A Constructivist View of Music Education: Perspectives for Deep Learning
Mr. Cruthers enjoys his work as an elementary music teacher. He has been at the same school, Ashley Park,
for the past five years. During that time, he has incorporated content corresponding to the nine standards
for music education (MENC 1996) into his long and short term planning. This forms the basis for delivery of
a comprehensive general music program. Students regularly interact with music as performers, composers,
and listeners. They are involved in numerous activities common to general music including singing, playing
instruments, improvising and composing. Students gain understanding of music by examining the cultural
and historical contexts that give rise to music making.
The music supervisor spent the day at Mr. Cruther's school. After observing students in several different
classes engage in small group work at several centers, the supervisor praised Mr. Cruthers for the
constructivist approach apparent in his program. While Mr. Cruthers was pleased by this compliment, he
was perplexed. How can someone decide they have viewed educational sessions built on constructivist
principles by observing students for such a short period of time?
Constructivism Defined
A learning theory based on how people acquire knowledge, constructivism is founded on the following
principles:
• Knowledge and beliefs are formed within the learner.
• Learners personally imbue experiences with meaning.
• Learning activities should cause learners to gain access to their experiences, knowledge, and beliefs.
• Learning is a social activity that is enhanced by shared inquiry.
• Reflection and metacognition are essential aspects of constructing knowledge and meaning.
• Learners play an essential role in assessing their own learning.
• The outcomes of the learning process are varied and often unpredictable (Walker and Lambert 1995).
In Webster's (2002), view "the basic goal of constructivism is to place emphasis on creativity and to
motivate learning through activity" (p. 418). He goes on to say "learning is seen as more effective when
approached as situated in activity rather than received passively" (p. 418). The key is the context within
which activity is situated. It is incorrect to label activity-based music education as constructivist merely
because students are learning by doing. To do so reflects a surface approach to constructivist perspectives.
Rather, a deep approach to constructivist theory requires that learning provides students opportunities to
link new learning to previous understandings and to interpret this new knowledge through experience. Deep
approaches are examined here in the following areas: collaborative communities, questioning, problem
solving, and planning for instruction.
Collaborative Communities
A constructivist music classroom exemplifies deep learning when students formulate questions, acquire new
knowledge by developing and implementing plans for investigating these questions, and reflect on the
outcomes. A context for deep learning requires that teachers and students work together to create
collaborative learning communities that all perceive as safe and supportive (Dart et al. 2001).( n1)
Constructivists believe that learning is a social act where students interpret new understandings of their
worlds in relation to previous knowledge and experience. When viewed from this perspective, the classroom
becomes a community of individuals working collaboratively towards shared goals. Participants contribute to
the group from their own levels of ability, and students help each other to achieve goals all members view
as important within the given discipline.
This concept fits well with approaches to general music where students are actively involved as composers,
performers, and listeners. Examples are numerous: students interact within a musical community when they
reflect on the group's performance of a song they are preparing for an upcoming school assembly; students
interact in small groups when they refine movements to accompany a recorder ensemble. Given this, can
there be any doubt that music education is quite naturally constructivist education? That depends. Without
knowledge of the interactions among the members of the community, it is not possible to know whether
these examples illustrate a surface or a deep approach.
A surface approach provides an appearance of constructivist inquiry within a teacher-centered environment:
for example, when students are involved in small groups completing a composition task where the teacher
dominates each step in the problem-solving process. A deep approach to collaborative learning requires that
teacher and students become co-learners working together to increase their musical understanding by
interacting with and reflecting on the music making process. In pushing for deeper learning on the part of
the students, the teacher acts as a role model by portraying the thinking processes and tools used by
musicians. For example, Mr. Cruthers began the grade 5 unit on sound explorations by guiding the class in
the development of accompaniments for the poem "Enchanted River." Throughout this process, he urged
the students to justify their musical decisions and offered his own rationales for musical choices, thereby
showing students how musicians might address this problem. While students engaged in their own sound
explorations, Mr. Cruthers became a coach by encouraging students without interrupting their own
approaches to learning.
While learning communities will never be wholly democratic, a constructivist approach requires teachers to
consider how to achieve greater democracy within their classrooms by moving away from teacher-centered
approaches and encouraging students to lead the decision-making process. The challenge for the music
educator is to find a balance between the teacher as authority figure and teacher as facilitator, thereby
assisting students in their quest for new knowledge and deeper understandings in relation to questions and
problems negotiated among the members of a collaborative learning community.
Questioning
A surface approach to learning corresponds to teacher-centered classrooms in which knowledge is
transferred from teacher to students (Dart et al. 2001). The teacher asks a question and the students
respond. The next turn is the teacher, who may comment on this response and/or ask another question. In
general, students use surface questions to confirm factual information or to clarify procedures for the
completion of assigned tasks. These questions are answered with a single correct response. Within this
environment, students assume a passive role as receivers of information by memorizing facts and
reproducing procedures learned by rote.
