Attitudes Toward Formal and Informal Music Learning Among Non-Music Teachers

A study conducted by Dr. John L. Vitale from the Schulich School of Education at Nipissing University examined how non-music teachers view formally and informally trained musicians. The research involved forty-one randomly selected teachers from a suburban high school in Toronto, Canada, and used both quantitative and qualitative methods including a semantic differential scale questionnaire and a focus group.

The findings revealed that participants held highly favorable opinions of informally trained musicians. Three principal themes emerged from the data: value, creativity, and non-conformity. The first theme indicated that informally trained musicians are regarded as highly respected members of society. The second theme showed that these musicians are viewed as outstanding composers. The third theme highlighted their determined commitment to achieving musical proficiency without formal instruction. From an educational standpoint, the conclusions suggest that formal music educators ought to recognize the benefits that informal music learning can offer.

Drawing from his own experience as a musician, music educator, and teacher educator, Vitale noted that formally trained musicians tend to receive greater admiration and respect from the general public compared to their self-taught counterparts. Even when informally trained musicians attain fame and wealth, they are sometimes dismissed as commercially driven rather than serious artists. Lucy Green's observation reinforces this: popular music is frequently regarded as temporary, unimportant, derivative, or purely commercial when compared to classical music.

Discussions about formally and informally trained musicians have occurred in many settings throughout Vitale's career, including teacher conferences, professional development workshops, and informal conversations among colleagues. These exchanges ultimately motivated him to investigate attitudes and perspectives on formal and informal music learning more systematically.

Comparing formal and informal music learning

The world of formal music education

Scholars generally agree that formal music learning is closely tied to classical music. Most music teachers in both public and private institutions are trained in classical traditions, and school curricula have historically favored this genre. Some researchers note a sense among music scholars that classical music represents a superior form of musical expression. One scholar expressed personal preference for composers like Mozart, Bach, and Schubert, claiming their music is more deeply enjoyable and of higher quality. The classical music community is often associated with "high society" or "high culture," implying it is more advanced than other musical forms. Some critics suggest this elevated status stems from the longstanding, institutionalized history of classical music, which remains evident in music education settings today.

In Canada, the Royal Conservatory of Music functions almost as a regulatory body. Students must pass formal examinations in performance, theory, and history to advance from one level to the next, giving rise to the term "classically trained" or "formally trained." The RCM wields enormous influence in Canadian formal music education, and its students frequently receive praise and recognition for their achievements. Students who complete Grade Eight RCM on their instrument along with Grade Four RCM theory can earn a full Grade 12 credit in Ontario, which counts toward university admission requirements.

This instructional model, often called studio instruction, follows a traditional transmission style of teaching. The student assumes a passive role, asking questions only for clarification. The RCM and similar institutions approach music education in a highly structured, sequenced manner with a classical focus. Most music education research has concentrated on this formal model. Goran Folkestad noted that most research in the field has addressed music training in institutional settings, based on the assumption that musical learning results from methodical exposure to formal teaching.

The world of informal music learning

Informal music learning is frequently linked to popular music forms. Students who learn music in unstructured settings typically engage with popular music. Unlike the formal music world, no governing body oversees the popular music industry, which represents the vast commercial majority of music. The record-buying and concert-attending public determines what succeeds from week to week.

Many pop musicians are self-taught, learning through unstructured scenarios such as garage band practices. The most prominent example is the Beatles, widely considered the most successful pop musicians in history. None of the four members could read music. Despite their lack of formal training, they became perhaps the greatest songwriters of the twentieth century and exerted tremendous influence on music and pop culture. John Lennon stated plainly that none of them were technical musicians and none of them could read or write music.

Being informally trained does not mean that influence, motivation, or mentorship from other musicians is absent. Quite the opposite holds true. Other musicians provide the foundation for self-taught musicians to effectively learn an instrument. In today's technologically advanced society, these influences appear in many formats: live performances, recorded music across various media, and print-based materials in both traditional and electronic forms. The key distinction between formal and informal musicians is the lack of structure and direct instruction in the latter group, yet rich musical experiences still emerge through varied methods and formats.

Popular music is typically acquired as a self-directed activity within the broader community, sometimes involving peer interaction and group work, but rarely under the supervision of an expert teacher.

