当前位置: X-MOL 学术Fontes Artis Musicae › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education ed. by David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson (review)
Fontes Artis Musicae Pub Date : 2021-07-22
Michael Gale

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

  • The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education ed. by David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson
  • Michael Gale
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education. Edited By David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. [xx, 550 p. ISBN 978-0-190-26518-2. £110]

Of all the issues faced by music educators today, the question of assessment is perhaps the thorniest. Few topics provoke as much impassioned polemic, and this collection of twenty-seven essays by contributors from across the globe certainly makes no apology for that. This book is unashamedly ideological in tone, espousing the 'praxial philosophy' outlined by David J. Elliott in his influential Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). For Elliott, music education should be a fundamentally experiential (rather than theoretically grounded) world, and the meanings and values attached to musical activity are inescapably contextually and socially defined. This vision is incompatible with the standards-based assessment protocols that, according to Elliott and his co-editors here, have been imposed upon modern-day educators through an increasingly dominant state-led neoliberal agenda. As a result, the testing of students now frequently eclipses all other considerations, not least the nurturing of creativity and self-exploration.

This substantial volume is divided into four sections: the first ('Foundational Considerations') presents the editors' introduction and six further essays, followed by three sets of case studies gathered under rather loose headings ('Methodological Practices', 'Creativity', and 'International Perspectives') to form a set of lively and (mostly) engaging writings. Together, they offer a remarkably unified philosophical credo, providing contrasting snapshots of educational practice from areas as diverse as Australia, Iran, Nepal, Scandinavia, South Africa, and the U.S. A broad range of professional specialisms is explored, including classroom-based teaching, whole-class instrumental instruction, music therapy, special needs education, and beyond.

In their introductory essay, the editors immediately nail their ideological colours to the mast, revealing the three key premises that underpinned their conception of this volume:

  1. 1). 'musics are made by and for people', and all musical activities are 'social endeavors and encounters' (p. 15)—ideas which are both central to Elliott's praxial philosophy.

  2. 2). music is part of everyday human experience, so music education should emphasise the processes and activities of musicmaking rather than treating musical works themselves as objects for veneration (p. 16).

  3. 3). music encompasses a wide range of diverse values which are 'invariably grounded in social experience'; music is contextually defined, and these values are 'functions of its service to various human needs and interests' (p. 17).

[End Page 185] Following this, the remaining essays in Part 1 spell out a firm consensus, using a variety of philosophical and theoretical tools to echo and amplify the editors' distaste for prevailing models of testing and assessment. In Chapter 2, 'Institutional Music Education and Ranking as a Form of Subjectification: The Merits of Resistance and Resilience', Lise C. Vaugeois makes a powerful case for viewing ranking and grading as mechanisms for social division and control, while Kathryn Jourdan and John Finney (Chapter 3) fruitfully bring the philosophical ideas of Emmanuel Levinas to bear upon their rather exasperated observations on standard assessment practices in U.K. classrooms. Jourdan and Finney rightly challenge the narrowness of a mode of learning shaped primarily by exam board-defined questioning—but, like many of the chapters in this book, they stop short of offering far-reaching practical solutions to this pervasive problem.

In Chapter 4, 'The Primacy of Experience: Phenomenology, Embodiment, and Assessments in Music Education', Andrea Schiavio is also guilty of this same sleight of hand. After sharing a provocative vision of musical learning that embraces embodied knowledge (as well as cognitive), and intersubjective interactions of various kinds (pp. 74–75), Schiavio eventually retreats, stating simply that 'the development of such new music assessment approaches goes beyond the limitations of this chapter' (p. 76). Drawing this opening group of essays to a close, Lauren Kapalka Richerme's invocation of poststructuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze (Chapter 7), also squirms uncomfortably in this hinterland between theory and practice, outlining...



中文翻译:

牛津音乐教育哲学和定性评估手册编辑。作者:David J. Elliott、Marissa Silverman 和 Gary E. McPherson(评论)

代替摘要,这里是内容的简短摘录:

审核人:

  • 牛津音乐教育哲学和定性评估手册编辑。作者:David J. Elliott、Marissa Silverman 和 Gary E. McPherson
  • 迈克尔·盖尔
牛津音乐教育哲学和定性评估手册。由 David J. Elliott、Marissa Silverman 和 Gary E. McPherson 编辑。纽约:牛津大学出版社,2019 年。 [xx,550 页。ISBN 978-0-190-26518-2。110 英镑]

在当今音乐教育者面临的所有问题中,评估问题可能是最棘手的。很少有话题能引起如此激烈的争论,这本由来自全球各地的撰稿人撰写的 27 篇论文合集当然不会为此道歉。这本书在语气​​上毫不掩饰意识形态,拥护大卫·J·艾略特在他有影响力的音乐问题:音乐教育的新哲学中概述的“实践哲学”(纽约:牛津大学出版社,1995 年)。对于艾略特来说,音乐教育应该是一个从根本上体验(而不是理论基础)的世界,音乐活动的意义和价值不可避免地是由情境和社会定义的。这种愿景与基于标准的评估协议不相容,根据埃利奥特和他在此的共同编辑的说法,这些协议是通过日益占主导地位的国家主导的新自由主义议程强加给现代教育工作者的。因此,现在对学生的测试经常使所有其他考虑因素黯然失色,尤其是创造力和自我探索的培养。

这本庞大的卷分为四个部分:第一部分(“基本考虑”)介绍了编辑的介绍和六篇其他文章,然后是三组案例研究,标题相当松散(“方法论实践”、“创造力”和'国际视角')形成一组生动且(主要)引人入胜的着作。它们共同提供了一个非常统一的哲学信条,提供了来自澳大利亚、伊朗、尼泊尔、斯堪的纳维亚、南非和美国等不同地区的教育实践的对比快照。探索了广泛的专业领域,包括课堂教学,全班乐器教学、音乐治疗、特殊需要教育等。

在他们的介绍性文章中,编辑们立即将他们的意识形态色彩钉在了桅杆上,揭示了支撑他们对本书构想的三个关键前提:

  1. 1)。“音乐是由人们创造并为人们创造的”,所有音乐活动都是“社会努力和遭遇”(第 15 页)——这两者都是艾略特实践哲学的核心思想。

  2. 2)。音乐是人类日常体验的一部分,因此音乐教育应强调音乐创作的过程和活动,而不是将音乐作品本身视为崇拜对象(第 16 页)。

  3. 3)。音乐包含广泛多样的价值观,这些价值观“总是以社会经验为基础”;音乐是根据语境定义的,这些价值是“其服务于各种人类需求和兴趣的功能”(第 17 页)。

[第185页结束]在此之后,第 1 部分中的其余文章阐明了一个坚定的共识,使用各种哲学和理论工具来回应和放大编辑对流行的测试和评估模型的厌恶。在第 2 章“作为一种主体化形式的机构音乐教育和排名:抵抗和弹性的优点”中,Lise C. Vaugeois 提出了一个强有力的案例,将排名和评分视为社会分工和控制的机制,而 Kathryn Jourdan 和 John Finney(第 3 章)富有成效地将 Emmanuel Levinas 的哲学思想应用于他们对英国课堂标准评估实践的相当恼怒的观察。Jourdan 和 Finney 正确地挑战了主要由考试委员会定义的提问形成的学习模式的狭隘性——但是,

在第 4 章“经验的首要地位:音乐教育中的现象学、具体化和评估”中,Andrea Schiavio 也犯了同样的伎俩。在分享了包含具身知识(以及认知)和各种主体间互动(第 74-75 页)的音乐​​学习的挑衅性愿景之后,Schiavio 最终退缩了,简单地说“这种新音乐评估方法的发展超出本章的限制”(第 76 页)。将这组开头的文章画上句号,劳伦·卡帕尔卡·里彻姆 (Lauren Kapalka Richerme) 对后结构主义哲学家吉尔·德勒兹 (Gilles Deleuze) 的引用(第 7 章)也在理论与实践之间的这个腹地不安地蠕动着,概述了……

更新日期:2021-07-22
down
wechat
bug