Author: Monica FA W Santos
Title: Teaching and Learning in the Community Gamelan at UIUC
About the Author: I am a graduate student in Anthropology, specializing in the Anthropology
of Human Movement, which studies the meanings that inform human
body movement in various movement systems. For my dissertation, I am
looking at the culture of ballet practice in the Philippines in terms of how
it has evolved or developed in the country, given its colonial origins. My
research interests are broader, however, and include musical performance
as well (which in many cases, also involve movement).
Keywords: world music, music education, learning strategies, teaching strategies
Abstract: This research looks at how the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
provides different kinds of learning spaces for the students of the
University, as well as the wider community. Using the Community
Gamelan as a case study, this project looks at the teaching and learning
processes used by the members of the group. As a project of the Robert E.
Brown Center for World Music, the Community Gamelan is intended to
provide members of the UIUC and Urbana-Champaign community the
chance to experience performing in a Balinese Gamelan orchestra, under
the tutelage of a Balinese Gamelan master. Using ethnographic methods
(participant-observation, interviews, questionnaire), this study examines
the strategies that the members use to learn the pieces for the performance
at the end of the semester, and the “negotiations” that the teacher does to
accommodate the learning environment at UIUC, while trying to expose
its members to a "different" musical tradition. The findings of this study
are intended to answer the basic question "Does the Community Gamelan
provide a different kind of learning space for students of UIUC, that is,
different from the formal, classroom environment? And if so, how?
Initial Exercises: Exercise 2
For this exercise, I observed the main hall of the Main Library, on the
second floor. It is perhaps not a very exciting place to conduct an
observation, but I was curious about how such space is used by those who
come to the library. The first time I saw this hall two years ago, I was in
awe of its size. I wondered why it was so large, that it dwarfed the things
and people in it. Did it have a busy life? What did people do in it?
The hall is approximately 60 feet by 50 feet, with very high ceilings from
which two chandeliers hang. People can enter through an opening from the
landing on the west side of the room. The east side of the room leads to the
Main Stacks, where most of the library collection is stored. Two sets of
doors on the north and south ends of this wall open to hallways that are
lined by card catalogues, and lead to other office rooms in the library.
Perpendicular to these doors are more doors. From previous visits, I
remember that the doors on the south side lead to an office. They were
closed during the time of my observation (5:00-6:00pm).
As part of my observation, I did a rough diagram of the floor plan. As I
began to draw, I became more aware of the breadth of the place.
Furnishings such as tables for computers and printers, the information and
check-out counters, chairs, study and coffee tables, and equipment such as
printers, computers, photocopy machines, coin changers, were spread
across the room. However, their presence did not take away the sense of
spaciousness of the room. People who were passing by, or moving about
in the room did not find it difficult to move from one end of the room to
another. That is, they did not encounter obstacles in their path, whether
they were just passing by or going to the information counter, or the
counter where books were checked out or returned, heading towards the
printers from one of the computer stations located at the northwest and
southwest areas of the room.
Likewise, the presence of people in the room did not take away from the
spaciousness of the room (although there were no more than 15 people in
the room at any one time during the time I conducted my observation). But
perhaps this is also because the people who were in the room did not really
move about the room, and those who did, walked with a purpose. That is,
they did not loiter and would directly go to the information desk, the
computer or printer stations, or the check-out counters. Most of them were
focused on working on the computer, even those who were manning the
information and check-out counters.
This exercise reinforces the idea that observing, and writing a report about
it involves choices. In just one hour of observation, where one’s senses are
made to be more aware of one’s surroundings, one notices more details
about the place, the people and their actions. For my notes, I jotted down
the movements of the individuals who came in and out of the room, the
conversations I could hear, and the physical description of the room. I also
noted my impressions of what I noticed about the room. For instance, the
blending of the old and the new with the presence of computers,
photocopy machines, as well as two card catalogues that seemed to have
more of an ornamental purpose than a practical one. My notes, of course,
do not completely account for everything that happened in the room, for as
I was jotting down notes on an interaction happening on one side of the
room, there were other things happening on other parts of the room. I was
also distracted by my own feelings about being in this space, as I was
constantly reminded of its breadth and spaciousness, and that is probably
why I seemed to focus more on this aspect of my observation in this
report.
As of now, I do not see myself doing more research on or about the
library, although being in the main hall did make me think of issues with
regard to space utilization and human movement in space.
Exercise 3
The readings for this week address identity issues in ethnographic practice,
specifically pertaining to the identity of the researcher. The nature of the
work of cultural anthropologists inevitably involves forging social
relations with community members, which entail the mutual trust between
community members and the researcher. This trust is often strengthened
by the fulfillment of certain expectations on both sides. To be sure,
community members are usually aware that researchers, even if they live
among the members of the community, are from a different place and
would have a different position in life. This is assuming, of course, that
researchers are these outsiders who come in to the community, to study a
group of people who are different from them.
This process of building trust, however, can be complicated by the
perceived identity of the researcher. That is, while researchers are known
as researchers in the field, this is not the only identity that matters for
community members. As Twine and Garcia note in their articles, race,
ethnicity, citizenship (among others) are identity markers that are very
much implicated in the process of doing ethnographic research. These
raise issues of authority, legitimacy (and perhaps authenticity), and
purpose (i.e. what is the research for?). The two articles look at these
issues in relation to ways by which community members assess their
social “closeness” and/or distance with the researcher. Twine discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of being “racially matched” to the
community being studied, while Garcia talks about the expectations that
her identity as a individual with Peruvian descent that she had to negotiate
while doing her research in Peru.
The articles raise the question of who has the more legitimate authorial
voice in the act of representation. Is it the racial or ethnic insider who can
have more accurate accounts of community life, given their familiarity
with the language, social activities and everyday life in the community?
What does a racial/ethnic outsider have to offer in terms of the translation
or interpretation of an-“other” culture?
Aside from legitimacy and authority, another (related) issue raised by the
question of the ethnographer’s identity, is the quality of information that is
collected in the field. Twine and Garcia raise the point that the perceived
identity of the researcher has a bearing on the responses of the community
members. That is, if one is perceived as “the same” or “one of us,” then
certain concepts or ideas can be assumed to be understood, and will not be
elaborated upon anymore. Attitudes towards the identity of the researcher
as an anthropologist may also complicate the research process. Garcia
talks about how the community’s perception of the kind of work that she
does (in addition to her being “one of them”) created expectations of what
she can and should do for the community.
Indeed, doing ethnographic fieldwork is more than just collecting
information through “participant-observation.” The “participation” aspect
of doing ethnography is not just about gaining entry and acceptance in the
community. It is about forging relationships that bring with it all the
complexities of any kind of relationship, which would have implications
on the quality of knowledge that is produced from the research process.
As a student of anthropology from a colonized country (the Philippines),
who has been doing research in the country, the work that I (and many of
my colleagues) do, might be easily perceived as “native anthropology.”
Indigenous communities (ICs) in the Philippines, however, recognize that
anthropologists are a “different breed.” We are not “natives” from their
perspective. In their eyes, anthropologists are scholars and academics who
can serve as conduits between the community and mainstream society.
And as the history of Philippine anthropology will show, this has been the
main role of anthropology in the country, especially in the 1970’s and
1980’s when many of the ICs were displaced by national projects
undertaken by the Marcos regime. This tradition continues today, with
many of the anthropologists in the country engaged in applied work,
mostly helping ICs reclaim their ancestral domain (this is perhaps another
example or perhaps another version of what Twine calls “ethical
allegiance”).
To end, I wonder about the utility of labeling researchers as “outsiders” or
“insiders.” As Twine suggests, being an outsider or insider is just a matter
of having ‘different” interpretations, and not about having more faithful or
accurate ethnographic accounts. Furthermore, the more pressing issue has
more to do with the processes by which ethnographers engage with the
community they are studying and how they negotiate the expectations
brought about by perceptions about their racial/ethnic/etc. identity and
position as anthropologists.
