Research Questions
1. What assessments for musical growth can be found in the
literature?
MI literature was
examined for content inclusive of comments about both musical
intelligence and music assessment (of any kind). The majority was
intended to provide practical ideas for implementing MI theory in
the elementary classroom. The intended audience was elementary
educators.
2. What are MI parents', students', and teachers'
perceptions of musical growth?
The question required an
examination of the music activities and assessments, if
any, at Evergreen School. Fifty-four parents or sets of parents
provided
information about their perceptions of musical intelligence and
learning on a researcher developed questionnaire. Teachers and
the school principal provided artifacts such as lesson plans,
tape recordings and word sheets to songs for researcher
analysis. Each teacher allowed several observations of music
activities and other learning tasks and participated in three or
four interviews. Their classrooms became the social settings in
question and their responses to interview questions formed the
basis for focusing the data.
Students participated in
music activities during class observations. In addition, fifteen
students were individually interviewed and asked about their
music activities and their thoughts on music learning. Their
responses and behaviors became the basis for analysis of student
perceptions at Evergreen School.
Targeted areas of inquiry were: 1)perceptions of musical
intelligence as a
construct, 2)musical growth and 3)assessment of musical growth.
Students, teachers and parents contributed conflicting
information, at times. The researcher compared information
provided by the participants with observed behaviors and
artifacts. These comparisons formed the basis for interpreting
the data.
3. How are the
assessments provided by the representative models in MI
literature demonstrated in an existing Central Florida MI
school?
This
question called for a comparison of the music assessments in the
MI literature and the participants' perceptions about the
role of musical intelligence in the curricula. Perceptions about
MI theory, music integration, musical growth, assessment of
musical growth and the school's political climate were all
important areas of study and findings. Since formal assessment
practices did not exist, perceptions were examined for insight
into the value teachers hold for music activities and experiences.
Music-related practices
in an existing Central Florida MI school were compared to the
representative model MI schools in educational literature across
several factors. Those factors include: amount of time spent on
music activities, use of assessment rubrics or other instruments,
types of activities, selected, (i.e. instrumental improvisation,
listening to music recordings); and teacher experience and
training. Further investigation into teachers' experience
with MI training; teachers and parents understanding of MI; and
students' teachers' and parents' perceptions of
musical intelligence was used to complete the portrait of music
learning in an MI school.
Rationale for
Qualitative Methodology in MI Research
At the outset of this
research in 1996, assessment of musical growth in MI schools was
sought as an answer to the question of what evidence Central
Florida's MI schools could provide of musical growth.
Teachers were unaware of National Standards or
Sunshine State Standards in the area of music. The standards
were
quite new and had not become compulsory in education at that
time. Comparison of music activities with the achievement levels
described in the standards proved inappropriate, since
participating teachers had no knowledge of the standards.
At Trailblazer School,
teachers revealed insights about their learning theories
and
their perceptions of music's role in education. This
phase
of the study allowed participants to raise and discuss
questions
about Gardner's theory, the importance of music, the
impact
of the parents on the curriculum and the students'
perspectives. The teachers' insights and the two-way
nature of the contact with participants yielded data that
better
illuminated the essence of the role of music, than the more
quantifiable checklist used in the first phase of the
study. "In
field-focused research into education, teachers'
narratives, including their beliefs and their theories,
comprise
the questions that researchers investigate in order to
understand
the setting" (Letoruneau-Fallon, 1996; Liess and Ritchie,
1995).
The inclusion of
the
perceptions of research participants has been established
as
useful information in qualitative methodology. The
perceived
importance of music integration was investigated by Waibel
(1998)
in a study of elementary curriculum targeting
teachers'
perceptions. "The research on teacher thinking
generally
agrees that teachers' personal theories and beliefs
serve
as the basis for classroom practice and curriculum decision
making, yet the nature of this relationship is not well
understood" (Ross, Cornett and McCutcheon, 1992).
The
understanding obtained from the perceptions and insights of
teachers, students and parents helps clarify the relational
aspects of the school as a culture. The role of musical
intelligence is described here through an examination of
the
relationships between all of the influencing factors in the
curriculum. Those factors include the people, their
perceptions
and the setting in which the learning occurs.
While
teacher/researcher
authored studies on MI implementation in elementary schools
have
been established as accepted research in MI literature,
musical
growth is not addressed in any of the case studies or
reports
from the field. This study provided a missing perspectives
on
music learning in a Central Florida MI school by including
qualitative methodology, case study data collection and
descriptive, comparative analysis.
