Advertisement

Community Music-Based Structures of Learning (CoMu-Based SL) Framework: Nurturing Critical Musicality and Artistic Thinking

  • Pamela Costes-OnishiEmail author
  • Imelda S. Caleon
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents findings that strengthen and refine the theory that when Community Music-based Structures of Learning (CoMu-based SL) is used as a framework in teaching general music education, twenty-first-century skills (critical musicality) and dispositions (artistic thinking) are effectively nurtured in the process. Through design-based methodology, specialist music teachers developed units of lessons using CoMu-based SL that impact students’ critical musicality and artistic thinking relevant to the future. The results of the study are intended for the development of future models of pedagogies founded on artistic thinking towards a theory of aesthetic education.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education under SUG 08/16 OP.

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Cannatella, H. (2015). Why we need arts education: Revealing the common good, making theory and practice better. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costes-Onishi, P. (2019). Community music-based structures of learning (CoMu-Based SL): Pedagogical framework for the nurturance of future-ready habits of mind. International Journal of Music Education, 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419842419.
  6. Costes-Onishi, P. & Caleon, I. S. (2018). Development and validation of the critical musicality scale. Journal of Music Research, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14613808.2018.1516744.
  7. Gadsden, V. L. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy, and the discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 29–61.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2006). Studio thinking: How visual arts teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts (pp. 189–205). New York: Baywood Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Krug, D. H., & Cohen-Evron, N. (2000). Curriculum integration, positions and practices in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marshall, J. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and art integration: Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 55(2), 104–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.Google Scholar
  14. Rolling, J. H. (2010). A paradigm analysis of arts-based research and implications for education. Studies in Art Education, 51(2), 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saldaña, J. (2009). Coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sotiropoulo-Zormpala, M. (2016). Seeking a higher level of arts integration across the curriculum. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(1), 43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.966288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Winner, E., Goldstein, T.R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Art for art’s sake?: The impact of arts education. Education Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations