Depth Paper Dialectical Views of Music Education (Jorgensen) In this depth paper, I will identify and describe four

r dialectical approaches to music education that Estelle Jorgensen discusses in her book, In Search of Music Education. They include: Philosophy & Practice, Continuity & Interaction, Making & Receiving, and Understanding & Pleasure. After each description of the dialect, I will explain how it has presented challenges for music educators and policymakers as they relate to curriculum development and defining music education as a whole. Jorgensen begins the discussion by explaining the nature of dialects as two distinct views or approaches to a particular topic or subject matter shared by two or more people, whose intentions are to reconcile the contrasting views. She adds that it is not often the case that music educators put forth the effort to address the dialectical views, which is problematic when it comes to improving or advancing the field of music education. (p. 71) The first dialectical view, Philosophy & Practice, involves the conversion of theoretical principles into practical applications. The author describes the nature of this process as an artful one where the converter can potentially create a variety of applications that resonate with the original theoretical principle. Even though the applications may contrast with one another, they still reflect the principle. (p. 90) As John Dewey emphasized in his book, Experience & Education, it is human nature to think in polarized extremes; in black and white; in Either Or terms. This has also historically been the case with many music educators who ascribe to a particular set of theoretical principles and practices. Rather than maintaining a narrow view of these principles and practices, Jorgensen encourages music educators to embrace the reality that theoretical principles can yield many different forms of practice, and that individuals learn and comprehend music in various ways. (p. 90) The second dialectical view, Continuity & Interaction, deals directly with the design of curricula in terms of its scope and sequence, especially how broad the curricula should be, and the progression of educational experiences for the learner. (p. 81) Basing her description on Deweys educational theories, Jorgensen delineates that a sound vision of curriculum includes an equitable partnership between the teacher and student; a vehicle where both are considered respected contributors toward the dynamic process of

developing the curriculum. Likewise, this sound vision of curriculum is established through student-teacher and student-student dialogue, resulting in a process through which the student experiences the content from both the teachers and their own perspective and interaction. Ultimately, the student is left with life-changing experiences imbued with intrinsic meaning due to their own interests, abilities, and ideas being included in the process of curriculum development. (pp. 81, 82) This sound vision of curriculum described above is one that comes with practical dilemmas and raises problematic questions for the music educator: Should the curriculum focus on local, national, or international music? How much music theory should be taught? performing or composing, arranging, and improvising? Should there be more emphasis on

Regarding interaction, Jorgensen reiterates the

importance of contextualizing the curriculum. This involves understanding the musics environment in which it is created and understanding the students entire program of education, either formal or informal. (pp. 82, 83) One potential solution the author suggests is for music educators and policymakers to design curricula that permit students to start with their own knowledge of music and then progress outward to musics of their country and internationally. Dewey stressed the point that experiencing the arts involves both personal action and responsiveness. This brings us to the third dialectical view, Making & Receiving. Elaborating on Deweys point, Jorgensen states that the two roles of making and receiving music are interdependent parts of the artistic process, both involving the construction and reconstruction of visual and aural images. Dewey describes these two roles as artistic, the experience of composers and performers, and aesthetic, the experience of observers and listeners. (pp. 83, 84) Recapitulating Deweys notion of Either-Or, the roles of making and receiving (of artistic and aesthetic) need not be separated when designing music curricula. The author suggests that music educators and policymakers need to adopt a broader perspective that accepts, embraces, and even celebrates both the making and receiving of music, recognizing that all participants in the process are equitable. (p. 85) In my opinion, one of the most important and controversial dialectical views is Understanding & Pleasure. Jorgensen references Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher, who describes these two aspects

of aesthetic experience: understanding, where the observer or listener obtains the meaning of the art object, and pleasure, the sensory and emotional response experienced by the work of art. Adding to these

descriptions, the author refers to Friedrich Schiller, another 18th century German philosopher. Schiller expanded on Kants initial descriptions of understanding and pleasure by adding the concept of work to understanding and play to pleasure. Schillers supplemented definitions were as follows: understanding involved reason, invoking discipline, and representing serious effort that may not be pleasurable; pleasure involved imaginative thought and activity, celebrating freedom, and embracing present gratification. Despite their contrasting characteristics, Schiller still considered both aspects within the aesthetic experience. Adding once again to this discourse, Jorgensen highlights Deweys take on this dialectical view, discussing his point that art cannot be separated from the rest of life, and that education involves both described aspects of work and play; of understanding and pleasure. (p. 87) Applying this dialectical view to the field of music education raises a critical issue regarding the development of curricula. Jorgensen states that the recent trend of music education, both locally and

internationally, has been to place a higher value on intellectual understanding, and creating pleasure experiences has been de-emphasized due to its acquired hedonistic and frivolous connotations. She

suspects that this dynamic is due to a hyper focus on the development of national standards. (p. 88) Nevertheless, she explains that awareness of this dialectic tension stimulates discussion and debate, with a result of broader curricular possibilities. The challenge for music educators and policymakers, the author adds, will be to search for balanced curricula that promote both understanding (work) and pleasure (play). One solution suggested by the author is discovering approaches that promote accountability without disregarding pleasure. This will require a variety of assessment procedures outside the traditional approach of criterion-referenced and standardized tests. (pp. 89, 90) In this breadth paper, I have identified and described four dialectical approaches to music education that Jorgensen discussed in her book, In Search of Music Education. I also explained how each dialectical view has presented challenges for music educators and policymakers as they relate to curriculum development and defining music education as a whole.