Deep approaches to learning suggest that students connect subject matter to past experiences, present
interests, and future needs. To reach this goal, students must "actively construct knowledge for themselves"
(Dart et al 2001, p. 262). Within a constructivist learning environment, students become questioners. They
reflect on their comprehension, recognize misunderstandings, and ask questions that will help them
understand the learning situation at a deeper level. As question finders, students apply their own knowledge
and beliefs when making musical decisions. The teacher facilitates this behavior by promoting a classroom
atmosphere where peers generate questions within a climate of mutual respect. The group accepts all
legitimate questions posed by the group, and all members of the community are open to new views and
ideas. As facilitators, teachers invite students' questions and wait patiently while they reflect on their ideas.
Students' questions are welcomed as a valuable contribution to the class, not as an interruption of the
lesson.
Deep approaches to learning are reflected in questions posed by the students wherein they predict, explain,
or resolve confusion in open and imaginative ways (Chin and Brown 2000). Watts, Gould, and Alsop (1997)
identify three categories of questions: consolidation, exploration, and elaboration. Students use
consolidation questions to clarify their thinking, to explain the reasons behind an assigned task, and to
integrate past knowledge with new understandings. In a general music class, a consolidation question might
be: "Rondo form is like ABA form; but we can have as many parts as we want--ABACAD. What do we end
on?" Students use exploration questions to expand on their new understandings and to investigate their
assumptions. Exploration questions include a query such as "How will it sound if the xylophone plays the
light beats and the glockenspiel plays the heavy beats?" Students use elaboration questions to investigate
divergent interpretations or to extend ideas beyond those presented in class. For example: "I liked the way
the xylophone and glockenspiel sounded, but you thought it sounded funny. Why didn't you like it? What
else could we do?"
Students use questions to search for deeper understandings as knowledgeable composers, listeners, and
performers. Questions become a way for students to integrate past knowledge with new experiences in
ways that lead to expanded musical ways of knowing. Thus, by posing their own questions students' musical
thinking is challenged and their musicianship advances to more sophisticated levels.
Problem Solving
Students need the freedom to identify or develop their own musical problems, to decide what attributes of
musicianship will be needed to work out their problems, and to decide what procedures they will implement
in their search for musical meaning. In so doing, students are engaged in musical thinking and, as a result,
are constructing personal meaning from musical knowledge.
When students work through their own musical problems they engage in processes similar to those used by
real-world musicians. While problem solving may employ a combination of listening, performing, and
composing, students often begin inquiries by focusing on one of these aspects. This initial venture often
leads to additional problems using one of the other ways of knowing. For example, as a whole group
students sing the song "Simple Gifts." They examine formal structures by listening to Copland's use of
theme and variation in The Appalachian Suite. Applying this knowledge, students independently analyze
formal structures in music, incorporate these elements in their own compositions, and perform their works
for the class.
Students who employ surface approaches to learning are engaged in less reflective thinking than students
who are deeply engaged in their work (Chin and Brown 2000). Deep approaches encourage students to
express their understanding (for example: The cymbals play on the unaccented beats.) and to recognize
misunderstandings (for example: I figured out why the cymbals sounded weird. It's because they sound on
the off beats.). Classroom contexts that encourage deep thinking motivate students to find and correct their
own errors; conversely, surface thinkers tend to rely on others, most often the teacher, for this support.
Problem solving at a deep level encourages students to consider multiple solutions and alternate ideas (for
example: We'll play it softly and loudly and see what sounds the best.), but also allows students to know
when to ask for assistance. In this regard, students who exhibit deep approaches to learning persistently
work on their ideas when faced with roadblocks. On the other hand, students demonstrating surface
approaches tend to give up as soon as they run into difficulties. Perhaps this is because someone else will
provide the right answer when they are unable to solve the problem immediately on their own. A deep
thinker is able to integrate aspects of melody, rhythm, harmony and expression when analyzing a piece of
music.
Conversely, students who employ a surface approach may be limited to a single focus. In general, learners
who use a deep approach explore their musicianship at an analytical and reflective level; those who use a
surface approach concentrate on procedures and follow the lead of the teacher or other students.
Planning for Instruction
From a constructivist perspective, the primary goal of teaching and learning is not to ensure that students
have acquired the content of a particular grade level in readiness for the following grade. Rather, a
constructivist approach provides openings for students to examine personal questions in depth. It offers
students opportunities to link new learning to previous understandings and to construct this new knowledge
through experience. Given this, the exact outcomes of instruction cannot be detailed in advance.
