the 21st century 8 in music are made through performance, listening, dancing or talking about music (Stokes, 1990). Rather than content, it is th e form of the schooling, that is, the way in which the curriculum and extra curricular acti vities are organized and taught at school, which reinforces differences between musical id entities. To repeat, the key to the process of maturation is how we learn from other people more than what we learn. From a sociological point of view, th e issue of how identity is constructed has long been a key to understanding the teaching-learning process. In a globalized world, mostly characterized by economic unification across national borders, identity becomes even more palpable. Globalization is fostering the rise of an international culture. Elements from English-speaking countries, the United States especially, dominate the global culture. Other regions are important, but asymmetrically, markets more than producers. For music, this has meant an international pop style promoted by globalized music companies pressing the sales of the same products all over the world. Youngsters are the sub culture usually identified with international pop styles. The school curriculum persists in working fr om the objectivity of music content. The gulf between a studentÂ’s academic and expe riential knowledge will endure. Musical identification will come not from the batons of music teachers but from the microphones of mass media. Conclusion: The role of music education in the 21st Century Students learn from the particular situations in which they collectively interact. Thus is their learning realm cons tructed. An interpretive content knowledge Â— unlike that of traditional curricula Â— emer ges as a consequence of these interactions. Interactions, knowledge and activity belong to particular cultures to which individuals belong. This learning process supposes that (1) all knowledge is interpretive; and (2) cultural identity of individuals comes from social interactions. First, knowledge depends on interpr etations people make. Interpretations reflect their cultural contexts. Cultural context is mediated by social factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, and social class. If we want to redirect or extend student learning, we need to overcome social constraints. If we consider students simply as individuals and disregard their social identities we end up using differences to authenticate social inequality. Keeping strongly in mind the cont ext of the instructional process, academic content becomes subjective. Individuals interacti ng through cultural patterns construct it. Educators should have students construct those contents, especially when peer members of the group interact during a gi ven activity. Wiggins (2000), for instance, tells of shared understanding among group members Â— Â“shared understanding of the problem at hand, of the strategies necessary to solve the problem, and of music in generalÂ” (p. 65). This means, for example, that music educators should use unconventional musical writing as a way to explore standard music notation, (Kushner, in press) or use school music ensembles as a tool for discerning that individual and group improvements cannot be separated.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 54 9 For music education, to ensure adequate emphasis on interpretive content means that Western classical music, howev er affirmed by parents and community leaders, has to lose its sanctity. (Even sacr ed music is not sacred.) From our point of view, this classical music remains worthy of inclusion in the curriculum. It is the musical style with the best resources for developi ng aesthetic abilities. But its pre-eminence cannot be sustained. Any style will have its adherents and, within every one, quality will vary. But neither classicality nor popularity alone make one style better school music than another. Social acceptance or connoisseur choice can be criteria for building repertoires, but not for constraining learning. The choice of musi c should be made on the grounds of which will be best for the students. Music educator s have to decide, partly by studying their particular students, which experiences fac ilitate an education for which already the students are partly responsible. In a multicul tured world, most will need a multicultural curriculum in which classical and band music are accompanied by jazz, rock, pop, flamenco, bossa nova, or any style relevant fo r a culture. But a smattering of everything is not the answer. Second, only activities significant to a particular culture will produce relevant learning. Teaching should accommodate the realm of student experience. This means that State Standards for educating are problem atic. Standards are elitist, protectionist, indifferent to the personalities of communiti es and individuals. Only for management purposes is it advantageous to standardize procedures and content for diverse youth. Not exclusively, but vigorously, the emphasis should be on individualization. Learning possibilities depend on prior experiences and lack of them. This is why Vulliamy and Shepherd (1984), for instance, advocate a music curriculum based on student experience Â— even more, it could be argued, as the world becomes still more relativistic. Our position appreciates but does not coincide entirely with Vulliamy and ShepherdÂ’s. Even if there is a relativistic future and no absolute