Research supports the significance of informal music learning. One study following three young rock bands found that informal music learning provided numerous ancillary benefits beyond music itself, including skills in administration, management, and language development. Lucy Green extensively documented the self-taught musician in classroom settings, distinguishing peer-directed learning from group learning. Other research has shown that creating lyrics and composing music within hip-hop culture is peer-directed and collective. Several studies offer examples and strategies for the teacher's role in self-taught, peer-directed classroom environments. One recent study argued that both students and teachers experience the social and personal effectiveness of informal learning as a pedagogical approach.

Research methods and procedures

Establishing definitions for the study

Developing clear definitions for formally trained and informally trained musicians presented a significant challenge. Most music research is conducted by formally trained individuals, so the study aimed to avoid the biases associated with institutionalized research. On the other hand, non-music specialists might lack the vocabulary and terminology to formulate viable definitions. The solution was to draw on perspectives from both music and non-music specialists.

A previously unpublished pilot study with fifty-two participants gathered definitions for both formal and informal musicians. These participants were enrolled in a second-year general elective undergraduate music appreciation course, roughly evenly split between music and non-music majors. Six participants from the pilot study (three from each group) were randomly selected to form a focus group. Their task was to categorize, code, and synthesize the data to create practical, functional definitions. The definitions were then brought back to the undergraduate class for a final vote, where forty-seven of the fifty-two participants approved the content.

The approved definition stated that a formally trained musician is someone who has learned to read and perform music through formal training and education from an accredited institution or school of music. This training is teacher-directed, includes formal assessment and evaluation, and culminates in a recognized system of completion such as credit, certificate, diploma, or degree. In some cases, musical literacy can also be achieved through self-teaching and peer-directed learning.

An informally trained musician was defined as someone who has learned to perform music through unstructured, non-institutionalized environments. These environments involve self-teaching through media applications, peer-to-peer teaching, and other social learning opportunities like jam sessions. Informally trained musicians follow no stringent rules or regulations and undergo no formal evaluation or documented system of achievement and completion.

Study participants

The study comprised forty-one teachers from various disciplines at a suburban Toronto high school. None were known to the researcher before the study began. The group included twenty-four males and seventeen females, reflecting gender ratios typical of Toronto secondary schools. Because the male-to-female ratio was imbalanced, gender was not analyzed as a variable. The deliberate choice of non-music teachers aimed to obtain unbiased perspectives on music learning and music making.

Data collection methods

Each participant completed a questionnaire using a semantic differential scale with ten closed-ended questions. Additionally, a focus group session was conducted with six randomly selected participants, three male and three female.

This mixed-method approach follows the principle that academic validity stems from using multiple investigation methods. Multiple methods provide complementary insights and understandings that may be difficult to obtain through any single method alone. The study therefore combines both quantitative and qualitative inquiry. One researcher noted that collecting closed-ended quantitative data along with open-ended qualitative data proves advantageous, allowing researchers to first survey a large group and then follow up with specific individuals to capture their language and perspectives.

The questionnaire instrument

The closed-ended questions aimed to extract participants' attitudes and perspectives toward formal and informal music learning. Close-ended questions dominate most questionnaires because they offer a non-threatening, straightforward platform for eliciting responses. They also facilitate easier coding, categorization, and statistical interpretation.

The semantic differential scale was originally developed by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum in 1957. This simple, elegant scale asks participants to indicate their degree of preference between bipolar phrases or adjectives that best capture their feelings about a subject. The scale measures both the intensity and direction of participants' attitudes.

Answers were based on a ten-point polarization scale, with formally trained musicians on one end and informally trained musicians on the other. The ten-point scale is common and well-liked because people find it familiar. A score of one indicated absolute preference for formally trained musicians, while a score of ten indicated absolute preference for informally trained musicians. An average numerical response between one and ten was calculated for each question across the entire sample of forty-one participants. Each average was also subjected to a standard deviation calculation to show whether responses clustered near the average or distributed widely.

The ten questions grew out of discussions and personal experiences the researcher had accumulated over many years on this topic, particularly those that generated rich debate. One frequent conversation addressed whether music is an art or a science and where formally versus informally trained musicians fit into these categories, inspiring questions one and two. Other conversations focused on financial success differences, leading to question three. Question four related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, emphasizing self-actualization. Teacher lounge discussions often touched on academic themes, spawning questions five, six, and seven. Conversations about the role music plays in society and how different musicians fit that role inspired question eight. Debates about creating original music and how society benefits from it inspired questions nine and ten.

