Vol 5 No 5, 1999

By

Dick Letts

For decades past, perhaps especially in Anglo countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, efforts of the music community to secure the place of music in the school curriculum have been frustrated. Advances are made, but as often as not lost again. Teachers and their colleagues have come to expect that so far from being won once and for all, the battle will have to be fought again and again, turning over the same arguments, the same prejudices, fighting the same fundamental ignorance of the value of an education in music.

Among the slogans that recur year after year, two suggest music"s basic difficulty with the curricular decision-makers: "Music is not a frill", and "Music"s place is at the core of the curriculum" (or words to that effect). That is to say, so many decision-makers do see music as a frill, and do not wish to give it a place in the core curriculum, the job of persuading them otherwise is never done.

Some music educators have attempted to win the argument by shifting ground. Rather than attempt to convince with yet another exposition of the intrinsic values of a music education, they set out to show its value to an education in the subject areas that the decision-makers believe to be important.

Basically, there have been two approaches. One is to attempt to enhance curricula in non-musical subjects through an imaginative use of music: e.g. through the inclusion of music from cultures under study in social studies, history or geography.

The other is to develop and present evidence that an education in music contributes somehow to achievements in non-musical areas. There is a considerable amount of research testing this proposition and positive results are cited widely..

The music community is very pleased with this research. Music, underdog of the educational system, is suddenly revealed as undergod, capable of almost magical influence on students" academic, personal and social development.

Because the music sector uses this research for political purposes, we might wonder about its rigour in assessing the work. Does it present only properly verified outcomes or does it accept with gratitude any assertion that supports its argument, no matter how poorly based?

We will look at three reviews of the existing research:

Elliot W. Eisner: Does Experience in the Arts Boost Academic Achievement? which we have as an unpublished manuscript from Stanford University, California, April 1997.

Caroline Sharp, with Pauline Benefield and Lesley Kendall: The effects of teaching learning in the arts. A review of the research. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London, 1998.

Bernard West, compiler: The Importance of School Music. Music Industries Association, Berkshire UK, December 1997.

The Forward to The Importance of School Music says this:

"There is now overpowering proof linking the learning of music by children with significantly improved abilities in a host of other subjects. This seems to be particularly the case when children start to learn music at a very early age.

This booklet sets out the evidence supporting MIA's case that the Government, in aiming radically to improve education in the UK, could make no better start than introducing one instrumental music lesson every day for each pupil. It includes a digest of the key evidence so far published.

The following pages show that despite reducing slightly the time spent on other subjects, five music lessons a week would actually increase children's learning in the other disciplines.

Apart from the unique ability of music to be a general learning accelerator, there are many fine byproducts of increased music lessons, such as the character-building effects of music in teamwork, coordination and self discipline.

Neither must we forget that the UK Music Industry is both a major exporter and a major employer with recognised huge growth prospects - an ideal industry in which many of today's school children can find employment in adulthood.

On the basis of the evidence in this booklet, we at the MIA, the association representing all aspects of musical instrument supply in the UK, do not flinch from calling for the Government to insist on teaching the 4 R's - the fourth being rhythm'."

Nothing ambiguous about that agenda!

A few pages later, the compiler claims to foreshadow the detail of the argument:

"The research summarised in this booklet proves that learning music helps children as young as 3 by improving:

· artistic ability and neatness

· speech-fluency in native and foreign languages

· reading ability

· memorising capacity

· reasoning capacity

· time management skills

· team-working and social skills

· learning ability

· problem-solving ability

· ability in maths, science and engineering

· ability to handle performance pressure (stress)."

The following overview of the research only two pages later begins by noting a number of discoveries about brain form and function related to musical activity; for instance: listening to music increases blood flow velocity in the two arteries that run through the centre of the brain; the part of the brain that controls the thumb and fifth finger of the left hand is much larger in string players than in non-musicians. "Empirical research", it says, "has yet to be carried out to demonstrate beyond doubt increased aptitude in any of the skill areas listed [above], but it seems logical to assume that if the brain can be affected by music in the ways mentioned"it could be as easily affected in other beneficial ways." The logic is not reassuring.

That is as close as the publication gets to any reservation about the research results. It goes on to cite experiments in Hungary on the development of children taught with the Kodaly method, a large experiment in Switzerland and a number in the USA. All the experiments cited purport to show positive and interesting results, but there is virtually no mention of experiments which fail to do so, nor any assessment of the quality or rigour of the experiments.

This publication embodies the problems that arise from the desire to use the research for propagandist purposes.

Sharp"s book is a review of the research literature on the effects of arts teaching and learning, commissioned by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. In the music world, we tend to think that only music is proposed as affecting academic and other non-arts performance, but research purports to show similar effects for other art forms. The following text is selectively extrapolated from the Summary in Sharp"s study.

"Relevant material was identified by: database and Internet searches; a request through the Council of Europe and CIDREE (a European educational research network); and by personal requests for information to key people and organisations in the UK. The main focus was on recent published studies of research into arts activities for children of school age.

Criteria for inclusion were: that the study should contain empirical evidence of the effects of arts education on learning in non-arts areas (e.g. improvements in other subject areas, or emotional and social development).

In total, 81 books, articles and papers were obtained from the initial searches. The majority were rejected because for instance they were theoretical, descriptive, or polemic rather than empirical. There are 22 relevant studies included in the review. Seven of these are literature reviews/meta-analyses and 15 are empirical studies. Most (17) originated in the USA; there was also literature from Canada, Switzerland, (UK) and South Africa. There are 16 studies focusing on or including music.