Exercise 4 (with Karla Gutzke and Molly Tutt)
A day in the Life in the University Library[1]
(submitted 17 September 2010)
Our research team conducted our observations at different parts of the
University Main Library at approximately the same time (somewhere
between 4:30pm-6pm) on the same day. The areas that we covered include
a section in the upper level of the Undergraduate Library (Molly), the
Expresso Royale Café (ERC) across the Undergraduate Library (Karla)
and the Main Hall at the second floor which leads to the Main Stacks
(Monica).
The summaries that we generated from our fieldnotes provide information
about the place (size, description of objects in space) where we observed,
as well as the movement/s and activities of the people, and in some cases,
conversations between individuals. However, what seems to be a common
theme in our reports are questions about the use of space in various places
in the Library. One factor that might have had some influence on the
number of people and perhaps the kind of activities inside the library was
the weather that day. Molly addresses this in her report:
Excerpt 1
For my one-hour observing session, I went to the
Undergrad Library on campus. I was there from around
4:35 PM to 5:38 PM on Wednesday, September 1st. At this
time of the day, the weather was rainy with a fairly cool
temperature, which may have had an effect the amount of
people present in the library. Otherwise there may have
been more people on the Quad or other places outside
studying.
Furthermore, we also conducted our observations towards the end of the
day which might also have a bearing on how busy the spaces were. On the
other hand, we also thought of how spaces are re-defined by its users.
Take note of the following passages:
Excerpt 2 - Espresso Royale Café
Upon my arrival in the seating area, about two-thirds of the
tables were full with either groups or individuals and a
mixture of paperwork, drinks, and snacks. By 5pm, maybe
a third of the tables were still populated and any meetings
which had been held in the area had broken up, so only
groups of 2 or less people were at each table.
For the remainder of the hour, the individuals and groups
that came and went were never there for longer than 20
minutes. Instead of holding the meeting in the seating area,
the area was used as a meeting point or a place to sit down,
rest, eat a snack (either brought along or purchased at the
ERC) and peruse ones phone.
Future research on this space would be most interesting
during a time earlier in the day when more classes are in
session and more students and employees are still on
campus or over a longer period of time over the shifts of
several baristas. I would expect such observations to
potentially reveal not only the caffeine habits of the part of
the University that spends its time on the Main and South
Quads, but also the café and library as a college study space
and social space and how those spaces mix and collide.
Excerpt 3 - Undergraduate Library
What I found most interesting was that although I was in a
library, there was a great deal of social interaction taking
place. Between the groups of people discussing their
weekend plans and the students browsing facebook and
other social sites, it seems as though the Undergrad Library
is also a place to go to interact socially as well as to be able
to study. I would be interested in
knowing if every library on campus functions this way or
serves the same purpose.
Excerpt 4- Main Hall, 2nd Floor
For my [field]notes, I jotted down the movements of the
individuals who came in and out of the room, the
conversations I could hear, and the physical description of
the room. I also noted my impressions of what I noticed
about the room. For instance, the blending of the old and
the new with the presence of computers, photocopy
machines, as well as two card catalogues that seemed to
have more of an ornamental purpose than a practical one.
My notes, of course, do not completely account for
everything that happened in the room, for as I was jotting
down notes on an interaction happening on one side of the
room, there were other things happening on other parts of
the room. I was also distracted by my own feelings about
being in this space, as I was constantly reminded of its
breadth and spaciousness, and that is probably why I
seemed to focus more on
this aspect of my observation in this report.
Here, we see how places designated for a particular purpose, e.g. a
Library, may have different meanings to those who use it.
While one may expect that activities in the Library would revolve around
school-related matters, the things that people do may not necessarily
conform to such conventional notions. For instance, Molly writes the
following:
Excerpt 5
Many students had their headphones on or were looking at
their computers. Others were doing homework in
notebooks or reading textbooks. There were two or three
people on their cell phones talking quietly…
Though it was quiet in general, there were many groups of
people who seemed to know each other and were sitting
together and having conversations. Two conversations were
audible to me. The first was two girls discussing their plans
for the weekend. The other was between three boys, and
they were laughing about something that was happening at
their table, then talking about going out to a campus bar
later that night.
Of the people that were on University computers, I
observed that about half of them were either looking at
facebook or other social networking sites as
well as online shopping sites.
Here, the use of the computers for online shopping and social networking
may not necessarily be “expected” uses of library computers, although
there is really no codified rule that one cannot do such things using
University-owned equipment.
As we discussed our observations of what the people were doing in the
Library, we also noticed how individuals and groups seem to create
private spaces for themselves, despite being in the library, a “public”
place. The boundaries of these “private spaces” in the Library seem to
defined around particular objects, such as tables and computer stations,
however, boundary-making also seem to involve how people contract and
expand the extent of their awareness of their surroundings. For instance,
Karla mentioned to us the she felt as if she was somehow violating the
space of the other people in the ERC when people would give her looks
because of the way she was looking up and around the ERC. We thought
that this was perhaps because people do not expect to have their private
spaces invaded, even by lines of sight. Or, put in another way, Karla was
not expected to be aware of the presence of others (especially of what they
are doing in their own spaces) despite being in a public place. The same
can be said for what Monica observed in the following passage:
Excerpt 6
…the people who were in the room did not really move
about the room, and those who did, walked with a purpose.
That is, they did not loiter and would directly go to the
information desk, the computer or printer stations, or the
check-out counters. Most of them were focused on working
on the computer, even those
who were manning the information and check-out counters.
Here, the fact that individuals did not loiter and explore more of their
surroundings, and keep their attention to their computer stations or their
task at hand, seem to demonstrate a kind of constant state of focused
attention.
The creation of spatial boundaries in public places, and the centering of
awareness towards oneself seem to be a feature of everyday life in the
University. For instance, part of the safety precautions sent by the
University Police Force in their crime alerts include: “Turn down your
electronic devices. Excessive volume or use of electronic devices (iPods,
PDAs, cell phones, etc.) can distract you from a potential safety
hazard.”[2] This specific warning, as well as the observations in the
Library of those who are in the computer stations or are using their mobile
devices, also alerts us to how the use of technology, specifically portable
technology has perhaps contributed to this spatial “closing in one oneself.”
As we reflect on these observations, we also thought about how things
were probably different perhaps 10 years ago, when students who moved
into their dormitory rooms, were transporting towers (CPUs), monitors,
mice and keyboards, and squeezing in two sets of these into shared
dormitory rooms. The prevalence of laptops today may have changed the
use of space in the dormitories, as wi-fi technology expanded the amount
of space that could be used for studying (also given the fact that professors
are using the internet more to post class-related materials).
To end, we think that the rise of portable technology has affected much of
social life in the University (and perhaps elsewhere), specifically in the
way spaces have been defined in particular contexts, such as in public
spaces like the Library.
[1] We decided
to choose this particular way of expressing our
observations because we found it to be the best way of documenting our
discussions. It expresses both the individual reports that we worked on as
well as our group summary of how our individual observations tied
together.
[2] Chief of Police Barbara O’Connor. “Crime-Alert.” Message to the
author. 11 September 2010. E-mail.
Ethnography 1
The documents[1] I have chosen to analyze is the Mission Statement /
Director’s Welcome of the Robert E. Brown Center for World Music
(CWM). The Center is a non-profit organization affiliated with the School
of Music at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Given this
institutional link, I am curious about what the document is saying about
music education in the University. For instance, why create a Center for
World Music? How does the presence and operation of Center inform us
about the kind of music learned by students of UIUC? In the Director’s
Welcome, Philip Yampolsky talks about how the Center was created from
the generous contribution of the Robert E. Brown estate, which included a
collection of artifacts, as well as instruments from around the world.