Research Question One: MI Literature
Although
assessment is a
key component of MI (Gardner, 1993), a review of existing
literature suggested confusion over the assessment of
musical
intelligence. In the theory of Multiple Intelligences,
Gardner's view differed from earlier theories about
intelligence, because his theory included the idea that
intelligences can be developed through schooling (Gardner,
1983). Therefore, musical intelligence is more than an
innate
ability, and would logically require some evaluation or
measurement of progress for purposes of quality and
accountability.
Very few studies
focusing on music activities and their corresponding
assessments
were evident in MI literature, yet suggestions of music
activities often appeared in accounts of and articles about
MI
learning. Gardner did not advocate assessing every lesson
or
intelligence without regard to context or content.
"The
intelligences must be seen at work when individuals are
carrying
out productive activities that are valued in a
culture"
(1995b p. 207).
Rubrics for
musical
assessment generally focused on assessing students'
utilization of music to master non-musical content (e.g.
Bellanca, Chapman and Swartz, 1994; and Campbell et al.,
1999).
Gardner participated in Project Spectrum, a research study
designed to determine whether young children have distinct
profiles of ability that included assessments in music
ability
(Hatch and Gardner, 1996). The testing did not attempt to
measure growth, but was used to examine the influence of
context
in reasoning process. One other assessment model, The
Teele
Inventory of Multiple Intelligences was used to demonstrate
abilities in dominant intelligences, but not to determine
musical
growth (Teele, 1996).
One portion of the
MI
literature included works by music educators or advocates
of
quality music and arts programs, and featured repeated
concerns
about the surface applications of music activities, the
context
of musical learning in integrated and arts-infused
settings, and
misconceptions about the assessment of musical growth. The
placement of these articles in journals such as Teaching
Music and Music Educators Journal points to
music
educators as the intended audience for these writings in
most
cases (Colwell and Davidson, 1996, Kassell, 1998, Hinckley,
1998,
Mallonee, 1997, Vincent and Merrion, 1990).
In the MI
literature
available to and referenced by Evergreen faculty,
assessment of
musical growth was not established as a viable goal for MI
educators who wish to help their students develop their
musical
intelligence. Even where musical outcomes were expected,
such as
to "accompany a recorded song with an
instrument"
(Campbell, et. al., 1999), no measurement or evaluation of
that
ability or the improvement of that ability is included.
Assessments of musical growth, which help to determine the
progress of a student's ability to read, perform,
create or
analyze music were not found in the MI literature from 1983
to
1999.
Research
Question
Two: Music Activities
Parents and
teachers answered questions in the three targeted areas of
perceptions about music used in their children's classes
via the
questionnaire. (See Appendix.) Teachers and students
provided
this information in interviews and observations.
Activities
Parents guessed or
assumed that instrumental activities were a regular part of
the
classroom experience, when in fact such experiences rarely
occurred. While parents correctly reported that their
children
were singing (90%), listening to recorded music (60%), and
in
some cases responding to recorded music with actions or
dance
(25%), many parents incorrectly reported that their
children were
playing musical instruments (35%). In fact, teachers
reported
almost no instrumental activities, with only one of the
teachers
using any kind of musical instruments more than once per
school
year.
Parents and
teachers
indicated great value for exposure to a variety of music
and
music listening as important experiences for developing
musical
intelligence. Misconceptions about the variety of music
and the
type of listening experiences were indicated in parent
responses
and teacher interviews. These two groups reported that
their
children (students) were engaging in listening activities
and
that they were listening to a variety of music.
Observation and
artifact analysis determined that this was not the case,
and that
teachers and parents did not make a distinction between
background music and music listening, and that recordings
were
usually similar in style.
Teachers placed
great
importance on the music played in the background during
class,
called focus music. Teachers played focus music in order
to
"put children in the alpha state," hoping to
improve
standardized achievement test scores. During the data
collection
period, one teacher evaluated her students' writing
in the
FCAT practice tests and concluded that students were
"writing better." After the actual test, the
third
grade students scored lower than the previous year's
third
grade class. The teacher attributed the drop in scores to
the
testing prompt.
During the
interviews,
teachers provided additional information about the impact
of the
FCAT tests. The school principal prioritized the test
scores,
and teachers reported changes or limitations in music
activities
as a result of the new priority.
