Running head: ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 1

Analysis of the Teaching of Music Fundamentals

Burton W. Hable

Boston University
ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 2

Analysis of the Teaching of Music Fundamentals

Music Fundamentals is a course offered at Ankeny Centennial High School for students

to understand the fundamentals of writing music. (Ankeny Community School District, 2018, p.

39). Functionally, the course serves as a non-Advanced Placement music theory class. While

the district recommends that only juniors or seniors with a solid background in music take the

course, students of all ability levels in tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade enroll (p. 39). A set of

content standards were not defined for the course during the district’s previous curriculum

review cycle (Ankeny Community School District, n.d.), so I have a lot of freedom in choosing

content, teaching methods, and forms of assessment.

With my new understandings from Foundations of Music Education I: Philosophy and

History, I can conclude several points. First, my teaching of music theory is certainly a product

of my experiences (Shute, Frost, and Laffey, 1933). As a student, my high school only offered

music theory as an independent study, so much of my time was spent reading and completing

assignments out of Benward and Saker’s Music in theory and practice (1997). Most of my

undergraduate theory courses continued to work out of the same texts. Our district uses Kostka

and Payne’s Tonal harmony (2008) for both Music Fundamentals and AP Music Theory, a text I

find much too dense for our high school students. In response to these experiences, I find myself

helping students discover multiple ways to understand the concepts presented in the course:

different explanations, demonstrations using a variety of instruments, and integrating technology.

Second, I find myself adjusting specific aims for the goals of each student due to the

range of age and ability levels in the course. Predominantly, many of the students take Music

Fundamentals as a precursor to AP Music Theory, although that is not required. My goals are

then to provide them with a solid foundation in reading, writing, and singing melodies and
ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 3

harmonies so they are prepared for the depth and breadth of content required for them in AP

Music Theory. The next largest group of students take the class because they enjoy music. They

are usually in band and/or choir, although some are only involved in community music groups or

personal independent study, and want to learn more about music. Our goals are usually to help

them develop a better understanding of how music is constructed which hopefully leads to a

deeper appreciation for music. I would classify both sets of aims as aesthetic formalism in the

way Alperson describes it: teaching students about form and function within compositions (1994,

p. 221). However, I think my aim for the second group of students ties closer in to Reimer’s

purpose of aesthetic education: developing the ability to perceive and react to the expressive

qualities of works of art (1989, p. 106).

In terms of curriculum, our district and music department believe in Bruner’s “concept

learning” (1960). We have informally developed a set of content standards for Music

Fundamentals and AP Music Theory and assess students according to how well they have

mastered each standard or concept. We also, as Bruner suggests, spiral the curriculum in order

for students to continually have opportunities to demonstrate mastery (1960).

I do not believe that I could classify the way I approach Music Fundamentals, nor the

student outcomes of the course, as either aesthetic or praxial in the ways they are defined by

Reimer (1989) and Elliott (1995). While I definitely aim for something in all my courses akin to

Reimer’s purpose for an aesthetic education (1989, p. 106), it does not hold true to his definition

of a truly musical experience where “listeners must perceive and respond to the aesthetic

qualities of music alone” (as cited in Elliott, 1995, p. 33). While I would also say that my

teaching attempts an “open and validating” approach as Regelski advocates (1996), due to the

constraints of the class, the vast majority of music we analyze and listen to fits squarely within
ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 4

the established works of the Classical and Romantic eras. My teaching does not involve

different cultural groups or their musical practices as McCarthy & Goble define a praxial

philosophy of music education (2002, p. 21).

Beginning with hearing Dr. Scott Shuler, then president of the National Association for

Music Educators, speak at the Iowa Music Educators Association Conference in 2011, I realized

the need to begin broadening our spheres of influence as music educators. In secondary schools

across Iowa, the music offerings typically consist of only band, choir, and sometimes orchestra.