Educators moving from traditional to constructivist perspectives for instruction must decide what learning
outcomes may best be achieved through student initiated questioning and problem solving and what
outcomes are best addressed through other means. Music teachers must decide how to transform step-bystep teaching strategies to processes of "meaningful inquiry and exploration" (Wasley, Donmoyer, and
Maxwell 1995, p. 54, italics added). This does not mean that we abandon direct teaching, but that direct
teaching is balanced with student centered inquiry. Formal musical knowledge, including information about
the rules of musical practice (both Western and non-Western idioms) and technical language associated
with the structures of music, may best be taught through direct instruction. Students then apply this
knowledge as listeners, composers, and performers in the formation of complex musical wholes that emerge
from their questions. Students demonstrate more advanced musicianship as their musical knowledge
extends and deepens.
Student work is described as "guided" or "open" based on the amount of direction offered by the teacher.
The greater the students' role in designing musical problems, the more open the inquiry. A teacher may use
direct instruction to transmit new knowledge. Students interact within a constructivist learning environment
when they apply this knowledge toward musical results. For example, a teacher might show students how
composers use unity and variety to structure a musical work. The students' knowledge of this compositional
technique will deepen when they engage in questioning and problem solving endeavors: for example,
exploring unity and variety by listening to recorded music and performing compositions that employ this
technique.
The amount of assistance provided to students also relates to their previous experiences with developing
their own questions and undertaking problem-solving activities around these questions. For example,
students with limited backgrounds in improvisation and composition will be provided more direction than
students with experience in these areas. Teachers may initiate student explorations by providing specific
guidelines related to elements such as form, timbre, rhythm, meter, or melody. Students may compose
future works without guidelines supplied by the teacher. Throughout this process, the teacher's guidance
will fade as students become more proficient questioners and problem solvers within the music class (Elliott
1995).
Conclusion and Implications
After exploring approaches that form a foundation for constructivist learning environments, we return to Mr.
Cruthers. It is not surprising that he was bewildered by the music consultant's praise of his constructivist
music program. Given the complexity of this environment, it is curious that the consultant assumed she had
viewed music classes built on constructivist principles by observing students for a short period of time.
Nonetheless, what did she see that led to this conclusion?
The music consultant observed music communities where students interacted in small group situations and
the teacher acted as a guide. She saw students asking questions that allowed students to explore their own
assumptions and extend their musical understanding beyond the content formally presented by the teacher.
She observed students engaged in solving problems that emerged from these questions. In short, students
were constructing personal meaning from their musical knowledge.
Such assumptions must be treated with caution. Music instruction does not reflect constructivist principles
because students are learning by doing. This represents a form of pseudo-constructivism--a surface
approach that gives the appearance of a constructivist learning environment within a teacher-centered
activity-based approach. Rather, genuine constructivist environments reflect approaches for deep learning.
This represents challenges for music teachers who must balance direct instruction to provide students with
relevant information about music with opportunities for students to apply this knowledge toward musical
results as independent performers, composers, and listeners--a laudable goal for any general music
program.
Footnote
1. Learning communities are viewed here as intact music classrooms. Other forms of learning communities,
such as those across teaching teams and subject areas, are beyond the scope of this paper.
References
Chin, C., and D. E. Brown. 2000. Learning in science: a comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 37(2): 109-38.
Dart, B. C., P. Burnett, N. Purdie, G. Boulton-Lewis, and D. Smith. 2001. Students' conceptions of learning,
the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. Educational Research 93(4): 262-70.
Elliott, D. J. 1995. Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford.
Hanley, B., and J. Montgomery. 2002. Contemporary curriculum practices and their theoretical bases. In The
new handbook of research on music teaching and learning ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 113-43. New
York: Oxford.
MENC. 1996. Performance standards for music. Reston, VA: MENC.
Walker, D and L. Lambert. 1995. Learning and leading theory: A century in the making. In The contructivist
reader, ed. L. Lambert and D. Walker, et al. 17-19. New York: Teachers College Press. Cited in Hanley and
Montgomery, 2002, p. 130.
Wasley, P. A., R. Donmoyer, and L. Maxwell. 1995. Navigating change in high school science and
mathematics: Lessons teachers taught us. Theory into Practice 34(1): 51-59.
Watts, M., G. Gould, and S. Alsop. 1997. Questions of understanding: categorizing pupils' questions in
science. School Science Review 79: 57-63.
Webster, P. R. 2002. Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning. In The new handbook of
research on music teaching and learning ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 416-39. New York: Oxford.
~~~~~~~~
By Sheila Scott
Sheila Scott is associate professor of music education at Brandon University in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.;
scotts@brandonu.ca