Students were, by
teacher accounts, extremely accurate in naming the musical
activities that had occurred during the data collection
period.
Kindergarten and first grade interviewees did not remember
one-time music activities as well as the older children,
but did
accurately report daily singing, their most frequent
musical
activity. Older children accurately reported focus
(background)
music every day and singing occasionally. Students did not
remember titles of songs sung occasionally or seasonally,
although they provided much information about the academic
content from the songs. All but one child reported great
enjoyment for the musical activities and felt that the
activities
were very important.
Musical Growth and Assessment
Parents and
teachers held vastly different views on how teachers
determined
what students were learning and to whom this information
was
provided. Although both groups felt that students were
learning
musical skills, no formal assessment of students'
musical
ability or musical growth was used. Only 19% of parents
felt
that parents were given feedback by the teacher and 26% of
parents felt that neither the child nor parents were given
teacher feedback on musical projects. All four teachers
disagreed and reported that feedback was provided to
students,
with two of the four reporting that feedback was also
provided to
parents. Most teachers and parents indicated that they
thought
children were learning musical skills in their elementary
classrooms, although they did not identify specific skills
learned. Although neither teachers nor parents addressed
musical
growth in their comments and answers, their responses to
this
area indicate that musical intelligence is developed by
exposure
to a variety of styles and musical experiences.
Students
were asked what they had learned from their musical
activities.
Songs were the richest source of learning for them. Third
grade
children were specific in their list of academic content
learned
through the music. Pilgrims, polar bears, animals,
recycling,
earth care, the diet of Hawaiians, the number of people on
the
Titanic, and Christmas customs in other countries were all
listed. Some children distinguished what they learned
musically,
from non-musical learning. They often demonstrated their
abilities for the interviewer, singing, and naming musical
terms
such as line and space notes, rhythms, loud and soft
sounds.
When asked how teachers could tell what they had learned
from
their musical activities, only three children were able to
answer. One student reported "she can tell by the
look in
our eyes," while the other two guessed that
"she
keeps track on a paper or something."
Research Question 3: The Role of Music
Answering
questions about the importance of music as an intelligence,
57%
of parents stated that some of the intelligences are more
important than others. This group listed the intelligences
they
considered to be the more important. Their most frequent
choices
were verbal (55%) and mathematical (62%) intelligences.
Musical
intelligence was the fifth most frequent response. While
94% of
parents indicated that musical activities should be part of
the
elementary classroom, their reasons varied greatly. Most
common
was that music helps children memorize or learn academic
content,
but parents also cited enjoyment of learning and relaxation
as
reasons for inclusion. Several parents also stated that
music
was important because it was in the curriculum. Exposure
to a
variety of music was parents' most frequent response
to
what constitutes a valuable music experience, with
instrument
play as the second most frequent. Parents clearly
believed that
their children were listening to music and playing
instruments
regularly in their classes.
Teachers all
agreed
that it was very important for children to develop musical
intelligence, although the common belief was that
strengthening
one intelligence strengthens the other intelligences. One
teacher qualified her answer with this remark. "It
may not
be as practical as some of the other intelligences. If you
work
in a factory, you need more verbal and analytical skills.
Musical intelligence isn't going to get you that
job." This teacher cited verbal and interpersonal
as the
two most important intelligences, but for her students,
logical-mathematical intelligence was important as well,
because
"the curriculum calls for more mathematical
intelligence." Another teacher disagreed with the
curriculum, stating that the "musical activities have
to be
justified academically because of the benchmarks."
In her
first grade classroom, development of new music activities
ceased
due to her understanding of the priorities set at the
district
level.
Discussion
The concept of musical
growth was defined by the researcher, but never used by
teachers
unless directly asked. While parents and teachers felt
confident
that musical skills and knowledge were being learned in the
participating classrooms, musical growth was neither
identified
or evaluated by them. Teachers reported no assessment of
musical
growth and agreed that there had been no effort to
explicitly
teach musical skills, yet felt that students had learned
musical
skills. Student perceptions about assessment of musical
growth
reflect the emphasis on academic content, even during
musical
activities. All Evergreen participants appeared to hold
vague
notions regarding the need to assess all the
intelligences.