However, the Center also seemed to inherit a way of thinking about how
one should learn music. That is, that learning music entails developing
some kind of familiarity with different musical traditions around the
world, and that learning different musical traditions also leads to
understanding and respect of different cultures.
In order to believe in such kind of music education, however, the
following assumptions have to to be made first, such as 1) that there is
such a thing called “world music,” and 2) that “world music” is a category
encompassing different music traditions, which there are an “astonishing
variety.” And perhaps, the fact that the Center is a non-profit organization
may add to its moral credibility in the sense that such initiative is not
monetarily driven, and hence, can be construed as an altruistic initiative.
One can also note the “inviting” tone, especially in the Director’s
Welcome, which tries to be very inclusive (especially in the first line
where says “welcome” in different languages, as well in the last paragraph
where he invites people to participate in the classes and activities and send
in their comments and events as well).
The Mission and Director’s Welcome statements also imply something
about the process of learning world music. First, that it entails “active
study” through performance (perhaps contrasting itself to more theoretical
modes of studying music) and second, that such study has to be with the
“tradition-bearing artist.” This means that for one to be educated in world
music, one has to learn from the practicing artist him/herself who has been
trained in that particular tradition. This is perhaps why the Center boasts of
having instructors from musical traditions from different countries, such as
Indonesia, China, Guinea and India—and these constitute the “People” of
the Center for World Music.
The last statement above also seems to clue us in to what constitutes
“world music.” I find it curious that the notion of “world” seem to only
encompass non-American traditions. I base this on the fact that while the
Center is under the School of Music, and perhaps can tap human resources
that would enable it to offer some lessons on Western classical instruments
(such as the piano, violin, etc.), this does not seem to be part of the
program of the Center. This is also reinforced by the description of the
unofficial operation of the Center in the beginning of 2006, which was
marked by the coming of I Ketut Gede Asnawa, a Balinese music
practitioner. One wonders about the kind of music that the School of
Music is teaching, which does not seem to be part of “world” music. In a
way, the Center seems to construct and reinforce “marked” and
“unmarked” categories of music around the world, at least within
American society (or maybe just in the UIUC School of Music) i.e.
between American (or Western) and “other” non-American music
traditions.
To end, the analysis presented here explores the musical world of the
Center for World Music. That is, it tries to understand how the Center
embodies the notion of “world music” through the statements made in its
Mission and Director’s Welcome statements. What we find is that in its
history and current programs and initiatives, there seems to be an
underlying assumption about who is a part of the “world” and who is not.
This raises interesting questions about how music traditions are
categorized by educational institutions such as the UIUC School of Music.
Web page links:
1) Mission Statement, Center for World Music:
http://www.music.illinois.edu/cwm/node/73
2) Director’s Welcome, Center for World Music:
http://www.music.illinois.edu/cwm/node/17
[1] I chose to look at two documents since the mission statement is too short.
Question: Research 1 (Brainstorming)
For my research project, I would like to look at how the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) creates a diverse learning
environment by providing opportunities for students to explore alternative
learning and teaching experiences. That is, ways of learning that is not
classroom-based and also not text-based (i.e. using the oral modes of
transmission). As a case study, I will focus on the Community Gamelan
performing group in campus.
The Community Gamelan is a program under the Center for World Music.
It is open to students and non-students of UIUC. UIUC students can join
for free. For those who are not affiliated with UIUC, there is a $100 fee for
the whole semester. The group meets every Monday evening, from 6-8
pm, at the 4th floor of Levis Center, to learn and practice traditional
Balinese music, as well as new compositions as well. At the end of the
semester, the members are given the opportunity to perform in front of an
audience in a concert organized by the Center. However, there are also
times when the group is invited to perform for special occasions, and
members are also encouraged to perform at these events as well.
Some possible lines of exploration for this project are:
1) What does the notion of “community” bring to the learning process?
2) How is the learning space of a community gamelan characterized?
What does it offer as an alternative learning experience to students
(and non-students) of UIUC?
3) In what ways does the Community Gamelan succeed in providing an
alternative learning and teaching space for members of UIUC?
(Perhaps a little bit of the political economy of the program can
also be explored)
For this research, I propose to participate in the Community Gamelan as a
member, to be able to observe and experience the teaching methods
employed by its leader. I also intend to interview the members, including
the leader, with regard to their insights on the program. Specifically, I
would like to know the kind of impact it has on its members, which might
include exposure to another performative genre, and perhaps a different
aesthetic sensibility. For the leader, I am interested in knowing his
approach/es to teaching at UIUC, especially given that he is presented
with students coming from different social statuses and positions, e.g not
all are students in the music department or have any experience in playing
music at all.
Ethnography 2
My research project looks into the learning process in the Community
Gamelan, a non-credit program run by the Robert E. Brown Center for
World Music at UIUC. While I am focusing this study on one program, I
am addressing a broader concern about the inclusion of “other” kinds of
performative genres (i.e. non-Western or European classical), as well as
teaching methodologies involved, in the music education at the UIUC.
The Community Gamelan program is open to students and non-students of
UIUC, with or without any performance or music background. The group
meets for a two-hour practice session once a week. At the end of the
semester, the group performs in a concert organized by the Center. Given
that membership does not require any kind of music or performance
experience, I would like to know the ways by which he prepares the group
for the concert, at the same time introducing the students to what may be
an unfamiliar performance genre and aesthetic experience. What kind of
choices does he make in terms of assigning instruments, and in picking a
repertoire for the group? What are the methods he uses to teach a group
that (usually) has a mix of music and non-music students (including those
with no music background at all)?
To help me answer these questions, I plan to conduct participantobservation in the Community Gamelan, in order to experience the
learning process itself. I anticipate that this experience will also help me
formulate questions for my interview with the leader of the Community
Gamelan. If permitted, I also intend to talk to the different members of the
group (whether they are new or old members, or the have or do not have
any music background) about their reasons for joining and/or staying,
what instruments they have learned how to play, and what they think about
the methods used by the leader and what they have learned about Balinese
music in their experience in the playing with the group. By conducting
interviews with the leader and the members of the group, I am hoping to
get some insights on the learning process involved in teaching a nonWestern (i.e. European classical) performance genre to individuals trained
or are more familiar with Western aesthetic expressive forms.
To provide some background information the Community Gamelan and,
perhaps the context of the establishment of the Center itself which
currently runs the program. I would like to look for archival material on
the life of Robert E. Brown, his work and his collection, and how (and
why perhaps) the UIUC was chosen to house his collection.
Exercise 5
My research project looks at the teaching and learning process in the
Community Gamelan, a non-credit program administrated by the Robert
E. Brown Center for World Music at UIUC. While I intend to focus my
inquiries on the teaching and learning experiences of its leader and its
members, respectively, I am also curious about how such program came
about within the university setting. That is, what is the context of the
program? What are its objectives? Why is the university invested in such
programs?
I did an online search in the University of Illinois Archives website, using
the keywords “Robert E. Brown” and “Center for World Music,” and
found a total of three entries:
1) Music Education Division Subject and Administrative Files, 19622008 (ID 12/05/010, Box 6, Folder 12) – This file contains the
endorsement of the Center for World Music.
2) Public Information Director’s Office Press Release 1964-(present)
(ID 39/1/10, Box 25)
3) Robert E. Brown Papers and Center for World Music Records, c.
1950 - 2005 (Series 12/09/105, currently unarranged) – This series
“consists of personal papers, correspondence, lecture and research
notes, photographs, sound recordings, publications, music
instruments and administrative records documenting Brown's
career as an ethomusicologist and creator of the World Music
Center between c. 1950 and 2005.”
The first two entries are official papers of different University units that
were turned over to the archives, while the Robert E. Brown Papers and
Center for World Music records were donated by the Robert E. Brown
estate to the UIUC in 2006. At present, the Robet E. Brown Papers and
Center for World Music records have yet to be organized and catalogued.
For this assignment, I looked at the endorsement of the Center for World
Music and the Press Release of the Public Information Director’s Office.