A major limitation of close-ended questionnaires is the lack of open-ended responses. However, the focus group data addressed this limitation, giving participants ample opportunities to expand on their questionnaire answers.

The focus group procedure

Focus groups provide opportunities to hear, see, and interact with a subset of the sample, revealing subtle nuances impossible to detect through questionnaires alone. The main purpose of focus group research is to draw upon respondents' attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences, and reactions in ways that other methods cannot achieve. An added benefit is the group effect, where participants stimulate one another through discussion of past experiences and ideas, creating a chaining or cascading effect.

One focus group of six participants was conducted. The researcher led the discussion, using the questionnaire as a general guideline. The focus group aimed to generate a richly descriptive end product typical of qualitative research. The session was audio recorded and transcribed, with pseudonyms used to protect participant identities. Data analysis involved creating categories for key words, phrases, and comments.

Presenting the results

Rao and Woolcock note that qualitative and quantitative methods can be integrated in three forms: parallel, sequential, and iterative. Parallel integration was not appropriate for this study. The specific results and analysis of participant responses would follow this methodological framework to reveal how attitudes toward formal and informal music learning manifest among non-music teachers.

Thematic analysis involves searching for themes that emerge as crucial to describing the phenomenon under study (Daly, Kellehear, & Gliksman, 1997). This method requires identifying themes through careful, repeated reading of the data (Rice & Ezzy). Essentially, it is a form of pattern recognition within the data itself. Because this is a mixed methods study, presenting findings within a thematic framework was deemed most suitable. Reporting results separately for each methodology section—questionnaires and focus groups—would prove excessively analytical, fragmented, and reductionist.

Employing themes, in contrast, supports a more integrated and holistic approach, making data interpretation easier to digest and internalize. Consequently, only the quantitative and qualitative data that support the extracted themes will appear in this study’s findings.

4. Synopsis of Findings

The study’s results showed that my own experiences differed greatly from those of the participants. Instead, participants’ attitudes and perspectives were highly positive and favorable toward informally trained musicians. Specifically, participants generated three themes: value, creativity, and non-conformity. The first theme, value, indicates that informally trained musicians are productive, esteemed members of society. The second theme, creativity, identifies how these musicians are accomplished composers and originators of music. The final theme, non-conformity, centers on the steadfast, persistent desire of informally trained musicians to achieve musical competence outside formal instruction.

5. Full Explication of Findings

5.1 Theme #1: Value

Overall, participants believed informal musicians offered significantly greater worth to society. Evidence appears in responses to questions seven and ten of the questionnaire. For question seven—which group has a better chance of succeeding in non-musical careers—the average response was 7.02 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 2.04. Responses clustered between 5 and 9, clearly leaning toward the informal musician side of the semantic differential scale (see appendix two). Focus group responses corroborated these quantitative results. Below is a sequential excerpt from the focus group:

Author: Okay, question seven — which group has a better chance of succeeding in non-musical careers? How do you feel about this question?

Mark: I think that informal musicians have demonstrated that they are capable of learning and doing things on their own. This shows drive and dedication and commitment. These are qualities that are transferrable to so many different careers. I think that informal musicians would be great at a lot of different things.

Sara: Yes, I agree. Having the desire to teach and learn on your own is usually a good indicator that someone can be successful in different careers.

Joseph: I think that both formal and informal musicians can have drive and dedication, but I must agree that informal musicians face more challenges because they do not have someone to guide them, yet they still succeed, which perhaps shows a bit more drive and dedication. I would think that this deep drive would be present in other career options that interest them.

Author: Is there one or two non-musical careers that you can specifically think of that informal musicians would be better at succeeding at?

Larry: I think business — being an entrepreneur. I think that informal musicians have shown that they have the right attitude to succeed at business. In the end, being in business for yourself means that you are doing things on your own.

Author: Can you give me some examples? What kind of attitude?

Larry: Things like being a go-getter, shaping your own destiny, searching for knowledge and answers. These are the qualities of a good businessman.

Author: So, in the big pictures, do these qualities help us as a society?