In the majority of cases, the design, analysis and interpretation of the data could be described as adequate or good. However, there were two common weaknesses. The evaluation reports often lacked information about the content of the programme, the sample characteristics and the research methods used. Secondly, there was a tendency for some authors to over-emphasise positive results, without acknowledging less positive findings or exploring alternative explanations."

The study examines the 22 sources one at a time, finds many wanting but some revealing interesting and reasonably well substantiated results. The music studies as a whole are neither more nor less compelling than those in other art forms. Some studies showed negative results. Sharp calls a spade a spade. She reaches these conclusions overall.

· "Although there are interesting indications, there is simply insufficient consistent and compelling evidence at this time that arts education will necessarily lead to positive non-arts outcomes. On the basis of the evidence presented in the 22 studies, the case for the broader outcomes of arts education should, therefore, be considered not proven.

· It is possible that specific experiences can make a valuable contribution. There may, for example, be an association between exposure to some kinds of music and the development of spatial-temporal skills. However, it cannot be said that arts teaching will automatically contribute to pupils' learning in other subjects. Whilst some experiences may contribute, other experiences may not. Further research may be able to shed light on those particular experiences which have positive non arts outcomes.

· There are indications that certain aspects of arts learning may be particularly effective with younger children. Further research is needed on the effect of the arts on different sub-groups

· The available evidence suggests that transfer of learning from one subject to another is not easy to achieve. People do not automatically apply existing skills, knowledge or attitudes to new situations. More research is needed into the circumstances in which transfer of arts-related learning can be achieved.

· Among the studies included in the review were examples of programmes which deliberately set out to teach non-arts skills, such as mathematics and reading, through the arts. While some of these provided evidence of gains, it is important to consider whether the outcomes of such teaching methods compare favourably with those achieved by other mathematics and reading programmes.

· There is a need for further, high quality research to identify the specific experiences that can enable artistic development and provide a broader contribution to learning. The research will also need to explore the extent to which it is possible to fulfil both of these functions simultaneously."

Eisner reviewed the experimental and correlational studies of the relationship between arts courses and academic achievement published from 1986 to 1996. So far as was possible he looked at those studies published in refereed journals that showed not only results but also the data and methods.

Eisner complains that many of the studies claim that in one way or another arts courses strengthen academic performance, but that it is often difficult to discern any basis for the claim, or that the basis can be shown to ignore obvious alternative hypotheses, or that the experiment can be shown to support some other hypothesis than the one asserted – for instance, rewarding mathematical performance by showing televised music lessons might show the effects of reinforcement on learning in mathematics rather than a study of the contributions music makes to academic achievement. Some programs set out to improve a non-arts skill such as writing through, for instance, experience in drama and writing courses; but, says Eisner, the aim of such a study is not to teach drama, with some sort of flow-on to writing, but to teach writing.

"Reports of the effects of arts education on academic achievement appear to be most notable in programs that are specifically designed to help students with reading problems learn to read through the arts. As educationally virtuous as such effects might be, these programs are specifically designed to teach reading; the arts are resources to this end."

Then Eisner makes a very important point.

"It must be granted that the achievement of transfer of learning is an ambitious and noble aim. It has been so since Thorndike (1914) did research to test his theory of identical elements around the turn of the century. Some contemporary social scientists such as Lave (1994) have little optimism that transfer can be very wide. Learning or cognition, they claim, is situated and its utility is limited, more or less, to contexts like the ones in which it is situated. Yet it seems obvious that some transfer must occur, otherwise learning would be so situation specific that it would not occur elsewhere. After all, no two situations are ever identical; time changes among other things. However, when we talk about the effects of arts education on academic achievement in reading or in mathematics, we are expecting transfer of wide scope. To expect that is to expect a great deal. At this moment I can find no good evidence that such transfer occurs if what we count as evidence is more than anecdotal reports that are often designed for purposes of advocacy."

In a way, Eisner has his own political agenda, but it is one that is based squarely on the intrinsic values of the arts in education.

"Why be concerned about the relationship of the arts to academic achievement?

(This) takes us back to first principles. When a body of work in a particular field of study makes significant and valuable contributions to a wide array of skills, dispositions, or understandings, the value of that field increases. We all like "toofers" [two-for-one]; and if we can get them, so much the better. Thus, I have no objection what-so-ever if experience in the arts helps raise test scores in math, reading, or sentential calculus. Problems begin to emerge when the values for which the arts are prized in schools are located primarily in someone's version of the basics, when those basics have little or nothing to do with the arts. The perils of such justification, whether those justifications pertain to the so-called basics or to versions of arts education that regard its primary function as fostering cross-cultural understanding, are profound. The core problem with such rationales for arts education is that they leave the arts vulnerable to any other field or educational practice that claims that it can achieve the same aims faster and better. If one wants to help students understand the life styles of other cultures it strikes me that anthropological studies would be more direct route and even if we imagine for a moment that they weren't the most direct route, to use the arts primarily to teach what is not truly distinctive about the arts is to undermine, in the long run, the justifying conditions for the arts in our schools.

What instrumental justifications of the kind I have described also do is to legitimate the marginal position assigned to the arts by those looking for such justifications. When arts educators accede to their expectations it's a way of saying, "You're right, the arts are not really important in their own right. Their importance is located in their contributions to more important subjects."