[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] Vygotsky and music education

Hi, For those interested about relating Vygotskian theory to music
education, I found the following in page 3 in the file attached


Scaffolding and Musical Play: The Impact of Vygotskian Theories on

Changes in Early Childhood Music Teacher Education Practices

Kathryn M. Smith, University of Alberta

Secondly, you can have a look into 53.pdf also.

Finally, even though I am not sure about the content and if there is any
such relationship established, look ing into these two, may be useful

Reimer, B. (2003). *A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision*.

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wiggins, J. (2001). *Teaching for musical understanding. *New York:


2009/9/21, Elia Nelson <eliajn@gmail.com>:
> David, Helen, and all -
> I find your arguments here about Kodaly (which I only know in passing, I am
> not a music ed theorist by any means) persuasive.  I think the parts of
> Suzuki *method* that struck me as relevant at first thought were: first,
> the
> ear-training that is expected to happen pre-music reading; and second, the
> combination of graded tunes to be learned and the requisite attendance at
> recitals where more advanced students play the pieces you will learn soon,
> and less advanced students play the pieces you learned last year.  But yes,
> as far as a domestic vs. larger social context is concerned, Suzuki seems
> to
> fall somewhat short - his social contexts are very explicitly put together
> by the efforts of the teacher, rather than any kind of "natural" immersion.
> I suppose I have also made the mistake of construing a particular
> experience
> of Suzuki in the midwestern US as typical, when there is no reason why it
> should be.  Suzuki method led me to a "community of musical practice" that
> enabled me to easily transition from a first instrument (violin) to a
> second, more beloved one (harp), and without the community aspect of the
> Suzuki practioners I began with, that wouldn't have happened.
> Again, thanks for your thoughtfulness on this question!  I am enjoying the
> variety of perspective.
> Elia
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:07 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> > Elia--
> >
> > First of all, I agree completely that we need to look at the Kodaly
> method.
> > From what I've heard of it, it is even more promising than Carl Orff. The
> > Orff method is what I would call an activity oriented method (for
> example,
> > the children are taught to think of the body as an instrument). Kodaly,
> from
> > what little I know of it, is much closer to LSV than to ANL. Kodaly, for
> > example, favors a Davydov style concept-based curriculum.
> >
> > I was thinking about this the other day, because we have the constant
> > problem here in Korea of introducing English words for Korean concepts
> and
> > having the child simply relabel a Korean concept with an English sound.
> For
> > example, in Korean "feeling" is really a NOUN and not a PROCESS, so
> Korean
> > English speakers tend to say "How's your feeling" instead of "How do you
> > feel?" In this instance, the child has a strong tendency to simply forget
> > the English concept and even the English word.
> >
> > What is interesting is that when we proceed the OTHER WAY, by introducing
> a
> > concept in English BEFORE the child has it in Korean, the child has no
> > obvious difficulty with the Korean form, either in understanding or in
> > forgetting. My feeling is that this is not only the way that immersion
> > works, but also the way that good science teaching works.
> >
> > A lot of our science teaching involves relabelling everyday concepts
> (e.g.
> > "smoke", "man/woman", "north/south pole") with science words (e.g.
> > "greenhouse gases", "male/female", "latitude/longitude"). The kids
> > inevitably exert pressure on the classroom discourse in the direction of
> > everyday concepts, and sometimes leave the classroom with the false
> notion
> > that "greenhouse gas" is just another word for "smoke", a "male" is
> another
> > word for "man" and "longitude" is a fancy word for North Pole.
> >
> > So what happens when we proceed the other way around? We start with the
> > science concept and we relabel it with an everyday word. For example, we
> > have this game of Rock Paper Scissors called "Rabbit, Grass, Soil".
> > The rabbit eats the grass and wins. The grass "eats" the soil and wins.
> And
> > then the soil "eats" the dead body and dung of the rabbit and wins.
> >
> > Now, as the game progresses, the pressure of the science concept
> (roughly,
> > "absorb") on the everyday term ("eats") gets progressively greater, and
> > eventually the child feels the need for a scientific term:
> >
> > The rabbit's body absorbs the grass.
> > The grass absorbs (nutrients) from the soil.
> > The soil absorbs (nutrients) from the rabbit.