Larry: Yes, absolutely! Everybody here knows that it is virtually impossible to teach drive and commitment. That has to be within you and when you have them, there is tremendous value for society.

Sara: Yes, I agree, you cannot teach drive, it is innate. Informal musicians obviously have drive, and they should be commended for that.

Responses to question ten—which group provides more benefit to society—also reinforce the theme of value. The average response was an overwhelming 8 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 1.98. Responses clustered between 6 and 10, again on the informal musician side of the semantic differential scale (see appendix three).

Comments from the focus group session support this claim. Consider the following excerpt:

Betty: Informal musicians tend to be the mega pop stars that shape not only music, but also culture in general — hairstyles, fashion, and even language.

Mark: I agree, informal musicians, the self-taught people, benefit society but they also impact society in negative ways. Look at Rap stars, for example, they impact society significantly. I mean, take a look at some of our students here at the school. Look at the way they talk and dress. They all think they are Rap stars. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of Rap stars are not formally trained musicians like Eminem and Fifty Cent — none of those guys are formally taught. No offence to anyone in this room, but I do not think that Rap music benefits society.

Author: I do not have any evidence to support or refute your claim about Eminem and Fifty Cent.

Betty: That is your opinion, Mark. There are many people out there — not just teenagers — who think that Rap music does benefit society. Rap music has taken a marginalized group of young black youth who come from impoverished homes and empowered them. Rap has given them a voice literally and figuratively. It is a forum for how they express themselves and how they dress.

Mark: Like I said, I didn’t mean to offend anybody — sorry if I did.

Wanda: I think the point being made is that mega stars in pop, rock, rap, whatever, have an enormous impact on society. Some people will find benefit and value in this impact, and others will not, you know, one person’s dream is another person’s nightmare! Although we do not know for sure, I think that many of these stars are not formally trained according to the definition that you read to us at the beginning of this meeting. Yet, these stars have provided a benefit to many aspects of society.

5.2 Theme Two: Creativity

Under the creativity theme, participants viewed informal musicians as true artists of composition, not mere emulators of other composers’ music. Evidence appears in questions one and two of the questionnaire. For question one—what group knows more about music as a Science—the average response was 1.2 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 0.69, overwhelmingly favoring formal musicians (see appendix four). For question two—which group knows more about music as an Art form—the reverse trend emerged, with an average score of 8.29 out of 10 and a standard deviation of 1, strongly favoring informal musicians (see appendix five). The focus group excerpt below substantiates these quantitative results:

Author: Alright, I would like to address question one and two together. Which group knows more about music as a science, which is question one, and which group knows more about music as an Art form, which is question two.

Wanda: It seems to me that classical musicians, the formal guys, know more about the scientific aspect of music. I think they know more about sound production, how to execute notes, and why certain notes sound good together and others do not. I also think informal musicians know these answers as well, but they know it more from their heart — how it feels and sounds, not necessarily the reasons why things sound good or bad. That is what art is about — at least I think so. Informal, self-taught musicians are definitely more creative.

Larry: Yes, self-taught musicians tend to be more creative. They do not have as many rules to follow like classical musicians do. They just tend to play what sounds good, following their heart and feelings. Art is really about passion and feeling, so I would concur that self-taught musicians are more artistic.

Sara: Yes, but knowing the science behind music does not necessarily make you less of an artist. It can actually make you more of an artist. I mean songs from Puccini’s operas are some of the most beautiful pieces of music I have ever heard, and he was a formal music composer — a great artist.

Mark: I am sure that all of the big and famous composers were all great artists, but I think as a whole, self-taught musicians, the informal guys and gals approach music from an artistic and creative perspective, and classical musicians from a scientific one. My daughter is taking piano lessons, and she — even at seven years old — she is very aware of what fingers can and cannot be used when performing a piece of music. Although this might be the correct way of playing, I can see that more of her energy is directed into how to play a song rather than feeling the music. That is more science and precision to me, not art.

Author: Interesting point!

Mark: Yes, I can see that. Informal musicians tend not to care about how they play, what fingers they are using, etc. They just tend to play and create what sounds and feels good, which is more like art.

