Music teacher education caught between paradigms
Even while critics maintain that the current situation makes higher education a project more than ever, the conditions for adaptability and capacity for change are tied to foundational principles such as pursuing knowledge for its own sake. According to Faust (2007), such values define what has made us human over centuries — not because they improve global competitiveness, but precisely because they do not.
Music teacher education, like the rest of higher education, is trapped between the old priorities of the university and the newer forces of marketization (Naidoo 2005). On one side, governments worldwide have been pressuring universities to alter how teaching, learning, and research take place by introducing market logic. That shift explains why political language around education now includes phrases such as knowledge production, knowledge as a commodity, useful knowledge, and knowledge economy. On the other side, critics of this policy transformation worry that it threatens long-standing values of universities and their craft traditions.
In the space between these two competing worldviews, music teacher education faces serious problems but also retains some room to maneuver. Examining the concept of knowledge seems especially promising for understanding the situation, given how sharply market liberalism clashes with traditional academic and craft-based notions of knowledge. This paper therefore addresses the demands the current climate places on music teacher education and what can be learned from responses so far, all considered through the lens of general philosophy of knowledge.
Despite the shifts in values that have occurred, actual debate about knowledge within music education is almost nonexistent. Previous research has covered the legitimacy of music education in relation to views of knowledge (Varkøy 2001; Johansen 2003), foundations of music education and curriculum theory (Elliott 1995, 2005; Nielsen 1998; Regelski 1996; Reimer 2003), connections between musical knowledge and education (Swanwick 1994), and cognitive skills in music (Davidson & Scripp 1992). Yet surprisingly little attention has gone to what knowledge theory adds to the conversation about music education.
Knowledge and its implications
Knowledge and information
People frequently say that we are moving from an information society toward a knowledge society (Gärdenfors 2003; Korsgaard 1999; UNESCO 2005; Delaty 2001). Knowledge is called a key factor in success. The word itself is a buzzword in political rhetoric about education. Yet what knowledge actually means rarely gets scrutinized. For a productive discussion of what knowledge means and does inside a democracy, clarifying the relationship between information and knowledge is essential if not unavoidable.
The notion that knowledge has a short shelf life, along with the casual swapping of “knowledge society” for “information society,” probably stems from confusing information with knowledge. Intellectual historian Sven-Erik Liedman (2001) has pointed out that information comes from outside — from the internet or books — while knowledge resides in people. Information can be repeated, copied, and memorized by rote; before it can become knowledge, it must be processed, interpreted, and understood. Liedman calls this “the necessary detour taken by knowledge” (Liedman 2001, p. 24).
New knowledge grows out of what we have already experienced, what is familiar, what we already know. That does not make knowledge purely subjective. Every generation must learn everything anew, yet knowledge gets passed on and absorbed into each culture. Facts and information may shift continuously; new discoveries may overturn older theories. Still, the basic laws of arithmetic remain true despite their age, and the theories of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein hold even if later modified. This sort of knowledge Liedman calls “root knowledge” — not a set of basics one can simply know, but knowledge that, once truly grasped by a person, can be put to work in new problems and situations, shaping how that person thinks or acts. As a result, root knowledge can provide orientation, even during periods of great change.
Related ideas appear in Klafki’s (1963) concept of categorial Bildung, with its emphasis on the exemplary and the elementar. Elementar means the smallest yet not simplest building blocks of content that teachers should look for in order to start fruitful learning processes among students. The exemplary ideal holds that knowledge of carefully selected content can be applied to new challenges and situations, orienting learners within their existence. Liedman argues that those who claim knowledge is perishable cannot have reflected thoroughly on what knowledge really means.
Knowledge takes many shapes, and theories of knowledge are expressed in numerous ways. In this discussion, “information” sits close to the lowest level of Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy (Bloom 1956), where “knowledge” means facts the student has memorized and can repeat. In the view presented here, unreflective rote learning produces information; genuine knowledge emerges when information is taken in and processed by an individual. Information and facts contribute to knowledge but are not the same thing.
Forms of knowledge
The classic definition of knowledge found in reference books and used in philosophical debate as well as everyday conversation comes from Plato (427–347 BC). His criteria for distinguishing true and certain knowledge (episteme) from subjective belief or opinion (doxa) have remained influential ever since. While philosophers have never fully agreed with Plato’s definition of knowledge as “justified true belief,” the pursuit of certain and objective knowledge remains the central criterion of science (Gustavsson 2000). Plato’s successor Aristotle (384–322 BC) broadened the debate by introducing various forms of activity and discussing knowledge’s different purposes. Aristotle stated that “truth is the aim of theoretical thought as action is of practical thought” (Aristotle 1998, p. 44). In this way, episteme is set apart from action in two directions.