> >
> > Now, it seems to me that the Kodaly method is a LOT closer to what we are
> > doing with this game than either Orff or Suzuki. With Kodaly the child
> > starts out with musical CONCEPTS and then only later learns the notation;
> > the word is ready when the concept is rather than the other way around.
> >
> > Now, be patient with me--I have a big mouth, and I am not infrequently
> (in
> > the context of this list) first with the wrong answer. It's always best
> to
> > take what I say with a block, even a mine, of salt. I think of Suzuki as
> a
> > methodologist, not a theoretician. That means he created practical ways
> of
> > teaching, and did not actually have his own theory of what music is and
> what
> > learning music constitutes. So I think to understand his view on what
> music
> > is and what learning and teaching music are made of, we need to look at
> the
> > method.
> >
> > We find a method that is widely known, even within the music teaching
> > profession, as the "Mommy Method", because it demands constant
> participation
> > from doting parents (for example, they have to be present during lessons,
> > and they are supposed to sit and listen while the child practices). This
> is
> > completely consistent with his language acquisition model, of course. But
> > it's quite a contrast to Vygotsky, who in his later work (including
> Chapter
> > Six of Thinking and Speech, and the work which became Chapter Eight of
> Mind
> > in Society) is arguing for a more social and less domestic approach, more
> > conscious and volitional and less spontaneous and involuntary, even in
> > preschools.
> >
> > I'm afraid I don't have ANY quotations from Suzuki himself, and my own
> > research on music education is years old. Even then most of what I know
> is
> > from teacher trainers (ugh) who had an interest in "gifted" children
> (double
> > ugh). Now, in this literature, Suzuki shines! He has a real and strong
> > belief that differential "inherent musicality" is a myth, and that all
> > children are equally musical. The empirical work I've seen on this
> > (including work by talent scouts for, e.g., the Berklee school of music)
> > supports this: so-called "inherent musicality" just consists of the
> ability
> > to sit and practice for very long periods of time when other children are
> > out playing baseball.
> >
> > Obviously, this is not necessarily inherent; one can think of any number
> of
> > reasons for doing it that are no more intrinsic to the child than a love
> or
> > hate for baseball. And of course the reasons why a child keeps doing it
> may
> > have nothing to do with his or her reasons for starting to do it. I think
> > the problem with Suzuki's insistence on parental and teacher involvement
> is
> > that it tends to the very personal and it can be (at least here in Korea)
> > intensely competitive, atomizing children in families rather than
> > associating them to communities of musical practice, and this can present
> a
> > barrier to development somehwere in the transition from other mediation
> to
> > self mediation.
> >
> > Two anecdotes spring to mind. The first is from a fourteen year old girl
> > who won a national Chopin competition by practicing the same set of
> etudes
> > for four years. When asked (very perceptively) how she managed to do this
> > without becoming obviously BORED with the piece, she gave a beautiful
> potted
> > history of growing up in America in the 21st century. She first imagined
> the
> > right hand as Tom the cat and the left hand as Jerry the mouse, and when
> > that grew stale she synthesized left and right hand into a kind of
> composite
> > Yu-ki-o/Pokemon character, etc. Finally, she began to think about Chopin
> > himself, and now she really thinks about nothing but timeless placeless
> > faceless form. From this we can imagine that self-mediation is no less
> > dialogic and no less dynamic (and no less real crisis prone) than more
> > social forms of play.
> >
> > The second is an interview with Leonard Bernstein's father. The
> > interviewer, steeped in the belief that genius is somehow intrinsic,
> > inherent, inborn with certain people, asked in an incredulous tone of
> voice
> > if it was really true that he had forbidden little Lenny to practice the
> > piano all day and ordered him to go out and play baseball like a normal
> kid.
> > Yeah, the old man shrugged; he didn't remember too clearly, but if Lenny
> > said that, it was probably true. "Why on earth?", the interviewer
> > demanded--now quite unable to keep the tone of reproach out of his voice.
> > "Look, buddy," the old man said. "How was I supposed to know he was gonna
> > grow up to be Leonard Bernstein?"
> >
> > Bien dit!
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

Attachment: 2007program.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 53.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

xmca mailing list