The Press Release can be found at the Main Library branch of the
Archives, while the endorsement can be found at the Orchard Road
facility, as part of the collection of the Sousa Archives and Center for
American Music.[1] While I expected to find a single document for the
endorsement, I was pleased to see other documents pertaining to the
process of approval itself. These include e-mail correspondence between
members of the faculty of School of Music, as well as the 4-page proposal
for establishing the Center for World Music at the UIUC. The press
release, as well as the materials that I found I the Sousa Archives, outline
the objectives of the Center, its plans, as well as its potential contributions
to the learning environment at the UIUC.
While these documents do not have any direct connection to the teaching
and learning process in the Community Gamelan, they provide the
historical context of the program. They also direct attention to the ways by
which the University creates a diverse learning environment for its
students and the greater Urbana-Champaign community as well.
[1] As a policy, the materials in the Sousa Archives and Center for
American Music should be requested and viewed at the Harding Band
Building (even if they are housed at the Orchard Street facility). During
my visit to the Archives in Orchard Street, however, the staff was kind
enough to allow me to view the materials I needed to see.
Plan: Research Abstract
Purpose Statement
This research project looks at the teaching and learning process in the
Community Gamelan, a non-credit program of the Robert E. Brown
Center for World Music, which, in turn, is affiliated with the UIUC School
of Music. Given that the program is open to individuals with or without
any music background, this study looks at the teaching methods of its
leader, as well as the learning strategies of its members, as the group
prepares for a concert at the end of the semester.
Main Research Questions
How does the leader of the Community Gamelan teach its members to
play the different instruments in the gamelan orchestra?
- What are the criteria he uses to assign individuals to the different
instruments of the orchestra?
- How does he teach playing technique to the members?
- How does he choose the repertoire for the concert? Does he take into
account the background of the members or not?
What are the strategies used by the members of the Community Gamelan
to learn the pieces for the concert?
Summary of Research Plan
For this research project, I plan to conduct interviews of the leader and the
members of the Community Gamelan. I also intend to do participantobservation by joining the weekly sessions and learning the pieces for the
concert.
Possible Interview Questions
For the leader:
1) When did you begin teaching in the Community Gamelan?
2) What is the composition of students in the group? Do you have the
same group members participate every semester? Or is it always a new
set of individuals every semester?
3) How do you assign individuals to the different instruments in the
orchestra?
4) How do you choose the pieces that the group will perform in the
concert?
5) How do you teach technique to the members?
6) How do you teach the pieces to the members?
For the members:
1) How did you hear about the Community Gamelan program? Why did
you join?
2) How long have you been a member?
3) Do you have any music background? (If Yes) Can you describe the kind
of music experience that you have?
4) Do you have any experience playing in a gamelan orchestra?
5) What instrument do you play in the orchestra? Have you played other
instruments in the orchestra?
6) Can you describe the teaching technique/s used by the leader?
7) Do you practice outside of the weekly sessions? Why/why not?
8) Aside from attending the weekly practice sessions, do you use other
methods to learn the pieces? What are these methods? How do these
methods help you learn the pieces?
Data: Ethnography 3 (Fieldnotes on interview with SO, held on 8 October 2010,
6pm, at Espresso Royale Café at UGL; transcribed excerpt of the
interview)
I asked SO if I can interview her for my EUI project during our break in
Community Gamelan session on Oct 4, sometime between 6 ad 8pm. I still
was not sure at that time if my proposal was approved by the IRB, but I
did alert her to the possibility of the interview happening sometime that
week. I knew she already graduated from the University, but that she was
working. I don’t know why, but for some reason, I thought it would be
easier to schedule an interview with her since she was not in school
anymore. I had this idea that she would have lots of free time. I think grad
school is coloring my perceptions about “free time,” perhaps in an
ethnocentric way, in that people who are not in grad school have more
“free time.”
Anyway, I told her I would send her an e-mail about my research topic and
the kind of questions I will be asking. I know SO even before we started
playing together at the Community Gamelan. She was a classmate in one
of my Anthro classes a year ago (I think). She was an ethnomusicology
major at that time. In any case, we have played and performed together as
members of the Community Gamelan, and I suppose, we have developed a
comfortable relationship. I say comfortable in the sense that I would not
necessarily call us friends (that is, the kind that would call each other up to
go out and have drinks or share woes) but we share enough interests in
music and ethnomusicology to carry a good conversation. But because of
the amount of the time I have known her, we also feel comfortable with
each other enough to talk about more personal matters, such as
experiences in school (or at work).
I e-mailed her late Tuesday or maybe it was even early morning
Wednesday to set up the time and place of the interview. She did not
respond within the next 36 hours or so, which made me worry if she did
get my message. I think I’ve gotten used to what I call e-mail culture in
the University (here in the US) and expect that people will respond in 24
hours. So I re-checked the e-mail address I sent my message to, which was
correct, and then said a little prayer hoping that she did receive my e-mail.
In any case, I sent her another e-mail on Thursday reminding her of the
interview. I thought that that, plus our initial conversation setting a
tentative time for Friday, would be enough as confirmation of the
appointment. But she did send me a confirmation e-mail, and so, for sure,
the interview was on.
So the night before, I re-charged the battery of my digital camera, which I
would be using for the interview (it has a digital voice recorder as well)
and made sure that the SD card was pretty empty to hold at least an hourlong interview.
On my way to the interview, I was thinking how stupid it was of me to not
give her my number, just in case she needed to get in touch with me. I
have always been hesitant to ask people for their number, unless it is
absolutely necessary, especially here in the US. The billing system for
cellphones is quite different from what we have in the Philippines, where
it’s only the caller/texter who will be charged for a call/text (unless one is
roaming). Here, I understand that both parties are normally charged (or
minutes are used up) for calls and text. Hence, my extra reluctance to ask
for numbers. Also, I still think it’s private information that should be
given, and not asked for. But I thought I should have at least offered mine.
I arrived as the Espresso Royale a few minutes before 6pm.I thought I
would treat her to coffee, but the café was closed for the night. That was
the first time I went to the UGL at that time and was not aware that the
café actually closed quite early (I thought they would be open as long as
the library was open). In any case, she arrived with food. I know that she
just got off from work, and thought that she probably brought her dinner.
Then she explained that she was watching a show at Krannert at 7:30pm
and wanted to grab a quick bite before the show. She apologized for not
telling me that she needed to leave, but I said, we should be done in less
than an hour, an hour, tops.
I asked her if it was ok to record the interview and took out the digital
camera. She said that she had the same kind, but didn’t realize that it had a
digital voice recorder function, so I showed her how to get to that digital
voice recorder mode. I began the interview by reiterating what I was trying
to do in the EUI project, and also that I was doing this project in the
context of the methods course I was taking. I prepared a list of questions
for her, which included most of the ones I submitted as part of the research
abstract for the IRB, but also included questions that were more
appropriate to her situation, given my knowledge of her musical
background and exposure to gamelan music.
My “issue” while doing the interview was how to define my identity in
relation to SO. I make conscious effort to make interviews for projects like
this as conversational as possible, just starting off with one question, then
mostly just following up on what they say, but also being mindful of the
themes that I need to cover for the interview. I felt like we were (or
perhaps only I was) “play-acting” in the course of the interview since it
was a new context of conversation for the both of us. And in the course of
the interview, I had this internal debate in my head if I should ask her
questions that I felt we both knew the answers to, but that I wanted her to
explain “on the record,” like the two teaching methods that the
leader/teacher used in teaching and training us, the pieces we were both
familiar with, or what happened to her in our session that week.
Generally, SO answered the questions promptly, although there were times
when I felt that she was trying to collect her thoughts first before
answering my questions. I have a suspicion that she was also conscious of
my own background in anthropology, a field she knows something about
as well, and was choosing her words carefully perhaps because she was
(overly) aware of the possible implications and meanings of the words that
she using if understood or interpreted using an anthropological lens. Her
conscious reflection on what she is saying is also indicated by her use of
“hand quotations” when she says the word “culture” or “traditional.”
