Music Education Research Vol. 7, No. 3, November 2005, pp.

279 287
/

KEYNOTE

Here, there and everywhere: music education research in a globalised world

Go ran Folkestad*
Lund University, Sweden

Most research in music education has so far dealt with music training in institutional settings, such as schools, and is accordingly based, either implicitly or explicitly, on the assumption that musical learning results from a sequenced, methodical exposure to music teaching within a formal setting. However, in order to realise and understand the multidimensional character of music teaching, musical learning should be considered in a much broader and wider context. During the last decade there has been an awakening interest in considering not only the formalised learning situations within institutional settings, but also all various forms of learning that goes on in informal musical learning practices outside schools. The study of informal musical learning outside institutional settings has actually proved to contribute to important knowledge and aspects of music education. The aim of this presentation is twofold: (i) to give a view from the bridge about current and potential directions in music education research and practice, and (ii) to illuminate this issue by presenting some current and recent work. I will do this by focusing on two main themes: (i) different aspects of formal and informal learning situations or practices, and formal and informal ways of learning, respectively, and (ii) the developing of research methods exemplified by the main results of a meta analysis of qualitative studies on music creativity and composition. By way of introduction, I will start by presenting the definition of the field of research in music education from which I operate. This also involves a view of the relationship between music education as a field of praxis (music pedagogy) and as a field of research, and the relationship between these two facets of music education and the surrounding society.

Introduction The aim of this presentation is twofold: (i) to give a view from the bridge about current and potential directions in music education research and practice, and (ii) to illuminate this issue by presenting some current and recent work. I will do this by focusing on two main themes: (i) different aspects of formal and informal learning situations or practices; and formal and informal ways of learning, respectively (Folkestad, in press), and (ii) the developing of research methods exemplified by the
*Lund University, Malmo Academy of Music, Box 8203, S-200 41 Malmo , Sweden. Email: Goran.Folkestad@mhm.lu.se ISSN 1461-3808 (print)/ISSN 1469-9893 (online)/05/030279-9 # 2005 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14613800500324390

280

G. Folkestad

main results of a meta analysis of qualitative studies on music creativity and composition (Folkestad, 2004). By way of introduction, I will start by presenting the definition of the field of research in music education from which I operate. This also involves a view of the relationship between music education as a field of praxis (music pedagogy) and as a field of research, and the relationship between these two facets of music education and the surrounding society. Music education in research and praxis Most research in music education has so far dealt with music training in institutional settings, such as schools, and as a result is based on the assumption, either implicitly or explicitly, that musical learning results from a sequenced, methodical exposure to music teaching within a formal setting. However, during the last decade there has been an awakening interest in the issue of taking into consideration not only the formalised learning situations within institutional settings, such as schools, but also various forms of learning that go on in informal musical learning practices outside schools. Folkestad (1998) summarises this change in perspective as a general shift in focus*from teaching to learning, and consequently from teacher to learner (pupil). Thus, it also implies a shift of focus, from how to teach (teaching methods) and the outcome of teaching in terms of results as seen from the teachers perspective, to what to learn , the content of learning, and how to learn , the way of learning. A point of departure for this perspective on music education research is the notion that the great majority of all musical learning takes place outside schools, in situations where there is no teacher, and in which the intention of the activity is not to learn about music, but to play music, listen to music, dance to music or be together with music. Each of these examples typifies situations in which music is experienced and learned, one way or another. Today, this is further accentuated as a result of computers and new technology and all the musical activities on the Internet, in which the global and the local interact in a dialectical way, what Giddens (1991) call glocal . Applying a socio-cultural perspective on music education, the question of whether or not to have, for example, popular music in school, is irrelevant: popular music is already present in school, brought there by the students, and in many cases also by the teachers, as part of their musical experience and knowledge. The issue is rather: how do we deal with it? Do we deny the fact that popular music and world music is an essential factor of the context of music teaching in school, or do we acknowledge the students musical experiences and knowledge as a starting point for further musical education? This shift of focus from teacher to learner, and this widened definition of the field of research in music education has the following implication: while music education as a field of praxis (music pedagogy) is defined as all kinds of formal musical teaching and institutionalised learning settings, music education as a field of research must
/