Episteme stands for knowing — the certain knowledge of how nature, humankind, and the world are constituted and operate. This theoretical pursuit concerns things that humans cannot actually change but can certainly learn about by studying, describing, and explaining. Alongside episteme come techne and phronesis, two forms of action aimed at producing or expressing something, the end product of which is desirable in itself.
Techne is connected to craftsmanship and the processes of creating, manufacturing, and producing. Its defining feature is proficiency — knowing the tools, knowing the materials, knowing how to proceed. But proficiency is not always enough. To build a boat or a house, one not only must follow a design but also exercise judgment. The other form of practical action, phronesis, is interpersonal and linked to ethical, social, and political life. Phronesis concerns attaining “the good” for both individual citizens and the common welfare. Its defining feature is a practical wisdom learned through example, models, and practice in actual situations. Its quality lies in its actions, yet it is not just about absorbing traditions and customs. The ability to judge a situation and determine a meaningful way to proceed demands critical reflection. Phronesis is the acquisition of knowledge that shapes how our characters develop. From the outside, phronesis is a way of acting; from the inside, it is a way of being.
In music teacher education, the operation of episteme, techne, and phronesis can be observed within the musical and educational competences that student music teachers are expected to develop.
When it comes to musical knowledge, recent decades have brought contributions that stress the importance of making music — including listening — as a foundation for understanding theory. The idea is that theoretical insights gained this way then benefit music-making in return. One example is Swanwick’s (1994, p. 41) discussion of the relationship between intuitive knowledge and logical–analytical knowledge. This points toward the need for episteme and techne to reflect each other, with major consequences for planning, executing, and evaluating music teaching and learning. In this context, elements of techne are imperative for student music teachers’ learning outcomes and future career success.
This takes us to the educational knowledge that student music teachers require. Here episteme has traditionally held a strong position; there is no similarly robust tradition of examining it through the lenses of techne and phronesis. That largely depends on the nature of phronesis and techne themselves — to study them systematically would unavoidably mean describing them as episteme. Nonetheless, a rich tradition of expert music teachers exists; they know what to do and how to do it in ways that promote human wisdom and ethics. It is fairly clear that episteme-based perspectives on developmental psychology or motivation theory cannot be turned directly into teaching strategies. In looking for how to apply these in practical teaching, much can be gained by using techne and phronesis as a prism. Besides that, encouraging experience exists with “method systems” such as Jaques-Dalcroze, Orff, Kodály, and Suzuki, in which the techne element in music teaching is balanced by at least a gesture toward phronesis.
If we accept that neither the musical side nor the educational side of music teaching and learning should dominate and that they ought to work together in a close, highly developed manner, then it becomes clear that successful, high-quality music teacher education cannot be determined by the priorities of market-oriented educational policy. At the same time, music teacher education cannot avoid facing such priorities, even if navigating them will expose their shortcomings.
Theoretical and practical knowledge
The boundary between techne and episteme creates problems on many levels. Over the centuries, these terms have consumed each other so that technology has sometimes been synonymous with all things practical — handicraft and production. When people today refer to “practical” matters, they usually mean something tangible. Few have ethical or interpersonal phronesis in mind.
The difficulties at the boundary between techne and episteme affect both the musical and the educational competences that student music teachers are supposed to attain. Aspects of both episteme and techne can be studied separately within an institution, but when everything is put into practice in a classroom full of students, the ethical and interpersonal dimensions become unavoidable. To that extent, there is no such thing as techne without phronesis. The interplay of episteme, techne, and phronesis with the musical and educational sides of music teacher education has consequences for how student music teachers holistically understand their future profession and for the everyday challenges of selecting educational content (Johansen 2007) and choosing working methods. It should be just as clear that these dynamics, principles, and any balance struck between them will look very different in a market-inspired educational discourse compared to one informed by, say, Bildung. A crucial difference is the weight given to knowledge’s intrinsic value by Bildung, as opposed to its merely instrumental potential.
One field where the split between practical and theoretical knowledge has long been especially awkward, and remains so, is art. An artist cannot create an immediately useful product in the way other artisans can, yet the product cannot be tested against scholarly theory either. Like the artisan, the artist achieves results using tools, yet artistic work resembles academic knowledge in its reliance on ideas (Liedman 2001, p. 85). Originally techne meant both art and technology. From the Latin ars to the English and French art, all are translations of the Greek techne. But when “art” and “technology” went their separate ways in the eighteenth century, technology came to mean something very different from art. At times the two are considered direct opposites.
Liedman maintains that all knowledge is practical. Art, he argues, proves that the boundaries between practice and theory are unsustainable. Even if theoretical work depends on texts or manuals, what really counts is the practical ability needed to carry out the actual steps that define the activity. Seen this way, research can also be understood as a practical activity that embraces techne, episteme, and phronesis. Both Wittgenstein (1979) and Marx (1995) set out to show that scholarly work was grounded in everyday life and was a form of practical occupation. For Marx, scholarship is both work and practical activity, even if it is never fully realized as such (Marx 1995). Dewey (1998) puts it this way: the reality of theory exists in and through practice, and the boundary usually drawn between theoretical and practical occupations is outdated.
This highlights the presence of undercommunicated aspects of techne and phronesis within, so to speak, all the episteme content of music teacher education — a problem that becomes especially troublesome if the education is supposed to be research-based. There is an obvious risk that such dimensions will remain undercommunicated if a productivity-oriented concept of knowledge is allowed to dominate.
Rather than reflecting different inherent qualities of types of knowledge, the opposition between theoretical and practical knowledge reflects a gradation from the more refined to the simpler. In ancient Greece, parallel to the division of practical and theoretical knowledge, the idea developed that each theoretical activity depended on skills that had to be practiced. It is through practice that people gradually attain the maturity needed for the noble task of theory. The difference between the observer and the artisan is that the former has advanced much further in development. Practical forms of knowledge have long held a subordinate place, while education has become increasingly intellectualized. Critics argue that this focus on theoretical knowledge leaves both people and essential kinds of knowledge behind (Gustavsson 2000). In reaction to the dominance of intellectual knowledge, a cluster of works appeared — including Schön (1983) and Molander (1993) — that take practical knowledge seriously.
Regarding music, it is in the nature of the art to address the senses and non-verbal knowledge. To experience and understand music we do not need to apply cognitive knowledge. Yet for us to experience music in the first place, it must be created or re-created. The craft element is crucial for musical expression.
The practical, manual, and artistic dimensions of musical knowledge do not relate immediately to intellectual knowledge. At first glance these dimensions make music look quite different from other school subjects. Yet this ars dimension (Nielsen 1998, p. 106) is not the only aspect of music as a subject. A great deal can also be described in words — not least when we teach, trying to offer greater understanding and knowledge about music. Some philosophers of music consider this a roundabout route to musical experience (Reimer 2003). Others note that naming and identifying form a precondition for knowledge and that the interplay of perception and cognition can prevent teaching from becoming too one-sided (Nielsen 1998, p. 111). A third position holds that music must initially be learned as a practical, handicraft, and artistic activity, but that the experiences from those activities must then be reflected on and verbalized. Only when all these forms of knowledge cooperate and mutually reflect each other does “real musical knowledge” occur (Swanwick 1994, p. 41).
Teachers also need a conscious, reflective understanding of what is possible in order to discuss educational choices. Music teacher education thus embraces both artistic and practical knowledge, both manual and theoretical knowledge. Yet the mutual relationships among various forms of knowledge will hardly get good conditions inside a test-based educational system where measurability serves as the ideal.
Many art teachers find the conflicts arising from their subject’s status hard to handle (Georgii-Hemming 2005). Some try to overcome this by designing their teaching to resemble traditional theoretical subjects — a strategy that reflects the well-known legitimating tactic of describing music on other subjects’ terms. Within this line of thought, test- and measurability-oriented discourse offers a way to give status to music. Other teachers do their utmost to emphasize how different music is from theoretical knowledge. Less common is reflecting on, discussing, or testing musical knowledge forms or their position in an educational setting. Yet whether carried out by future music teachers, current teachers, or academic researchers, it is precisely this kind of work that we believe will determine whether attitudes change and whether a developed, democratic view of knowledge emerges.
The value of knowledge
Even in political rhetoric that habitually frames knowledge in terms of competitiveness and productivity, there is often an implicit vagueness. The distinction between knowledge’s value to the individual versus its value to society, democracy, or the broader economy is difficult to define precisely.
We have only briefly touched on the opportunities for a fuller life that knowledge offers the individual. Knowledge also creates context. A well-informed listener, for instance, can discern the structure and character of a piece of music and place it within its wider musical and historical framework. Music education can heighten personal awareness, encourage the exploration and expression of emotion, stimulate creativity, and shape both personal and cultural identity. Democratic music education (Woodford, 2005; Marconi & Stefani, 1987)—one that does not focus solely on the familiar but leads students to encounter music in unfamiliar forms or from different cultures and historical periods—can foster tolerance and openness toward what is perceived as alien (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall forthcoming; Karlsen & Westerlund, 2009; Ruud 1996). In other words, music and musical activities can both express and generate processes of social change (Jorgensen 2003, p. 30). In a very narrow economic sense, the music industry’s value presupposes musicians and producers capable of giving ideas audible form, a contribution music education can make. A broader interpretation of musical knowledge’s economic value includes its health benefits in an era when increasing numbers suffer from stress and burnout.