We talked about her background in music, which included piano lessons
when she was younger, and the performance classes she attended as an
ethnomusicology major at UIUC. We also discussed her experience as a
student of the credited gamelan class and as a member of the Community
Gamelan, her techniques in learning pieces and her insights on the
teaching and learning process in the Community Gamelan. She talked
about the difference between the teaching methods that she experienced
when learning to play the piano and the approach used by the CG
leader/teacher, and how she had to adjust to this new way of learning. She
also talked about how she was very conscious of her playing proficiency
and her learning curve in gamelan, especially since there were percussion
majors in the class who seemed to pick up the rhythms more quickly than
she did. On the whole, she said that she did not have good memories of her
time in gamelan class, but that she is starting to enjoy playing in the
gamelan orchestra as a member of the Community Gamelan, perhaps
because she is starting to “get” the rhythm of the gamelan pieces.
The interview lasted for 43 minutes. I was mindful of the time since I
knew she needed to get to Krannert by 7:30pm. She ate the food that she
brought after the interview, offering some to me (I declined, mostly
because I eat very slowly), and we continued talking about other things
“off the record.” She asked me about my own experience as a dance
student of Balinese dance, and how that affected my playing. As soon as
she finished, we left the café together.
* Transcribed Excerpt (13:38-15:45) - please see attached file
Ethnography 4 (Fieldnotes on interview with iKGA, held on 19 October
2010, 1pm, at the 4/F of Levis Center; transcribed excerpt of the
interview)
For my second interview, I chose to interview the teacher/leader of the
Community Gamelan. I e-mailed him Friday last week to set up an
appointment, although I already informed him about the project that I am
doing in class the Monday before, including the possibility that I will be
interviewing him. He seemed enthusiastic about the project, saying, “sure,
sure, whatever I can do to help.” At first, I thought he was just glad that
someone was doing a study on the Community Gamelan, but when he
said, “whatever I can do to help,” it seemed that he was agreeing to it
because he wanted to help me. On the whole, I was just glad that he agree
to participate in this project, but I also want to reflect on his response
because I felt it also indicated the nature of our relationship that might
have a bearing on how the interview will flow. I have known iKGA for
two years now, as my Balinese music teacher, but I have also come to
know his family. I learned Balinese dance from his wife, and I had a
chance to perform with their daughters on more than one occasion. I have
also had the privilege of being invited to their home in a goingaway/celebration party after our performance last semester. They also
offered an open invitation to stay at their home in Bali if I get a chance to
visit the island. This would be my first time to interview him though and I
wondered how this new context of interaction would flow, and how we
would be defining each other’s role in this particular situation.
Initially, I proposed to schedule the interview on Monday at 5pm, right
before our gamelan class. The Monday before, he told me that he is
usually in campus Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but that he could
come on other days if need be. But I thought that Monday at 5pm would
be convenient since we also had a practice session that day. He did not
respond throughout the weekend, and I received an e-mail from him
Monday morning saying that he can’t make it at 5pm and indicated other
possible times, including the weekend. I chose to interview him at one of
the available times that he had, which was today (19 Oct), Tuesday at
1pm. Yesterday, after our practice, I reminded him of our interview
session for today.
I was a few minutes late to the interview. He was already in his room at
the 4th floor of the Levis Center. I began by telling him about the consent
form, then I asked if it was ok for me to record the interview. He said it
was fine. Once the recorder was on, I explained the nature of my project,
that it was part of a requirement for our methods class, which is involved
in the EUI. I am not sure if he was familiar with the EUI, but it didn’t
seem to matter to him what the project was for. But he seemed clear that I
wanted to interview him for a project that I’m doing, and that seemed to be
what mattered to him more. When I prepared my questions, it didn’t seem
to have a flow, and I wasn’t sure if I wanted to interview him about his
gamelan classes (the credited ones) or just his experience in Community
Gamelan, and I wasn’t sure how I was going to transition from questions
about how he came to the UIUC to questions about his teaching methods. I
didn’t have to worry though. After briefly talking about where he was
before coming to the UIUC (he taught in the University of Missouri at
Kansas City before coming to the UIUC), he then talked about what he
wanted to do in his teaching at UIUC.
During the interview, he talked a lot about his goals in teaching gamelan
in a university setting, and the difference/s between the teaching and
learning processes in the village and in the school or university setting.
According to him, he also taught gamelan in the school setting in Bali,
which is also different from the way he teaches gamelan in the village. In
the school (in Bali), they do use notation as well, or write down the music
as well, in order to teach the theory of gamelan music to students.
However, learning how to play the pieces involves “maguru panggul” or
“teaching by the mallet.” Meaning, the notation is not used, but watching
where the mallet goes in the instrument. He also uses this technique to
teach gamelan at UIUC, especially in the gangsa instruments, which are
what he calls elaboration instruments. He avoids the use of notation as
much as he can since he wants to bring the Balinese way of learning to the
university, although he also realizes that there are some limitations to
learning the music orally given the time students are given (one semester)
to learn to be able to play at least two pieces at the end of the semester.
For the gangsa instruments though, he said that he has trouble notating it
and that’s why students usually learn the gangsa parts orally. He uses the
notation as teaching aids, especially since he is only one teacher trying to
teach different students different instruments at the same time. The
gamelan orchestra is composed of at least 20 instruments, and they don’t
all play the same thing. So providing some notation for one set of
instruments and having the players repeat the phrases over and over,
allows him to concentrate on teaching another instrument.
He recognizes the difficulty of teaching Balinese music at the UIUC,
where the musical sensibility of his students is mostly “Western”-based.
He says that even the percussion majors do not always get the music right
away, even if they pick up the playing technique quite easily. One key
word that was prominent in the interview is the concept of “negotiation.”
He uses this word to talk about the way to play the gamelan, and to talk
about his experience in teaching gamelan in the university setting. In the
first sense, he said that players need to be attuned to each other and listen
to each other’s part to know how fast, slow, or when to end the pieces, and
that one always has to “negotiate” how one plays depending on how the
others play as well. This is important for the gamelan ensemble because
there is no conductor who directs how everyone will play. In the second
sense, he uses “negotiation” to describe how he had to adjust his attitude
and his teaching methods to fit the university setting, where he knows that
students have to learn pieces very quickly. For instance, he sees how
students write notes and marks on his notations and does not dissuade
them from doing so, because he understands that this is the students’ way
of “negotiating,” to be able to play the music. He says that he learned to be
more patient, and not expect perfect playing from his students (which is
something he expects from his students in Bali), as his way of negotiating.
While the word “negotiate,” “negotiating,” “negotiation,” did come up
quite often during the interview, I feel that I also have to take into
consideration that English is not his first language and that his use of the
word “negotiate” is perhaps his approximation of the concept or sentiment
that Balinese players use or feel in the process of performing. For instance,
he talked briefly about “desa, kala, patra” which he translated as “village,
time, situation” as the overarching sentiment that guides gamelan playing.
For iKGA, those three words together embody the situated-ness of
gamelan playing, which is never standardized. Each performance is not the
same, because each performance will have a different “situation.” In the
case of UIUC, he has to modify or adjust his teaching style because he is
now teaching non-Balinese students in a university setting (in this part of
the interview, he actually points towards the room where we hold practice
sessions, as if pointing to “that” specific situation that is happening in
“that” specific room). I feel that to understand his meaning of “negotiate,”
the concept of “desa, kala, patra” should be kept in mind.
I learned a lot from this interview, about the instruments of the orchestra,
the kind of players that can play particular instruments in the orchestra,
and also how gamelan should be learned if one desires to have any kind of
proficiency in playing it (which to me, meant that I still have a long, long,
long way to go). And even if I was trying to focus on his teaching
techniques, what I learned is that the strategies that he uses is very much
linked to his emotions and is guided by particular dispositions that do not
only apply to teaching, but to everyday life as well.