The creativity theme was also evident in responses to question nine of the questionnaire: Which group has the best foundation to create original music compositions? The average response was 7.8 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 2.07, again indicating a propensity toward the informal musician side of the semantic differential scale (see appendix six). Focus group participants substantiated this statistical analysis:

Author: Although we talked a little about this in questions one and two, I would like to move on to question nine: Which group has the best foundation to create original music compositions? What are your thoughts on this question?

Joseph: I think — like it was said earlier, the informal musicians learn to play without rules and regulations, which naturally lends itself to creativity when composing. The kind of “no rules no limits” scenario.

Betty: Yes, for sure. I see informal musicians as people who compose whatever they want, however they want to do it. Even when they play music from other people, they tend to play it their way.

Author: Does this free spirited approach to composition actually provide a better foundation for creativity — as the question states?

Betty: I guess it depends on how we define foundation. From a technical perspective, informal musicians may lack theoretical concepts that they can apply to creating music. The theory could be seen as a missing foundation. But I actually think when it comes to creativity, the lack of a foundation, is actually a better foundation. Does that make any sense? Kind of like you have to be out of the box in order to think out of the box.

Mark: Wow, that’s a pretty deep thought. But I guess I agree with you. Pure creativity comes out of spontaneity and instinct. I guess it is hard to be instinctual when you are working from theoretical concepts.

5.3 Theme Three: Non-Conformity

Under the non-conformity theme, participants appreciated the somewhat rebellious attitudes of informal musicians who learn and succeed musically despite lacking formal instruction. Evidence appears in responses to question six of the questionnaire: which group has trained harder and overcome more obstacles in developing musicianship. The average response was 7.19 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 2.03, again favoring the informal side of the semantic differential scale with a range of 5.17 to 9.21 (see appendix seven). Larry from the focus group supports this view:

Informal musicians have a lot of barriers. They usually do not have anyone telling them that they are heading in the right or wrong direction, and are basically at the mercy of the trial and error system. This is, in the end, much more work than a formally trained musician who has a teacher guiding their every move, or at the very least supporting them and steering them in the right direction. Us teachers like to call it scaffolding.

Furthermore, Joseph from the focus group offered a similar response:

I think that formal musicians also train hard, maybe even harder, but I think that informal musicians face many more hardships. Many self-taught musicians can’t read music, and they are forced to use their ear to learn songs. Learning a song by ear, I would think, is far more difficult and abstract than having the notes directly in front of you.

Sara’s comments are also worth noting:

I guess the informal musicians, kind of like street musicians, remind me of the Nike slogan a little bit — they “just do it!” They don’t care if they are playing something incorrectly, they just play music because it feels right to them. It is a form of freedom and expression for them. Learning to express yourself is really like overcoming a major hurdle, especially since the education system does so much to suppress creativity.

Question four—which group is more likely to achieve personal satisfaction—also promotes the theme of non-conformity.

Participants scored an average response of 6.8 with a standard deviation of 1.72, indicating an average distribution between 5.08 and 8.52, still on the informal side of the scale, suggesting that informal musicians are more likely to achieve personal satisfaction (see appendix eight). The following focus group excerpt supports this viewpoint:

Author: Question four addresses personal satisfaction. Which group is more likely to achieve personal satisfaction?

Mark: There is no doubt that informal musicians are more likely to achieve personal satisfaction. They do what they want in terms of music. They play what they want to play, listen to what they want to listen to, and learn what interests them. I think you would get more personal satisfaction from doing this than being told what to play and listen to.

Joseph: I agree, I know of so many people that take piano lessons and ultimately give it up because they simply lose interest. My own son gave up piano lessons after his first year. He did not like the whole classical approach. He hated the music, it had no real connection with him. I think he found the songs really lame and square. Yet, he loves music and listens to his iPod all day long. I guess he finds rock music more appealing!

Wanda: Oh my gosh! That sounds like a carbon copy story of my sister’s son! Same thing, she signed him up for piano lessons and he quit after six or seven months, I think. Apparently he said the music sucked and he wanted to play stuff that he liked.

Sara: Yes, I guess if you do not like classical music, you will not get much personal satisfaction from it. But what if you like classical music? Then I think you would get a lot of personal satisfaction from taking piano lessons.

Author: It’s not so much about classical music vs. other types of music, it’s about achieving satisfaction. Do you get more satisfaction from teaching yourself, for example, a really informal approach to learning, or having someone else teach you?