Music education research in a globalised world

281

deal with all kinds of musical learning, irrespective of where it takes place (or is situated), and of how and by whom it is organised or initiated. This also defines the relationship between the field of praxis (music teachers), and the field of research (music education researchers), in that the role of the latter is not to produce teaching methods, but to deliver research results to the praxis field*results by means of which the professional teachers may plan, conduct and evaluate their music teaching. An important strand in this relationship between researchers and practitioners, and with the rest of the society, is the mutually shared need for a continuous dialogue, and also that research questions induced in the reflections of the praxis field become objects of attention to research. The same is true of the issue of whether or not to pay attention to the fact that a lot of musical knowledge is acquired outside school, in informal musical practices, and that this is the learning experience of many students, regardless of whether they are small children, adolescents or adult students in Schools of Music or teacher education programmes.
/

Formal and informal learning situations or practices versus formal and informal ways of learning The study of informal musical learning outside institutional settings, such as schools, has been shown to contribute to important knowledge and aspects of music education. In the following, a review and discussion of literature, which in different ways focuses on the issue of formal an informal learning, and presented in full in Folkestad (in press), is summarised. In New youth: on uncommon learning processes, Ziehe (1986) defines two types of learning: (i) common and (ii) uncommon learning processes. Notable is that the main distinction between these two categories is not where, but how the learning occurs. In their 1988 study of three young rock bands, published in English in 1995 as In garageland , Forna s et al . found that typical of this kind of informal learning is that it involves more than just the core subject of the learning, in this case the music; it has more the character of integrated learning on a more holistic level. These aspects are also illustrated in the intimate and longitudinal ethnographic study of Berkaak and Ruud, published in 1994, which gives in-depth insight into the context of informal learning within rock bands. In Folkestad (1996), one of the results was that studying how to compose also is to study how to learn how to compose. In a situated practice, like composing, the division between the artistic performance and how it is learned becomes dissolved in the correlation of these aspects of the process; one cannot exist without the other. In Folkestad (1998), the theoretical conclusion of the 1996 study is further elaborated, resulting in seeing musical learning as cultural practice: by participating in a practice, one also learns the practice. From this, a distinction between formal and informal ways of learning with respect to intentionality is presented. In the formal learning

282

G. Folkestad

situation, the minds of both the teacher and the students are directed towards learning how to play music (learning how to make music), whereas in the informal learning practice the mind is directed towards playing music (making music). This difference in intentionality is described by Saar (1999) as a distinction between a pedagogical framing (i.e. learning how to play music) and an artistic/musical framing (i.e. playing music), respectively. In her 1997 book, In search of music education , Estelle Jorgensen presents a model in which she differentiates the concept of education, which as stated earlier, involves all kinds of learning, by defining five categories, or sub-concepts: schooling, training, eduction, socialisation and enculturation. My interpretation of this model is that the two first categories might be seen as descriptions of formal learning situations. Similarly, the two last categories might be seen as descriptions of informal learning. The middle category, eduction , is, as I see it, the meeting place for formal and informal learning. Formal in the sense that it is organised and led by a teacher, but informal in the sense that the kind of learning that is obtained and the ways in which this is achieved have much in common with the characteristics of every day learning in practices outside school. In an interview study of professional and non-professional rock musicians, aged between 15 and 50, Green (2001) describes their musical learning strategies to become rock musicians as an example of informal musical learning. Interestingly enough, and what might seem as a paradox, when these rock musicians teach others they teach in very formal and traditional ways, in spite of their personal informal musical learning experience. Accordingly, when starting to teach, the construction of teaching and the conception of what it means to be a teacher are so strong that even with totally different personal experiences of learning music, these experiences give way to, the generally known construction of teaching. Two main discourses are identified in Ericssons (2002) study of how adolescents experience (i.e. talk about) musical learning: the discourse of music and the discourse of the school subject Music. The discourse of music is wide and embraces music in leisure time as well as in school. The discourse of the school subject Music is narrow and legitimised only through its position as a school subject. Ericsson found that what many of the students wanted in school was more of the kind of musical activities and learning that takes place outside school, that is, the discourse of the school subject Music to be replaced in school by the discourse of music. In summary, the discourse of music (Ericsson, 2002) has a bearing on what Folkestad (1996) called playing music, musical framing in Saars (1999) terminology, whereas the focus of the discourse of the school subject Music corresponds with learning how to play music and pedagogical framing , respectively. So far, the studies presented have dealt with musical learning, in and out of school, within Western societies and cultures. However, in order to acknowledge the importance of attaining a cultural diversity in music education by integrating world