* Transcribed excerpt (30:38-33:18)
(In this excerpt, iKGA is talking about the use of notation as a teaching
aid, which he eventually relates to the process of teaching/learning by
“negotiation.” - please see attached file)
Ethnograpy 5 (field notes on "time allocation")
I decided to use the “time allocation” technique while (participant)observing our Community Gamelan session last Monday (25 October
2010). I have been thinking of using this method especially after my
interview with our leader iKGA, when he talked about his use of notation
as one technique for teaching gamelan. Notation serves as a teaching aid
since he does not need to demonstrate how to play the patterns, or to
demonstrate it repeatedly, especially for students who are able to read
music notation. To clarify, he does not use western music notation. He
uses numbers that correspond to the gongs/keys. His notation system can
also be read by beginners, even those who do not have any musical
background. When iKGA uses notation, he is able to focus his attention to
players who still need help or to the players of the gangsa, which he
classifies as elaboration instruments. Since these instruments would have
more complicating interlocking rhythms, there are times when he cannot
accurately notate the gangsa parts, and teaches the piece to the players in
the “teaching by the mallet” style. So for him to be able to pay more
attention to the gangsa, he would notate the parts for the other instruments
that have less complicated (basic) rhythms, which the players can easily
follow. This is what happened on the first day of our session this semester
two months ago, when we played a piece from beginning to end, with the
aid of notation. I was placed in the rejong, another kind of elaboration
instrument (although the rhythm is not as complicated as the gangsa),
which already had notated parts. Because we had notation, he asked us to
start playing, while he focused his attention to the jegogan players (who
were mostly beginners). While the jegogan instruments actually pay the
main melody, they do not use interlocking patterns and have less “notes”
to play. They also had notation, but since they were beginners, they
needed more time to get used to the technique while reading the notation.
While we were not able to play our parts perfectly, we were able to play
the piece from beginning to end. This specific piece has four parts, which
are quite different from one another.
Last Monday, he started to teach us a new piece, without notation.
So I took the opportunity to note the amount of time that he spent teaching
the different instruments, as well as the time it took for us to learn the two
phrases of music. Our practice session is from the 6-8pm. The “sequence
of events” are as follows:
6:05 – 6:25 – time spent learning Measure 1
In the beginning he first taught the gangsas the polos part,
while the players in the jegogan had to wait their turn. The polos is
one of the rhythmic patterns of the gangsa that goes in between
beats, while the sanse is the rhythmic pattern that would fall on the
beat. In the meantime, the trompong player (a former percussion
major) seemed to already know his part. To my knowledge, this
particular player has been learning the gamelan at least for the past
three years, and is able to learn his part more quickly than others.
In this particular day, I have a suspicion that he arrived early and
already learned a little bit of the piece, before everyone else
arrived.
Once the gangsa players have memorized Measure 1 and was
repeating the pattern correctly, he then moved to the jegogan
players and taught them their part for Measure 1. While teaching
the jegogan players, the gangsa players were repeating Measure 1
over and over again. Around 6:20, he returned to the gangsa
section, and taught some of the players the sanse. Now, the gangsa
players are divided into the polos and the sanse players. The whole
group repeats Measure 1 in their respective instruments until 6:25.
6:25 – 6:40 – time spent studying Measure 2
At 6:25, he starts teaching Measure 2 of the polos part to the
gangsa players, then once they have mastered the pattern, he
moved to the jegogan. At 6:35, he returns to the gangsa players
doing the sanse to teach them their rhythmic pattern.
6:40 – 6:50 – he mixes Measure 1 and Measure 2 (the two patterns are
just repeated over and over again)
6:50 – iKGA ends the run, then gives some oral instructions to the
trompong player, and the ugal player (the ugal player is the leader of the
gangsa section). He explains to the group what else will happen to the
piece)
6:53 – 7:05 – the piece is repeated
7:05 – 7:20 – break
7:20 – 7:55 – practice of Rejang Reyong (another piece)
7:20 – 7:28 – first run
7:30 – 7:35 – repeat of pengecet section
7:35 – 7:45 – practice of solo section
7:45 – 7:52 – second full run
7:55 – 8:04 – practice of Topeng Tua (another piece)
Here, one can see that it took one hour for the class to learn two measures
of a new piece, using the teaching style of “teaching by the mallet.” I
compare this to the amount of time the class learned the Rejang Rejong on
our first day. While it took the whole session to practice the piece, we
were able to finish the whole piece (not just two measures).
I think that using the time allocation method can be useful in this research
project which examines the teaching and learning process of the members
of the Community Gamelan. It provides information on the difference
between the learning/teaching processes involved when using notation or
“teaching by the mallet.”
Ethnography 6 (fieldnotes on using a Questionnaire)
The other fieldwork technique I decided to use was the questionnaire. I
thought it would be useful to get a general idea of how the students feel
about the teaching techniques used by the teacher (iKGA). At this point,
based on my observations, experience in playing, and the interview I have
conducted thus far, there are two methods used by the teacher in teaching
the different instruments to the members of the Community Gamelan:
“teaching by the mallet” (which is where students learn by imitating the
teacher) and the use of notation. The notation devised by the teacher is
loosely based on Western music notation in terms of rhythm (i.e. use of
half values), although it does not use a staff or any kind of time signature.
He uses numbers to indicate the key or gong that will be played. As he
mentioned in his interview, he does not use notation all the time,
especially with the “elaboration instruments” because he finds it difficult
to notate the complicated interlocking rhythm.
The questionnaire I distributed to the members is self-administered and I
sent it through e-mail. I thought that this would be the most efficient
methods since the class only meets once a week, and I did not want to take
away time from the class to conduct interviews. Some of them are not
students of the UIUC and so e-mail seemed to be the most convenient and
time efficient. But I did talk to most of the members about sending a
questionnaire about the Community Gamelan before sending it to them a
few days later. All of the people I approached gave their verbal agreement
to participate. I was lucky enough to have access to their e-mail address
through the director of the program, who willingly provided me with this
information.
One of the problems that come with the use of this mode of distributing
questionnaires is the low return rate. I sent the questionnaire to 16
members (some of the members were below 18, so I did not send them the
questionnaire), and so far, only 7 have replied. I gave them a week to do
the questionnaire. When none of them replied in the first 4 or 5 days, I also
thought that my e-mail might have gone to their SPAM or Junk folders—
another possible problem with distributing questionnaires via e-mail.
In any case, the information I have received so far is informative, in terms
of the teaching method preferred by the current members. The
questionnaire has 10 open ended questions, which asked about their
motivations for joining Community Gamelan, their previous musical
experience, their experience in playing different instruments in the
Community Gamelan, the teaching methods used, and their views about
these teaching methods. In the last part of the questionnaire, they indicate
their agreement or disagreement with 5 statements using a scale of 1-5
(where 1 is “strongly agree”).
The individuals who have responded to my request seem to agree that the
use of notation makes it easier for them to learn the music, and that
previous musical background may not necessarily be helpful in learning
Balinese gamelan music. Almost all of those who have responded indicate
previous musical experience in the form of piano or guitar lessons at some
point in their lives. Only one has extensive musical performance
experience, since he graduated from the School of Music recently as a
percussion major. All of them seem to enjoy the experience of learning a
“non-Western” form of musical expression and indicate that they are
interested in continuing their participation in the group in the future.