Wanda: I guess it depends on what the teacher is teaching. If the student picks the curriculum, so to speak, then I think it is possible to get a lot of personal satisfaction. The problem with most piano lessons, for example, is that the students are told what to play. Those piano books are like textbooks in a way. If you teach from the textbook — I don’t care what the subject is — most students won’t get personal satisfaction. They are outdated and so not student-centered. Kind of hard to differentiate your teaching when you are using a piano book all of the time.

Betty: I agree, teachers have a lot to do with the student being satisfied or not. Ultimately, when the student is the teacher, there would have to be more satisfaction, because he or she learns whatever he or she wants to learn based on personal interest.

Mark: Yes, that makes sense.

6. Discussion

This study has confirmed that the informal approach to learning music holds meaning and significance, as shown through the themes of value, creativity, and non-conformity. Informal music learning is notably absent from the music curriculum in many Westernized nations. Instead, music curriculum guidelines in these nations should become more flexible regarding both content and pedagogy. For instance, music teachers should adopt a more inductive curricular approach, teaching students music they find interesting and motivating—such as pop music—and freeing them from the stress associated with classical music study. Winspur (1998) states: “As children, aspiring pop and rock musicians do not suffer the same pressures as those children studying an instrument classically” (p. 3). Moreover, popular music genres like Rap, Heavy Metal, Latin, and Dance can offer valuable sources of ideas and motivation for both teachers and students. Connecting with students on their level aligns with Green (2008), who urges us to listen to “young people’s voices” and, as music educators, to take “their values and their culture seriously” (p. 185).

Many scholars have also confirmed that traditional schooling suppresses creativity (Robinson, 2001; Holt, 1995), and the music classroom is no exception. This strikes me as ironic, given that the music classroom is intended to be a place where creativity and imagination flourish. Yet, in my experience, classroom music teachers often stifle creativity by constantly reproducing their own musical experiences—what they were taught and how they were taught.

These recollections come from a distinctly different era—highly formal and traditional—and do not offer a universal remedy for contemporary music education. The ways young people experience music today differ dramatically from even a decade ago. Thanks to mass media and technological advances, music is now abundant, ever-present, and largely recorded rather than live. If musical experiences have transformed, logic suggests that teaching and learning methods should evolve as well. This study argues that informal music learning provides music educators with a rich repository of pedagogical approaches. Other scholars share this perspective; Wiggington (2010), for example, documents the decline of formal vocal pedagogy. He contends that students find inspiration and motivation in current pop artists who typically possess little or no formal training. The theme of non-conformity, frequently observed in these artists, echoes findings in this study. Wiggington (2010) writes:

Somewhere outside the classical paradigm of perfect posture, pure vowels, and forward placement exists a vast universe of musicmaking singers. These artists pour their souls into each note, their voices shaking you, moving you to your very core. These singers have never heard of the zygomatic arch or the ligament vocalis; they have never even considered raising their soft palates. . . Many of them have never had a voice lesson in their lives—and see no reason to. (p. 449)

7. Conclusion

In short, music educators at every level and in all settings ought to seriously consider informal approaches to music learning, which incorporate self-teaching, peer interaction, and social learning experiences. Because curriculum reflects society (Ross 2000; Hewitt 2006), it seems evident that music curricula have failed to keep pace with recent trends in musical experience and developments in our technologically driven world. Learners must see value in what they study. They also need public school music programs that enable them to perform and create music of their own choosing—music that sparks imagination, nurtures creativity, and ultimately cultivates musically independent citizens. Bowman (2005) observes:

Too often, teaching and learning resemble training (or even indoctrination) more than education. The do-it-this-way mode of instruction, in which modeling rightly figures centrally, can, if not carefully monitored, foster critical compliance and nurture dependence rather than the independence and empowerment that are hallmarks of true education. (p. 13)

Kratus (2005) contends that simply improving the marketing and promotion of current public school music curricula will not resolve negative attitudes toward music education. Rather, he asserts that music education has failed to embrace mass popular culture, which demands a thorough overhaul or reformulation of curricular guidelines. The urgency for all music educators to introduce informal learning into their classrooms is clear. With a curriculum steeped in Western music and pedagogy, many public school educators have marginalized an entire generation of youth. Regelski (2009) supports this view, stating that classical music “plays a role in the marginalization of music in public schools” (p. 68). Shifting toward popular music in public school curricula is not merely desirable—it is essential for the survival of public music education.

