Music Education Assessment and Social Justice

The distinction between learning to perform on an instrument or voice and learning music in a wider sense is one that is made in many countries, and is especially pertinent in England in the context of recent policy developments. This article argues that, whilst this distinction has come to represent curricula based on the opposing paradigms of behaviourist and constructivist approaches to learning, this opposition does not necessarily extend to the pedagogy through which the curricula are taught. A case study of the National Curriculum in England highlights the characteristics of a curriculum based on constructivist principles, along with the impact this has when taught in a behaviourist way. It is argued that conceiving the curriculum in terms of musical competencies, and pedagogy in terms of musical understanding, would provide a basis for greater continuity and higher quality in the music education experienced by young people.

Section: Learning An Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond a constructivist curriculum: a critique of competing paradigms in music education

Garnett¹

2013

“…Spruce (2002, p. 124) pointed out that holistic assessment ‘resulted in a greater consensus of opinion than did assessment which was fragmented’. Fautley agreed: ‘the effect of holistic assessment is to say, in essence, that we are able to make informed judgements as to the quality of a performance’ (Fautley, 2010, p. 120). The foundation for this holistic and consensual approach was laid by Amabile, who suggested a ‘consensual definition of creativity’ by stating that ‘a product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree that it is creative’ (Amabile 1982, p. 1001).…”

Section: Judging Musical Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Composing and performing in the key stage 3 classroom: a study using multi-trait, multi-method analysis

Fowler

2013

‘Music is both a creative and a performing art’ (Hallam, 2006, p. 70). Many musicians and music educators maintain that composing and performing, although related, are essentially different aspects of musical activity. In the professional musical sphere, composition and performance are almost invariably separated; academic studies have treated them discretely; GCSE and ‘A’ level specifications assess them distinctly, and many music teachers assess them in the classroom as if they were separate disciplines. It is common practice for students in the lower secondary school in England to work in a more integrated way, however (Philpott, 2001; Major, 2008), composing, performing to the class, and appraising each others’ work. Recently produced assessment guidelines for secondary school music teachers in England (NAME, 2011) encourage this more integrated view, accepting the assumption made by Swanwick and Franca (1999, p. 12) that ‘musical understanding is a broad conceptual dimension’ by considering composing and performing as inter-linked ways of demonstrating and communicating musicality. This study sets out to investigate the links between composing and performing in the secondary school classroom, through peer-rating, teacher rating and students’ self-report attitudinal questionnaires, analysing these using a multi-trait, multi-method technique.Evidence for convergent validity was found between performing and composing in the classroom, suggesting that they are closely linked and may indeed be related parts of the same trait. This may have implications for the ways in which composing and performing are taught and assessed. A larger-scale study could be undertaken to investigate this further.

“…Firstly, what musicians achieve together may be a result of the interactions between them, rather than what each person did as an individual (Fautley, 2010). This is sometimes called distributed learning or distributed creativity where interactions, ideas and achievements are distributed across and between individuals (Salomon, 1993; Cole & Engeström, 1993; Cole, 1996; Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009; Glăveanu, 2011).…”

Section: Assessment and Group Composingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Novices may be peripheral to the creative process but are nevertheless legitimate participants (Rogoff, 1990). Novices are therefore entitled to claim shared authorship of the group's creative outputs (Fautley, 2010). Emotional safety is an essential element to a productive creative environment (Kratus, 2012), where the teacher may play significant role in its construction and maintenance, acting as guide, facilitator and cultural manager (Dillon, 2007; Wiggins, 2007; Welch, 2012; Cabedo–Mas & Diaz–Gomez, 2013; Carlisle, 2013).…”

Section: Assessment and Group Composingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social constructivist or cognitivist views of learning and achievement are well established modes of pedagogical thinking in music education and may be helpful when considering the pedagogies associated with effective learning in groups (Fautley, 2010). Certainly, the notion of distribution across group members supports teachers to consider how individuals interact with one another in a creative group, and to act accordingly.…”

Section: Theoretical Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing complexity. Group composing for a secondary school qualification

Thorpe¹

2017

This article examines a unique music curriculum and assessment environment through the findings of a practical action research project carried out in secondary schools. I address two current international educational issues: the relationship between formal and informal learning in music, and how individuals’ contributions in collaborative groups might be summatively assessed. Following this I present a model of group composing and explain how it was used as a pedagogical tool in secondary music classrooms. The purpose of this was to help students and their teacher to conceptualise collaborative composing, thereby leading to a clearer understanding and more valid assessment of the processes in which they were engaged.