knowledge, not every student choice is equally desirable. To speak of teachable music, nothing may be ideal, but this does not mean every style is accepta ble. To be shunned probably are the bakalao music mentioned earlier; as well as dance-machine music; and the view of Â“heroÂ” that Nirvana leader Kurt Cobain created for his followers, after committing suicide; the Mexican group Molotov with its homophobic, fascist lyrics; and rap artist Eminem encouraging his fans in song to buy more discs. Sometimes the question is which music styles are hurtful. Best (1995) provided a partial answer. He distinguished between Â“highÂ” and Â“lowÂ” culture, not as opposed, but rather as two poles Â— but both opposed to the kitsch, to Â“pseudoÂ” music. Still, to identify what is generally without merit is no easier than to identify what has certain merit. Students need the opportunity to decide for themselves what music to savour and to study. But usually not by uninformed d ecisions. If a student rejects a music style, it might be because: (1) she does not unders tand the syntax; (2) she understands it, but rejects it because of social pressure; and (3) she understands the syntax and resists social pressure, but finds no intellectual or emotional appeal. Music instruction should get busy with the first two options. A teacher should try to ensure a student has the experience and knowledge to consider any important style of music. And knowledge of the appreciation other audiences have of it. Whe n a student has that knowledge, with fresh experience she can make an informed decision. We teachers should think less about
Music education for the 21st century 10 propositional knowledge and more about cultur al procedures and circumstances whereby a student can gain acquaintance. Students alone and students together. Dialogue, participation and empowerment become crucial in a curriculum like this. In a changing world with no absolutes and with so much information available, it is more necessary than ever to help youngsters develop personal criteria for informed decisions. Information and communication technologies are available. Music and the arts at large provide an aesthetic ex perience by which we gain understanding of reality. As we teach music, we help develop the emotions and aesthetic sensitivity. At the same time, we help develop interpretive capacities, some constructed of Â“sound identities.Â” Alfred Schtuz (in Hudak, 2002) gives a possible explanation of how sound identities are aroused: It is a temporal ex perience transmitting an undefined meaning, different for every person and different each time we listen to it. We are in a permanent state of change due to experiences such as listening to music, for instance. Musical identity emerges out from this reconstruction of meaning: The process of tuning-in entails the rec onstruction of musical content by the listenerÂ’s stream of consciousness as he/she is either hearing or imagining the music. This reconstruction creates in consciousness a Â“vivid presentÂ” in which a Â“quasisimultaneityÂ” of events between listener-be holder and composer-performer is achieved. Central to this process of temporal alignm ent is the polythetic structure of the music itself (p. 453). When we listen to a piece of music, we come to a personal interpretation, however fragmented, by our own means and according to our own experience. There are no criteria to decide if a particular interpreta tion is Â“correctÂ” but it always can be refined. A music curriculum for developing aesthetic sensitivity will be enhanced by artisticvalued music styles. The main body of research in music education is concerned with technical skills and propositional knowledge. From un iversity schools of music Â— as Nettl (1995) makes evident Â— to many methods of initiati on, such as the Kodly method (e.g., Hegyi, 1975), research questions emphasize techni cal skills derived from classical music. School music is focused on performa nce and the teaching of music parameters: rhythm, melody, texture, timber, and formal structure. Teacher training pays little attention to the development of aesthetic comprehension of music and understanding how music can successfully be integrated into general academic courses. Musical personality is mainly developed by ot her cultural agencies, not by the schools or music teachers. The main agency in charge of Â“identityÂ” is mass media, with the school curriculum "rapidly being replaced by the media curriculum" (McCarthy, Huda, Miklaucic & Saukko, 1999: 3). The split between cultured and popular music becomes inevitable with the schoolsÂ’ investment in propositional knowle dge. We have long known that music teaching should not be the same for every group of students and for every individual within. The content to be taught should not be the same for everyone, with the same learning standard set fir every student. What is learned will depend on the school and personal circumstances. Reality persists in showing us that the schools have not learned