To end, the questionnaire was helpful in my study, since it provided me
with a sense of how the members experience the learning process in the
Community Gamelan project of the Robert E. Brown Center for World
Music. My findings (so far) based on my interviews, my observation of
time allocation in one session of Community Gamelan, and the
questionnaire, show that the use of notation is a preferred way of learning
Balinese music. This points to a tension between the use of traditional
learning methods (“learning by the mallet”), and a “negotiated” method
(use of notation). This has implications on the kind of learning
environment that the Center for World Music provides to students (and
non-students for that matter) at UIUC. It seems here that the learning
process is a mere “taste” of what it is like to learn Balinese music, without
going into the usual, but perhaps more socially and culturally integrated
way of learning the music. I think that this issue speaks to a wider concern
about the category of “world music” and what it aims to bring
conceptually and practically to music education in the United States.
Ethnography 7 - Fortun's "memo"
Enabling forces
- Economic means to
support CG (since it
uses UIUC facilities)
- stability of
international relations
between US and
Indonesia
- presence of the
Robert E. Brown
Center for World
Music at UIUC
- idea of “World
Music”
People in the research
site
- Leader of
Community Gamelan
(CG)
- family of the leader
of CG
- administrator of CG
(head of Robert E.
Brown Center for
World Music)
- members of CG
(composed of students
and non-students of
UIUC )
Constraining forces
- immigration policies
(how long can the
leader and his family
stay in the US; what
kind of activities can
they engage in while
in the US)
- ideas about what
“world music” is or
what “non-Western”
music is (does the
leader have to stick to
“traditional”
Indonesian music or
introduce new
repertoires?)
- interest in “exotic” /
“other” kinds of
music (i.e. non“Western”)
Discuss: Ethnograpy 8
This project was initially intended to find out how the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign provides alternative learning experiences for
its students. As a case study, I looked at the Community Gamelan, a
program run by the Robert E. Brown Center for World Music (CWM),
which, in turn, is affiliated with the UIUC School of Music. The program
is open to both students and non-students of UIUC.
As stated in the CWM website, their programs are intended to familiarize
students (and non-students alike) with musical traditions around the world,
which leads to understanding and respect of different cultures. To
accomplish this, the Center promotes the “active study” of these traditions
through performance with “tradition-bearing artists.” At the moment, the
Center houses artists from Indonesia, China, Guinea and India, who
conduct classes (for credit and non-credit, such as the Community
Gamelan) and prepare students for an end-of-semester performance.
I wanted to find out to what extent the students are able to learn the
(“different”) musical tradition, especially given the time they are given to
learn new pieces that they will perform at the end of the semester. The
questions of the project that guided the research process were: How does
the leader of the Community Gamelan teach its members to play the
different instruments in the gamelan orchestra? What are the strategies
used by the members of the Community Gamelan to learn the pieces for
the concert? I interviewed one member and the leader/teacher of the group
and asked them about their learning and teaching strategies, respectively. I
also distributed questionnaires by e-mail to the other members of the
group and asked them about their preferred learning strategies and which
teaching strategies they find most helpful in learning the playing
techniques for playing gamelan instruments.
My findings reveal that the leader/teacher would like to teach the members
of the group using the traditional method of magguru panggul or “teaching
by the mallet.” This entails copying the way the teacher performs the piece
and repeating the phrases until they are memorized. However, the
particular teaching situation at UIUC compelled him to find alternative
ways of teaching because of the limited time and human resources for
teaching pieces to a gamelan orchestra consisting of different instruments
(hence, different parts) to individuals who do not necessarily have
experience in playing gamelan instruments or, in some cases, any musical
instrument. Although at times, he uses traditional methods (which is what
he wants the students to experience) to teach the music, he also devised a
notation system to assist him in this process. Students found reading the
notation to be quite helpful in learning the pieces. Informal conversations
with some members reveal though that while the pieces are easier to learn,
it is harder to memorize than if they learned the piece through the
magguru panggul method.
While previous musical experience in the forms of childhood music
lessons or formal university education was not necessarily an aide to the
learning process since playing in the gamelan orchestra entailed learning
new techniques for playing and understanding the rhythm and counting
system of gamelan music. Although my interviews with the teacher and a
group member revealed that percussion majors could more easily pick up
the techniques for playing the instruments, the teacher said that this did not
mean that the music itself was easily understood. In other words, while
those with more extensive performance experience may have an advantage
over those who don’t or have much less experience playing instruments,
this did not necessarily result in an “uneven playing field” for the
members of the Community Gamelan. In order to adapt to this situation,
the teacher assigns beginners to instruments that play the basic melody
(and with less complicated rhythmic patterns) and those with relatively
more experience in musical performance to the “elaboration” instruments,
which have more complicated rhythmic patterns.
To end, the learning process in the Community Gamelan is comprised of what
the teacher describes as “negotiations.” That is, on his side, he had to “negotiate”
his way of teaching to accommodate the tradition of (musical) literacy that the
members are more used to, and also to help him teach the performance pieces
given the limitations in time and manpower. On the other hand, the students also
“negotiate” by trying to learn “by the mallet” even if they do prefer learning the
pieces by reading notation.
----------------------------------------------
Re-examining Diversity: A study on the diverse learning environment
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
A research proposal by Monica FA W Santos
(submitted to Prof. Ellen Moodie, for Anth411, Fall 2010)
INTRODUCTION
One of the most pressing issues in higher education in the United States
today is diversity. More specifically, I refer to issues that revolve around
recruitment policies and practices, as well as creating an inclusive and
non-alienating environment for students, especially those who are, or have
been labeled as, members of underrepresented groups in American society.
While these are undeniably pressing issues in the university setting,
including in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), one
aspect of diversity that has not been probed as extensively are the
contribution/s that the diverse population brings to the university. That is,
in what ways do a culturally diverse university setting enrich the learning
environment in the university? Is the diversity of its student body used as a
resource for students to learn about the diverse cultures of the student
population? This study investigates these questions by looking at
university programs that, I contend, embody the notion of a diverse
learning environment. These are programs that expose students firsthand
to different cultural traditions and practices, that is, not just through
lectures, books or audio-visual materials. One institution at the UIUC that
promotes such kind of learning is the Robert E. Brown Center for World
Music, which houses community music groups such as the Community
Gamelan which are open to UIUC students and non-students alike.
Members of the Community Gamelan do not need to have any music
experience to participate, and is, therefore, open to anyone who is
interested in learning Balinese Gamelan music and culture. Preliminary
research on the Community Gamelan program reveals that while the
members are not able to fully adopt the learning strategies that embody the
principles of gamelan playing, the students develop an appreciation for a
different kind of musical tradition. This study is designed to extend the
scope of this research to other programs in the University that offer similar
potential for learning about the diverse cultures of the members of the
student population. It looks at the impact of such programs on the students
who participate to see if they can contribute to the development of a
diverse learning environment which not only refers to “people” but
“cultures” as well.
BACKGROUND: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This study takes off from literature in Asian American Education that
looks at the need for more diverse teaching and learning practices that
incorporates the cultural values and practices of the diverse student
population in the university. This imperative is based on research
suggesting that students from immigrant communities experience cultural
alienation (from their own community) despite their assimilation of
“American culture.” For instance, Leanne Hinton (2001) asserts that
immigrant youth experience “language attrition” or regret for not learning
the native language of their parents and their community.
As such, scholars argue that the physical manifestation of a diverse
population does not completely address issues of diversity with regard to
creating an inclusive environment. Lily Fillmore (2005) and Hinton
suggest that bilingual education can help students from underrepresented
groups feel more comfortable in the university setting , but also help all
students in developing respect for cultural diversity. These scholars all
argue that having a diverse student population does not necessarily mean
that students from underrepresented groups will cease to feel excluded, or
will cease to be excluded in one way or another. Kevin Kumashiro (2003)
discusses this issue in his article “Queer Ideals in Education,” where he
talks about anti-oppressive pedagogical strategies that can potentially
challenge prevailing ideologies that promote social, racial, and ethnic
hierarchies. For Kumashiro, acknowledging the diversity of the student
population should also entail recognition of their unique cultural practices.
This study contributes to this body of literature by looking at other
programs, other than bilingual programs, that have the potential to provide
opportunities for all students in the university to learn about the cultures of
the diverse student population.