General music typically stops after fifth or sixth grade, but some high schools offer music theory,

history, or appreciation courses. What exposure to music are the vast majority of students in our

secondary schools receiving? How can we, as M.A. Lanier put it in our first Live Classroom,

“provide the opportunity for every person to learn about music, to make music, and to create

music” (personal communication, September 15, 2018)? As I think more about what such

opportunities would look like in secondary schools, I see the need for elements of both aesthetic

and praxial philosophies of music education. From McCarthy and Goble’s definition of an

aesthetic philosophy of music education, I want students “to perceive and respond appropriately

to musical works as forms of art” (p. 21). I also agree with Reimer’s philosophy of

conceptualizing the perception dimension of aesthetic experience but that it is impossible to

conceptualize the reaction aspect (1989, p. 109). However, I believe, as Elliott does, that “works

of music always involve several interrelated dimensions of music making” (1995, p. 34), and are

not solely limited to the object, product, or commodity divorced from their surroundings

(Reimer, as cited in McCarthy & Goble, 2002, p. 21). Can we craft experiences for all students

that expose them to as many dimensions and relationships as possible from Elliot’s multi-

dimensional concept (pp. 40-45)?

ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 5

Within the scope of the Music Fundamentals course, I do not think I, as an individual

teacher, or even we, as a music faculty, can begin to craft music experiences for all students in

our school. I do think though, that it is a good place to start. Because of the freedom allowed

within the course, we could be “involving students in the musical practices of different cultural

groups and helping them to understand the intentions of those who undertake them, as well as the

social, historical, and cultural conditions in which they originate, exist, and have meaning.”

(McCarthy & Goble, 2002, p. 21). Students would not be limited to the works found in the

textbook that fit post-Bach writing practices.

Crafting music experiences for all students in our school would involve branching out

beyond our curricular offerings. Our media center currently hosts a monthly Open Mic Night

that could potentially provide a venue for more exposure. We have also been collaborating with

our media center to build a music studio with a dedicated computer, microphones, and

instruments for students to record. Our courtyard, coffee shop, and atrium provide more

opportunities to involve the student population in music experiences. As we consider different

philosophies of music and music education, I am encouraged by the opportunities available to all

students in our schools.

ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 6

References

Alperson, P. (1994). What should one expect from a philosophy of music education? Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 25(3) 215-242.

Ankeny Community School District. (2013). Music curriculum review summary. Retrieved from

https://www.ankenyschools.org/Page/18000

Ankeny Community School District. (2018). 2018-2019 Ankeny community schools high school

course description guide. Retrieved from https://www.ankenyschools.org/Page/17433

Ankeny Community School District. (n.d.). Content standards. Retrieved from

https://www.ankenyschools.org/Page/3538

Benward, B., & Saker, M. (1997). Music in theory and practice (7th ed., Vol. 1). Columbus, OH:

McGraw-Hill College.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Des Moines Area Community College. (2018). 2018-2019 Course catalog. Retrieved from

https://catalog.dmacc.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=919

Elliott, D. J. (1995). Toward a new philosophy. In D. J. Elliott, Music matters: A new philosophy

of music education (pp. 18-46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kostka, S., and Payne, D. (2008). Tonal harmony: With an introduction to twentieth century

music (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill College.

McCarthy, M., & Goble, J. S. (2002). Music education philosophy: Changing times. Music

Educators Journal, 89(1), 19-26.

Regelski, T.A. (1996). Prolegomenon to a praxial philosophy of music and music education.

Musiikkikasvatus: Finnish Journal of Music Education, 1, 35-36.

ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHING OF MUSIC FUNDAMENTALS 7

Reimer, B. (1989). Experiencing art. In B. Reimer, A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.),

(pp. 99-118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shute, F. L., Frost, W., and Laffey, M. E. (1933). Aims and objectives of music education. Music

Supervisors' Journal, 20(2), 5.

The College Board. (2012). Music theory course description. Retrieved from

https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-music-theory