Music education research in a globalised world

283

music and indigenous music in the curriculum music, studies of musical learning in non-western settings is indispensable. In this respect, Saethers 2003 study of the attitudes to music teaching and learning among jalis in the Gambia produced interesting findings. That which on a surface level, and from the perspective and prejudice of western music education, might seem as an informal practice, was in fact found to be a very formalised and institutionalised way of knowledge formation and knowledge mediation. The title of her thesis, The oral university , refers not only to this main result, but also to the notion that there is no causal relationship between orality and informality. In the descriptions in the literature presented above, I have identified four different ways of using and defining formal and informal learning, respectively, either explicitly or implicitly, each one focusing on different aspects of learning: (i) The situation : where does learning take place? That is, formal and informal is used as a way of pointing out the physical context in which learning takes place: inside or outside institutional settings, such as schools. (ii) Learning style : as a way of describing the character, the nature and quality of the learning process. (iii) Ownership : who owns the decisions of the activity; what to do as well as how , where and when ? (iv) Intentionality : towards what is the mind directed: towards learning how to play or towards playing (Folkestad, 1998)? Within a pedagogical or a musical framework (Saar, 1999)? One conclusion of the research presented above is that it is far too simplified, and actually false, to say that formal learning only occurs in institutional settings and that informal learning only occurs outside school. On the contrary, this static view has to be replaced with a dynamic view in which what are described as formal and informal learning styles are aspects of the phenomenon of learning, regardless of where it takes place. Used as an analytical tool, what characterises most learning situations is the instant switch between these learning styles and the dialectical interaction between them. As seen in this presentation, it is also a misconception and a prejudice, that the content of formal musical learning is synonymous with Western classical music learned from sheets of music, and that the content of informal musical learning is restricted to popular music transmitted by ear. Since what is learned and how it is learned are interconnected, it is not only the choice of content, such as rock music, that becomes an important part in the shaping of an identity (and therefore an important part of music teaching as well), but also, and to an larger extent, the ways in which the music is approached. In other words, the most important issue might not be the content as such, but the approach to music that the content mediates.

284

G. Folkestad

A meta-analytic approach to qualitative studies in music education: a new model applied to creativity and composition The rationale of the present project, presented in full in Folkestad (in press, b) is as follows: qualitative studies have become well established within the field of music education research. This has led to an interesting body of research, each project investigating in depth a specific situation or phenomenon. By necessity, these studies have been well demarcated to a certain age group, a specific context, and so on. The number of participants has been relatively small, in order to make possible various kinds of qualitative methods of data collection and analyses, and not to lose the indepth features of a qualitative analysis in studying what has been found as complex music educational phenomena. In the case of musical creativity and composition some of the aspects, according to which demarcations have been made, are age (children adolescents adults), novice experts, gender, formal and informal situations (inside and outside school), and the use of ICT or traditional instruments. The advantage of this trend is that it has resulted in a series of in-depth studies, each one aiming at covering the full range and complexity of its delimited research object/subject. The disadvantage might be a limitation of the possibilities of presenting results and theories, valid not only for the specific context and situation in which the particular study is conducted, but on a more general level. One way of combining the advantages of qualitative studies with the aim of gaining more overarching theories of music education might be to develop methods of reanalysing primary studies on a secondary, meta level. Two research questions were addressed to the aggregate set of data: (i) what are the conditions for an optimal context for creative activities, and do these differ between children on the one hand, and adolescents and adults on the other? (ii) What are the characteristics of instructions, situations and frameworks that prompt creativity versus instructions and settings that seem limiting or restrictive? Having the character of a pilot-study, the result of the present project focuses on the applicability and functionality of the outlined method. One way of doing this, however, is to see what kind of results might emerge from such an analysis, and in the following, these will be briefly presented and discussed. The findings of the analysis, and the theoretical integration, indicate that the basic qualities and essential elements in musical creativity and composition are very similar for all participants, from early childhood through adolescence up to adulthood, as well as inside or outside institutional settings such as schools. Creative music making takes place in a process of interaction between the participants musical experience and competence, their cultural practice, the tools, the instruments, and the instructions*altogether forming the affordances (Gibson, 1986) in the creative situation. In that sense, the situation of a child or a student in school and the situation of an adult composer do not seem to differ that much. The task or teacher instruction and
/