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 54 11 these lessons. There is no idyllic model to be followed, but the importance of social construction is widely apparent. How a student gains knowledge and how students interact in constructing it becomes crucial for curriculum development.. We are living in an era with dramatic changes in politics, economy and culture. Relativism has diminished old social values without providing the new. Globalization has created an international cu lture drawing local cultures to distant norms, and youth identities follow. Profusion of information and ways of accessing it make it more important to learn how to se arch for and select information with peers interacting. We need a music curriculum faci ng these challenges. Music education can contribute to problem solving abilities, to personal self-development and to an understanding of different cultures. This new and still emergent postmodern world requires changes in our educational systems, new responses for new needs. References Adorno, T.W. (1976): Introduction to the sociology of music New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. Apple, M.W. (1982): Education and power Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Arstegui, J.L. (2000): Democracia y curriculum: la participacin del alumnado en el aula de msica. Doctoral thesis. Unpublished. Arstegui, J.L. (in press): Much more than music: Music education instruction at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In Arstegui, J.L. (ed.): The social context of music education. Champaign: CIRCE, University of Illinois. Baricco, A. (1999): El alma de Hegel y las vacas de Wisconsin Madrid: Siruela. Best, H.M. (1995): Musical perception and music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 4 2-9. Christians, C.G. (2001): The challenge of writin g the critical/cultural essay. In Alexander, A.A. & Potter, W.J. (eds.): How to publish your communicat ion research. An insiderÂ’s guide Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Dewey, J. (1967): Democracy and education New York: Free Press. Fehr, F. (1988): Music and rationa lity. In Heller, . & Fehr, F.: Postmodern culture and politics. Roma: Eulama, S.R.L. Fernndez Enguita, M. (1997): La escuela a examen Madrid: Pirmide. Freire, P. (1992): Pedagoga del oprimido Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno. Grundy, S. (1987): Curriculum: product or praxis London: Falmer Press. Hegyi, E. (1975): Solfege according to the Kodly-concept. Kecskemt: Zoltn Kodly Pedagogical Institute of Music. Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Ski nner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Music education for the 21st century 12 Hudak, G.M. (1999): The Â“soundÂ” identity: music making and schooling. In McCarthy, C., Hudak, G., Miklaucic, & Saukko, P. (eds.): Sound identities. Popular music and the cultural politics of education New York: Peter Lang. Kushner, S. (in press): Falsification. In Ar stegui, J.L. (ed.): The social context of music education. Champaign: CIRCE, University of Illinois. Lamont, A. (2002): Musical identities and the school enviroment. In MacDonald, R., Hargreaves, D. & Miell, D. (eds.): Musical identities Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation New York: Cambridge University Press. Netll, B. (1995): Heartland excursions. Ethnomusicologic al reflections on Schools of Music Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. O'Fallon, D. (1995): Choices at the in tersection of the arts and education. Arts Education Policy Review, 96 (3), 21-27. McCarthy, C., Hudak, G., Miklaucic, S. & Saukko, P. (eds.): Sound identities. Popular music and the cultural politics of education New York: Peter Lang. Prez Gmez, A.I. (1997): La cultura escolar en la sociedad postmoderna. Cuadernos de Pedagoga, 225 80-85. Prez Gmez, A.I. (1998): La cultura escolar en la sociedad neoliberal Madrid: Morata. Savater, F. (1997): El valor de educar Madrid: Ariel. Shepherd, J. & Vulliamy, G. (1994): The struggle for culture: a sociological case study of the development of a national music curricuolum. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15 27-40. Small, C. (1998): Musicking. The meanings of performing and listening Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. Stokes, M. (1994). Ethnicity, identity and music: The musical construction of place New York: Berg Publishers. Swanwick, K. (1988): Music, mind and education London: Routledge. Vullyami, G. & Shepherd, J. (1984): Sociology and music education: a response to Swanwick. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5 (1), 57-76. Wiggins, J.H. (2000): The nature of shared musical understanding and its role in empowering independent musical thinking. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 65-91. Winnicott, D.W. (1971): Playing and reality London: Tavistock Publications.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 54 13 About the Authors Jos Luis Arstegui University of Granada, Spain Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Jos Luis Arstegui is a faculty member in the Department of Music Education at the University of Granada, Spain. His formal traini ng is in Western classical music, education and qualitative research. During 2001-1003, he held a postdoctoral fellowship sponsored by the Ministry of Education of Spain at CIRCE, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. He has presented papers at a nu mber of international conferences (AERA, ISME, AEA) and published articles in such journals as Revista de Educacin, Aula de Innovacin Educativa (in Spanish), International Journal of Music Education (in English) and Em Pauta (in Portuguese). His most recent publication is an edited book, The social context of music education, published by CIRCE. Jos Luis Arstegui has recently been appointed by the Europe Aid Co-operation