This raises questions about the relationship between knowledge and meaningfulness in two ways: First, in what ways is knowledge sought for its testability and measurability meaningful to students? And, second, how do forms of knowledge viewed as goods or services for trade or as credits relate to life’s meaning? It is a truism that school prepares students for life and should provide knowledge that enables people to find meaning in their lives. If we find meaning in what we do, we will work harder and remain active longer. These are central priorities for music teacher education, pointing to a wealth of knowledge forms to be developed among student teachers. Should we accept the selections and ascriptions of value that prioritize certain forms over others, based on testing, measurability, and knowledge as a commodity?
At the intersection of music and educational practice—where musical connotations reverberate within a framework of direct and indirect human factors—specific discourses about musical knowledge, teaching, and schooling emerge. Put differently, music as a phenomenon meets the expectations of students, teachers, and society. The question, then, is what qualities musical knowledge possesses and which factors should be central to music education, with clear implications for teacher education’s need to make students aware of these connections.
Music teachers emphasize different aspects of their subject: the student’s personal development, musical craft, the final product, and music’s relationship to society. Most frame their arguments with complex, fluid categories that resist dissection. Moreover, many teachers in other subjects, not just music, tend to view music as a unique discipline unlike others (Nielsen 1998, p. 35). Where such unreflective—and possibly exaggerated—notions hold sway, it becomes difficult to participate in general educational debates, such as the response to a simplistic, market-oriented view of knowledge. A crucial challenge for music education research and teacher training, therefore, is to pause for reflection on the criteria and goals of teaching generally and of the subject specifically.
Within the philosophy of music, music’s value is approached through knowledge and other values that speak both inwardly to music’s unique aesthetic character and outwardly to general terminology and actions. Even those who emphasize its distinctive aesthetic quality incorporate values drawn from beyond the musical realm. As an object, music can refer to various dimensions and meanings—emotional, intellectual, or existential—that share much in common (Reimer 2003). Conversely, it is not self-evident that assertions of music’s value in terms like “exercise” and “process” relate only to external, non-musical values. Elliott (1995) assumes the subject’s unique character but argues that music’s value also lies in musical action. Musical experience and action involve a process of reflection, making music-making a unique source of self-growth and self-knowledge (ibid., p. 121).
Considerations also include how music education can help realize general educational goals in schools. The issue turns on the kind of knowledge and basic outlook we hope will characterize society. The relationship between a widely accepted approach to knowledge and the educational considerations embedded in specific subject content is best described as a problem of justifiability.
If various aspects of knowledge are seen as positive assets without overemphasizing any single one, music becomes a subject that can help balance practical, artistic, and academic knowledge in school, both within itself and in relation to other subjects (Nielsen 1998). Music alone can satisfy several needs, but it also serves a function simply by demonstrating that different forms of human knowledge can be brought together. That the essence of art, especially music, can never be fully translated into language does not mean they are incompatible; rather, they are two forms of knowledge that can enrich each other. Supporting Swanwick’s (1994) argument about the mutual reinforcement of intuitive and logical-analytical knowledge, Liedman (2001) holds that discussion and reflection on an artistic experience can yield “an ever richer canopy of associations” and “strands of thought”—far more refined tools for understanding cultural expression. “Art is a branch of knowledge both for its creators and for its audience,” writes Liedman (ibid., p. 75).
Being a professional music teacher requires a personal, nuanced, and articulated view of the subject’s mission and value. However, research shows that rather than legitimizing teaching through a consciously intellectual approach to knowledge, the focus is on ideas of what, why, or whom music is good for (Nielsen 1998, p. 73). Teachers are accustomed to relying on their own professional experience, depending on ideas rarely linked to curriculum guidelines, music education theory, or socio-political rhetoric (Georgii-Hemming 2005; Johansen 2003 p. 376). Given the current public debate on schools and education, in which the term knowledge is heavily used and music education courses appear under threat, we argue that music teacher training, music education, and the philosophy of music urgently need engaging discussions about the forms of musical knowledge and music’s true value.
Concluding remarks
For centuries, many thinkers expressed the hope that economic and scientific progress, technological development, human freedom, art’s riches, and a democratic society would harmonize. In reality—within schools, universities, and professional or social life—the outcome has been rather different. Social development overwhelmingly prioritizes the economy, science, and technology, leaving freedom, art, and democracy to make their own way, their existence justified only by their contribution to societal progress.