Music education research in a globalised world

285

the commissioned work respectively both represent external demands, at once providing the restrictions and the framework for the start of the process, as well as the trigger that starts the composition in one way or another. Accordingly, it is not the task or the commissioning in itself that appear to be the problem. On the contrary, since composing in an empty space, starting with a blank sheet of paper, or a free task, are described as being the most difficult, some kind of definition of the framework of the composition seems to be a necessity for the process to start in the first place. Hence, the important matter seems to be the ways in which these external conditions are formulated, so that they are feasible to incorporate them into the internal act of creation, and, in school, so that the activity transforms from a pedagogic framing into the musical framing (Saar, 1999); from composition as a task executed in order to fulfil someone elses wishes or demands, to composition as a free choice, as a way of expressing oneself and to communicate in music. Analysing the data material, it becomes evident that creative music making and musical identity are two sides of the same coin, in that the former provides an arena on which the latter can be explored and expressed. A recurrent theme in the participants descriptions of their composition processes is the relationship between what is described as whole-parts, figure-ground and framework/texture-details. In conclusion, it is clear that instructions defining the parts or the details are limiting and restrictive, whereas instructions providing a framework are not only productive, but are in fact a necessity. In this respect, one problem in pedagogical frameworks might be the assessment, the criteria of which often focus on details/ parts. Conclusion: potential directions in music education research As a conclusion, one of the results of the presented research is that formal informal should not be regarded as a dichotomy, but rather as the two poles of a continuum, and that in most learning situations, both these aspects of learning are in various degrees present and interacting in the actual learning process. This interaction between formal and informal learning, is often described to take place in a dialectic way. Here I see that both (i) a Hegelian definition (thesis antithesis synthesis), and (ii) a more general definition (i.e. two things interacting with each other) are in view. Although the most commonly used definition in the reviewed literature seems to be the latter, the Hegelian definition is not only applicable, but might also vigorously describe the present situation in educational practices: out of the awareness of the two musical worlds; inside school (thesis) and outside school (antithesis), respectively, the synthesis*new ways of musical learning*is generated, both in formal settings and in informal practices, combining the features and qualities of both learning styles described.
/ /

286

G. Folkestad

Why are the issues Ive presented important in music education research? Returning to Ziehes (1986) description of common and uncommon ways of learning, the developments and changes during the last decades might be summarised as follows. For todays children the ways of learning that occur outside school and which they adopt from an early age by their interaction with music, movies, video and computer games, the Internet, etc., are experienced as the common ways of learning. And, in relation to these, the ways of learning encountered by the children in school appear as the uncommon ways. This is why music education researchers need to be here in the schools doing all kinds of various research in the class rooms, but also to be out there where children and students encounter musical learning in all its various forms. Moreover, as a result of the globalised world in which the local and the global interact, particularly in the musical learning of young people, music education researchers need to be everywhere, focusing not only on the formal and informal musical learning in Western societies and cultures, but to include the full global range of popular, world and indigenous musics in their studies. Notes on contributor Go ran Folkestad is Professor and Chair of Research in Music Education at Lund University, Sweden. His research interests are within the area of musical composition and ICT, in formal as well as informal musical teaching and learning situations, and include the study of young peoples creative musicmaking by means of computers and professional composers.

References
Berkaak, O. A. & Ruud, E. (1994) Sunwheels. Fortellinger om et rockeband [Sunwheels. The story of a rock band] (Oslo, Universitetsforlaget). Ericsson, C. (2002) Fra n guidad visning till shopping och fo rstro dd tilla gnelse. Moderniserade villkor fo r ungdomars musikaliska la rande [From guided exhibition to shopping and preoccupied assimilation. Modernised conditions for adolescents musical learning (Malmo , Malmo Academy of Music). Folkestad, G. (1996) Computer based creative music making: young peoples music in the digital age (Go teborg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis). Folkestad, G. (1998) Musical learning as cultural practice. As exemplied in computer-based creative music making, in: B. Sundin, G. McPherson & G. Folkestad (Eds) Children composing (Malmo , Lund University, Malmo Academy of Music). Folkestad, G. (in press) Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning, British Journal of Music Education . Folkestad, G. (2004) A meta-analytic approach to qualitative studies in music education: a new model applied to creativity and composition. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/162, 83 90 . Forna s, J., Lindberg, U. & Sernhede, O. (1995) In garageland. Youth and culture in late modernity (London, Routledge).

Music education research in a globalised world

287

Gibson, J. J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum). Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: self and society in late modern age (Cambridge, Polity Press). Green, L. (2001) How popular musicians learn. A way ahead for music education (Aldershot, Ashgate). Jorgensen, E. R. (1997) In search of music education (Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press). Saar, T. (1999) Musikens dimensioner. En studie av unga musikers la rande [The dimensions of music. A study of young musicians learning] (Go teborg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis). Saether, E. (2003) The oral university. Attitudes to music teaching and learning in the Gambia (Malmo , Malmo Academy of Music). Ziehe, T. (1986) Ny ungdom. Om ovanliga la roprocesser [New youth. On uncommon learning processes] (Stockholm, Norstedts).