Office of the European Commission to co-ordinate, on behalf of the University of Granada, a ma jor evaluation of Music Teacher Education Programmes. He was also recently appointed to serve as a member of the Editorial Committee of the International Journal of Music Education. Robert E. Stake Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation College of Education University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Email: email@example.com Robert Stake is emeritus professor of ed ucation and director of the Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation at the University of Illinois. Since 1963, he has been a specialist in the evaluation of educational programs, calling his work responsive evaluation, and relying on case stud y research methods. Among the evaluative studies directed were: works in science an d mathematics in elementary and secondary schools ( Case Studies in Science Education) model programs and conventional teaching of the arts in schools, development of teaching with sensitivity to gender equity; education of teachers for the deaf and for youth in tr ansition from school to work settings, environmental education and special programs for gifted students, the reform of urban education, and training for various agencies such as the Veterans Administration. Stake has authored Quieting Reform a book on Charles MurrayÂ’s evaluation of Cities-in-Schools; two books on methodology, Evaluating the Arts in Education and The Art of Case Study Research ; and Custom and Cherishing a book with Liora Bresler and Linda Mabry on teaching the arts in ordinary elementary school classroom s in America. Recently he led a multi-year evaluation study of the Chicago Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science. For his evaluation work, in 1988, he received the Laza rsfeld Award from the American Evaluation Association and, in 1994, an honorary do ctorate from the University of Uppsala.
Music education for the 21st century 14 Helen Simons School of Education University of Southampton U.K. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Helen Simons is Professor of Education and Ev aluation at the University of Southampton, UK, where she specializes in programme, poli cy and institutional self-evaluation and the teaching of evaluation. Her pedagogical and evaluation practices embrace democratic and participatory values and humanistic approaches such as narrative, case study, portrayal and arts-based inquiry. She integrates creative arts in her teaching and evaluates her doctoral programmes using the creative arts. She is cu rrently a trustee of Artswork, an independent youth arts development agency, committed to developing creative opportunities for young people age 12-35. Her publications are in th e field of evaluation, research ethics, professional development and change.
Education Policy Analysis Archives http:// epaa.asu.edu Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Production Assistant: Chris Murr ell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, email@example.com or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org. EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute of Technology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven University of Auckland Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British Columbia
Archivos Analticos de Polticas Educativas Editorial Board Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman & Pablo Gentili Arizona State University & Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Founding Associate Editor fo r Spanish Language (1998Â—2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco Adrin Acosta Universidad de Guadalajara Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin, Chile Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Argentina Teresa Bracho Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica-CIDE Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Ursula Casanova Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Sigfredo Chiroque Instituto de Pedagoga Popular, Per Erwin Epstein Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. Puebla, Mxico Walter Kohan Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Daniel C. Levy University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Pia Lindquist Wong California State University, Sacramento, California Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigacin en Educacin, Chile Mariano Narodowski Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina Iolanda de Oliveira Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Grover Pango Foro Latinoamericano de Polticas Educativas, Per Vanilda Paiva Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Miguel Pereira Catedratico Universidad de Granada, Espaa Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Romualdo Portella do Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo Diana Rhoten Social Science Research Council, New York, New York Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Daniel Schugurensky Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada Susan Street Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Daniel Suarez Laboratorio de Politicas Publicas-Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona Lisboa, Carlos A. Torres University of California, Los Angeles Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa Lilian do Valle Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil