Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2016). Untangling general music education: Concepts, aims, and practice. In C. R. Abril & B. M. Gault (Eds.), Teaching General Music: Approaches, Issues, and Viewpoints (pp. 5-22). New York: Oxford University Press.
I understand the “amorphous and problematic” nature of general music to be that it encompasses such a wide range of musical activities and skills that no one quite knows how to describe it. Abril and Gault suggest that it is “possibly explained by the wide range of pedagogical approaches, with diverse principles and beliefs about music, teaching, and learning” (p. 6) and that the fact that it “does not assume a particular philosophy of teaching and lacks a cohesive philosophical underpinning” (p. 5). Several Methods have come about from teaching general music (i.e Orff, Kodaly) as a result of different goals that there is no singular philosophy to encapsulate the term “general music.” To me, general music in my elementary school experience meant musical activities and singing and listening to songs. A lot of the musical experiences connected to what we were learning in our history and English classes. However, I believe general music classes should be much more than just activities and singing – there should be a purpose to each activity so that students can increase in their musical skills of performing, connecting, responding, and creating. The general music classroom is a place where all students are exposed to music and these classes should encourage life-long music engagement. I appreciate the distinction between the terms “approach,” “Method,” and “eclecticism” that Abril and Gault provide in their book. I believe each of these terms are good and beneficial for the general music teacher; however, they can be problematic if taken to an extreme or remain unquestioned. For example, Methods are useful and help to provide direction in music teaching by providing a philosophical underpinning. But left unchallenged, they can become dogmatic and result in a loss of adaptability to the everchanging musical world. Similarly, eclecticism is good – borrowing ideas from others and combining them is a way for students to find a style of music learning that best suits them. However, when all these methods are combined, a teacher can lose a sense of purpose for why they are using them. I believe it is extremely important to know “what was” and “what is” in order to “pave the way for what can be” (p. 19). We are to study history so that we can understand the foundation of the subject and then look forward with ideas of what to do and what not to do based on what was successful in history. Abril and Gault describe it as being a teacher who “navigates without a compass” (p. 19) when we do not look back. I think a general music teacher needs to make sure that their methods always have a purpose, specifically a short term and long-term goal that supports their curriculum, to be efficient and effective. Their musical activities should not just be a “bag of tricks” (p. 18) because that is not effective for their students if there is more purpose to a general music class than engaging in fun activities. I also believe that the methods a general music teacher uses must constantly be questioned and reassessed, as well as adaptable to each student’s individual needs. Two questions I have from this reading are, “In what ways do current general music philosophies that need to be challenged and questioned in order for them not to become dogmatic?” and “In what ways are general music classrooms actually providing spaces of access and equality for all students? In what ways are they not and how can we improve this?” Comments are closed.
|
Davina MiawOn this page, I will present examples of my scholarship in the form of reflective essays and philosophical assignments. Archives
November 2019
Categories |