Appendix One

Questionnaire: Formal Vs. Informal Musicians

For this questionnaire, please read the two definitions below to establish a context:

Formally Trained Musician: A formally trained musician is an individual who has learned to read and perform music through formal training and education provided by an accredited institution or music school. This education and training is teacher-directed, involves formal assessment, and culminates in a recognized system of achievement and completion (e.g., credits, certificates, diplomas, or degrees). In some cases, musical literacy may also be attained through self-teaching and peer-directed learning.

Informally Trained Musician: An informally trained musician is an individual who has learned to perform music through unstructured, non-institutionalized learning settings. These environments include self-teaching via media (recorded music, books, computer technology), peer-to-peer instruction, and social opportunities such as jamming.

Informally trained musicians follow no strict rules or regulations and have no formal evaluation or documented system of achievement and completion.

Instructions: Please read each question and circle only one number between 1–10. A “1” indicates an exclusive preference for “formally trained musicians,” while a “10” indicates an exclusive preference for “informal musicians.”

Question #1: In general, what group knows more about music as a Science?

Question #2: In general, what group knows more about music as an Art form?

Question #3: Which group is more likely to be financially successful in the music industry?

Question #4: Which group is more likely to achieve personal satisfaction through music?

Question #5: Which group is more adept to succeed in academic pursuits?

Question #6: Which group has trained harder and overcome more obstacles in developing musicianship?

Question #7: Which group has a better chance of succeeding in non-musical careers?

Question #8: Which group has a better understanding of music’s function in society?

Question #9: Which group has the best foundation to create original musical compositions?

Question #10: In general, which group provides more benefit to society?

Appendix Two

Which group has a better chance of succeeding in non-musical careers?

Appendix Three

Which group provides more benefit to society?

Appendix Four

What group knows more about music as a Science?

Appendix Five

What group knows more about music as an art form?

Appendix Six

Which group has the best foundation to create original music compositions?

Appendix Seven

Which group has trained harder and overcome more obstacles in developing musicianship?

Appendix Eight

Which group is more likely to achieve personal satisfaction?

References

Bannister, Matthew (2006). White boys, white noise: masculinities and 1980s indie guitar rock. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Bartel, L. R., & Radocy, R. E. (2002). Trends in data acquisition and knowledge development. In Colwell, R., & Richardson, C., (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, (pp. 1108–1127). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Boslaugh, Sarah and Watters, Paul Andrew (2008). Statistics in a nutshell: A desktop quick reference. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

Bowman, Wayne (2005). Why musical performance? Views praxial to performative. Retrieved March 01, 2011 from http://www.brandonu.ca/music/files/2010/08/Whyx20Musicalx20Performance.pdf

Bradburn N, Sudman S, & Wansink B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cain, Tim (2001). Continuity and progression in music education. In Philpott, C., and Plummeridge, C. (Eds), Issues in music teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods Approaches, (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cresswell, J. & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daly, J., Kellehear, A. & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5(4), 417–436.

Farenga, Pat (1984). Teach your own: The John Holt book of homeschooling. Growing Without Schooling Magazine, no. 4.

Folkestad, Goran (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs. formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–145.

Fornas, J., Lindberg, U. and Sernhede, O. (1995). In garageland: Rock, youth and modernity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gracyk, Theodore (2010). Listening to popular music, or, how I learned to stop worrying and love Led Zeppelin. Ann Arbour, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Green, Lucy (2001). How popular musicians learn: a way ahead for music education. Surrey, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing.

Green, Lucy (2003). Music education, cultural capital, and social group identity. In Clayton, M., Herbert, T., and Middleton, R. (Eds), The cultural study of music: a critical introduction. New York: Routledge (p. 263–273).

Green, Lucy (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Surrey, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing.

Greenawalt, Kent (1995). Private consciences and public reasons. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hewett, Ivan (2003). Music: Healing the rift. New York, NY: Continuum Books.

Hewitt, Thomas W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, INC.

Holt, John (1981). Teach your own: A hopeful path for education. Revised and updated by Patrick Farenga (2003) as Teach your own: The John Holt book of homeschooling. Jackson, TN: Perseus Books Group.