RESEARCH QUESTION
This research aims to expand the discourse on diversity in the university
setting by looking at the impact of programs that promote the learning of
the different cultures of its student body. As a possible resource for policymaking in the University (and elsewhere), this study investigates the
impact of university programs that promote the learning of different
cultures for all students through firsthand experience. It asks: Does the
University’s current mode of implementing diversity in campus contribute
to the appreciation of the different cultures of its diverse student
population?
I address this question by finding out about: 1) the current programs in
place that allow students to learn firsthand about the cultures of the diverse
student body, and if these programs incorporated into the course curricula
or are optional activities for the students; 2) the ways students who
participate in such programs talk about their experience, that is, if they
have positive or negative sentiments toward such programs.
PURPOSE and RATIONALE
The purpose of this research project is to understand the impact that
programs such as the Community Gamelan, administered by the Robert E.
Brown Center for World Music have on the educational experience of
students of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As such, the
results of this project have the potential to inform educational policies in
the university (as well as in the larger educational sector in American
society) that aim to construct a diverse learning environment that does not
perpetuate the alienation of underrepresented students. Ideally, programs
such as the Community Gamelan will not remain in the periphery of
student education, but be prominently featured in the general curricula.
RESEARCH PROCEDURE
The questions for this research project are informed by preliminary
research conducted on the Community Gamelan program at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The preliminary research focused mostly
on the learning process of the members of the Community Gamelan to
find out if the students are able to successfully use the learning strategies
that are traditionally used to learn the techniques for playing the different
instruments in the gamelan. The findings indicate that the group
leader/teacher and the members both engage in “negotiations” that enable
the leader of the Community Gamelan to teach its members how to play
the different instruments of the gamelan and perform the pieces they
learned in a concert at the end of the semester, and the students to learn the
music in a relatively short time. While such negotiations could be
interpreted as a failure to impart cultural knowledge to the members of the
group, the reactions of the students (which are documented in an interview
and in the responses to questionnaires) indicate that they at least realize
the mental rigor that they need to go through in order to play in a more
competent manner is different from what they are used to.
For this research project, I intend to look at other similar programs and
document the feedback of students who underwent these programs with
regard to what they learned about the culture that they studied and the
effect it had on their perceptions about that culture. The details of this
research plan are as follows:
1) Collect information on programs within the University that promote
learning of other cultures using practical methods (e.g. learning of a
language, learning how to play instruments, etc.). This will be done by
either contacting pertinent school officials within specific departments
who might have knowledge of such programs, or searching through public
documents such as brochures and websites of the different units in the
University. This information should also reveal if the programs occupy a
peripheral role in the school curricula (e.g. it is optional or an elective) or
if it is an integral part of the curricula (e.g. required).
2) Once the programs have been identified, I shall contact the individuals
who conduct and have participated in such programs (and are still students
of the university), for possible interviews. I will also conduct a survey that
will ask about their experience in the class/program and what they have
learned about the culture that they studied. I chose to do both methods
since conducting interviews is quite time consuming, and surveys are
helpful in finding out the general sentiment of a particular population, in
this case, the students who are and who have participated in the program/s.
Information from surveys can be helpful in formulating policy since it
covers a wider population in a smaller period of time (Fink and Kosecoff,
1985).
The sampling method that will be used in this study is snowball sampling.
I anticipate that I will not be able to procure a complete list of students
who have gone through these programs and randomly select from the list.
Snowball sampling might also facilitate increased participation since
individuals who are recommended by their associates or friends might be
more amenable to participating if they knew that their associate also
participated in the survey.
I will use a self-administered questionnaire for the survey that will contain
both open-ended and close-ended questions. The close-ended questions are
intended to measure their general sentiment about and evaluation of the
program as a tool for learning about other cultures. The open-ended
questions will ask about their reasons for participating in the program, and
their recommendations for the program. The surveys will be conducted at
the end of the semester either in the classroom or venue where the
program is conducted and also sent by e-mail to those who have attended
these program in the past semesters. I feel that the self-administered
questionnaire is appropriate for this study since the participants in the
study are literate and the questions do not require face-to-face interaction
(Bernard, 2004 :250). Also, surveys allow respondents to provide more
honest responses since they are not exposed to the interviewer’s “style,”
which, as Fink (1985: 20) states, is what people sometimes respond to,
instead of the question itself.
The individuals who will be interviewed are students and facilitators of
particular programs. Students will be interviewed to find out in more depth
what they think the program offers to their studies and to the students in
general at the UIUC. On the other hand, facilitators will be asked about
their experience as facilitators, specifically their insights on the attitudes of
students towards the program.
3) With the consent of facilitators and students, I shall also conduct my
own observations in the program sessions, to provide supporting data to
the responses that I will get from the interviews and surveys (Fink and
Kosecoff, 1985).
I am also aware of the ethical standards that researchers are expected to
adhere to when doing research on human subjects. As such, I intend to
comply with the policies set by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to
ensure that I will not be violating the rights and privacy of the individuals
who will participate in my research. Prior to any interview, survey, or
observation , the facilitators and students will be asked to fill out a consent
form which will indicate their knowledge of the risks and benefits
involved if they participate in the study, and their consent to participate in
the study.
DELIMITATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This study investigates the impact of programs at the University of the
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign specifically that promote learning of the
cultures of its diverse student population. As such, its findings cannot be
used to generalize about all kinds of educational programs (whether within
or outside the university setting) that promote the learning of different
cultures, and their impact on the institutions in which the programs are
implemented.
One limitation of this research is that it will not be able to account for all
the sentiments of all students who participate in the university programs
that will be part of this study in the time that is allowed. I also anticipate
that not all individuals who are part of these programs will agree to
participate in the study, or reply to the self-administered survey. The
sampling method that will be used for this study is snowball sampling,
thereby might not be statistically representative of the whole population of
the UIUC.
Works Cited
Bernard, Russell. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and
Quantitative
Approaches . Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2004.
Fillmore, Lily Wong. "When Learning a Second Language Means Losing
the First." In The New Immigration: An Interdisciplinary Reader,
edited by Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, Carola Suárez-Orozc and
Desiree Baolian Qin, 289-308. New York: Brunner-Routledge,
2005.
Fink, Arlene, and Jacqueline Kosecoff. How to Conduct Surveys: A Stepby-Step Guide. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1985.
Hinton, Leanne. "Involuntary language loss among immigrants: Asian-
American linguistic autobiography." In Georgetown University
Roundtable on Language and Linguistics 1999, edited by James
Alatis and Ai-Hui Tan, 203-252. Washington DC: Georgetown
University Press, 2001.
Kumashiro, Kevin. "Queer Ideals in Education." Journal of Homosexuality
45, no. 2/3/4 (2003): 365-367.
EUI Links:
Reflect: The research that I conducted for this class was different from my
previous research experiences. This was the first time I was able to discuss
my project with other researches as it progressed, and receive feedback
about my methods and initial findings. I was also able to explore other
research methods that I probably would not have considered using for my
research projects. On the other hand, I also found the research process at
UIUC a bit unwieldy mostly because of the permissions that need to be
acquired before using certain research methods. While I am aware of the
importance of ethical practice in doing research, in some cases, this results
in missed opportunities to collect information as they come about because
certain methods have not been approved or are still waiting approval. The
fact that this research will also be part of an archive is a bit intimidating,
especially since it is not only the finished product that will be shared with
the public (as in the publication of academic articles) However, I think that
having such an archive is also useful in providing data on how the
University and the various policies, groups, units within it, operate. With
this in mind, I find it rewarding that my research will somehow be part of
such data set.
Recommendations: I feel that this research can contribute to university policies with regard to
the study of different musical (and hence, cultural) traditions. That is,
future research could explore the benefits of having such programs as part
of the general education of students across campus, instead of having a
marginalized status in the education of undergraduate and graduate
students in the University.