The alliance among economy, technology, and exact science is strong—each depends on the other for continued development (Liedman 1997, pp. 537–541)—and their purpose-made knowledge is justified by its role in improving global living conditions. Yet this alliance hardly seems the answer to human freedom, art, democracy, or a fully lived life and sustainable development for future generations. First, we have irrefutable evidence—from philosophy to plain facts—of its unwanted consequences: nuclear weapons, pollution, global warming, and the collapse of the world economy. Second, in education, it often proves self-defeating. One example is the commercial sector’s demand for creativity, flexibility, and adaptability, which starkly contrasts with the narrow-minded, conformist education that results from an emphasis on measurability, testing, and standardized knowledge.
The demand for a form of knowledge oriented toward productivity and profitability not only undermines its own goals but also dismisses vital and deeply human values—knowledge that promises a richer existence and inspires wisdom and insight. All this requires time and thought. The only viable response is to advocate for the acceptance of many and varied forms of knowledge and to ensure a deeper understanding of knowledge’s function gets higher priority.
Artistic and musical knowledge have no fixed form, even if they rely on institutions to confirm what they are. Their worth is constantly questioned. Recognizing musical knowledge’s value alongside economic rationality and more “precise” forms of knowledge is essentially a public concern. There is no prescription for achieving this balance, but resignation is not an option. We know humanity depends on technological, scientific, and economic advancement, but we also know that humans are creative and interpretive beings.
Democracy, it is often said, must be constantly defended and cannot be learned in the same way as memorizing capital cities. Its meaning and value are learned through growing up in a culture of openness, tolerance, and the courage to speak out. Similarly, art must be continually mastered and reshaped; its meaning and promise demand ongoing configuration and problematization.
Current educational policy, fixed on production-oriented “results,” must be resisted. It is unlikely that the unholy alliance of economics, technology, and science will lead this resistance; it will fall to others to decide how best to engage. This debate represents one of the most pressing challenges for music education and philosophy today. For that reason, it is a vital priority in educating tomorrow’s music teachers.
References
Aristotle (1998). The metaphysics. Trans. Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Books. Bloom, Benjamin S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. Davidson, Lyle & Scripp, Larry (1992). Surveying the coordinates of Cognitive Skills in Music. In Colwell, Richard (ed.): Handbook of research on Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Schirmer Books. Delaty, Gerard (2001). The University in the Knowledge Society. Organization, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 149-153. Dewey, John (1998). The essential Dewey. Vol. 1, Pragmatism, education, democracy. Elliott, David J. (Ed.). (2005). Praxial Music Education: Reflections and Dialogues. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, David J. (1995). Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Faust, Drew (2007). Installation address: Unleashing our most ambitious imaginings. http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/faust/071012_installation.html. Retrieved at April 15, 2009. Georgii-Hemming, Eva & Westwall, Maria (forthcoming). Music – A personal matter? Examining the current Discourses of Music Education in Sweden. Georgii-Hemming, Eva (2005). Berättelsen under deras fötter: fem musiklärares livshistorier. Diss. Örebro : Örebro universitet, 2005. Gustavsson, Bernt (2000). Kunskapsfilosofi: tre kunskapsformer i historisk belysning. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Gärdenfors, Peter (2003 [1996]). Fängslande information. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Natur och kultur. Johansen, Geir (2007). Didaktik and the selection of content as points of departure for studying the quality of teaching and learning. Quality in Higher Education, 13 (3); 249-261. Johansen, Geir. (2003). Musikkfag, lærer og læreplan: En intervjuundersøkelse av læreres fagopfatning i musikk og en ny læreplans påvirkning på denne. Diss. Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole. Jorgensen, Estelle R. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press. Karlsen, Sidsel & Westerlund, Heidi (2009). Immigrant Students’ Development of Musical Agency – A Theoretical Framework. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education, July 5 – 9, University of Limerick, Ireland. Klafki, W., 1963, Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Weinheim: Verlag Julius Beltz. Korsgaard, Ove (1999). Kundskabskapløbet: uddannelse i videnssamfundet. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Liedman, Sven-Eric (2001). Ett oändligt äventyr. Om människans kunskaper. Stockholm: Bonnier. Liedman, Sven-Eric (1997). I skuggan av framtiden. Modernitetens idéhistoria. Stockholm: Bonnier. Marconi, Luca & Stefani, Gino (eds.) (1987). Il senso in musica: antologia di semiotica musicale. Bologna: CLUEB.