Since assessments in the literature exist only for purposes
of
measuring ability (Hatch and Gardner, 1996) or for
measuring
academic content learned (Armstrong, 1994; Bellanca Chapman
and
Schwartz, 1994, Campbell et al., 1999; Duval and Mark,
1994;
Marks-Tarlow, 1996; Smagorinsky, 1995), it is not
surprising that
teachers did not address the content of musical
intelligence. The
omission of assessment rubrics designed to measure musical
growth
in classrooms could be related to the omission of the same
in the
MI literature. Teachers felt that the most influential
factor in
their decisions about assessment was the current political
climate at the school and in the school district. Another
influencing factor may have been the perceptions by
parents,
teachers and administrators that inclusion of music
experiences
would necessarily stimulate musical growth.
In the MI
literature,
one suggestion for background music includes the use of
Mozart's music and music at extremely low volumes
(Campbell, D. 1998). Such activities are intended to
engage the
learners in the musical or academic material at hand. The
activities involving recorded music observed at Evergreen
School
were more passive in nature; primarily focus music. During
passive music experiences, no musical skills were required
on the
part of students.
Teachers played
the
Mozart music frequently, at extremely low volumes, yet
children
did not demonstrate any knowledge of the composers, titles
or
stylistic descriptions of background music. Teachers
also
played what they considered to be educational songs such as
"The Silent E Song" and "Alligators All
Around." One of the teachers played several
varieties of
popular music in short excerpts. The Native American Drum
beat,
as it was identified, was found in one classroom and used
to
create a sound buffer between the classroom and other
nearby
classes. Teachers, parents and students did not
distinguish
listening to music from background or focus
music.
Singing, was the
most
frequent activity identified as musical. The singing
observed in
classrooms was always led by the teachers, and in low
registers.
Using a tuning fork, the researcher determined the
approximate
pitch range for most songs as the octave from E below
middle C,
to E above middle C. Developmentally, this range is far
below
appropriate singing registers for children (Campbell and
Scott-Kassner, 1995, p. 128). The passive music
experiences did
not serve to teach music concepts, singing skills or
musical
content.
Context of Musical Learning
Kathy Kassell, a researcher of music and multiple
intelligences,
expressed concern that "much of the MI literature
suggests
exercises that link memorizing academic content with
rhythms or
simple songs; it suggests that music is simply a tool for
enhancing memory." Gardner, (1995b, p. 207)
expressed
similar concerns about the use of intelligences to drill
students, calling such activities a lack of "genuine
or
performance understandings, and makes the uses of the
intelligences essentially trivial." The
inappropriate
singing range of Evergreen participants, and the use of
music as
activities, instead of the context of musical problems or
situations are examples of Kassell's and
Gardner's
concerns represented in the school studied.
Reimer's description of the diverse roles found in
the
domain of music (1998) affirms the importance of musical
context
for developing musical intelligence. Even Gardner's
critics (Eisner 1994) noted the importance of context in
developing intelligences. From the participating
teachers'
own accounts, it appears that this portion of MI literature
has
not reached the audience of elementary teachers who are
including
music in their MI classes.
While
MI
literature included some of Gardner's own reflections
and
revisions of his theory (Gardner, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 2000;
Gardner and Hatch, 1995), most of the theorizing of this
type has
been left out of mainstream educational journals. None of
the
concerns from arts educators, the criticism from scholars
or the
disturbances that Gardner wrote about appear in the MI
books for
teachers.
In all
classes, the integration of music was reported, but did not
meet
conventional requirements for integrating learning in the
arts
(Ackerman and Perkins, 1989; Campbell and Scott-Kassner,
1995, p.
376). At Evergreen School, the scheduling of music and art
classes taught by specialists was reduced from one 45
minute
period per week to one 45 minute period every other week
during
the study. The principal felt that more time could be
spent on
academics in preparation for the FCAT tests since teachers
were
integrating musical intelligence in their classrooms. This
decision affected twenty-four classes in all six grade
levels,
yet only six classes in the entire school reported
inclusion of
musical activities more than once per year.
Political
Climate
Due a
restructuring of
personnel at the district level, the priorities set for
individual schools were determined by the new district
administration. After the restructuring occurred, the
training
for teachers and support for their MI studies was
terminated.
Teachers felt that they had to limit the "MI"
activities to allow time for more activities that could be
justified academically. This seems to represent a failure
to
perceive the work of MI as a way of approaching academics
and a
resort to earlier models of teach and test that Gardner was
trying to help educators disband. School reform requires
significant support from administrators, and a new approach
to
teaching is a form of school change. Without administrator
support for an extended period of time, school change is
known to
fail.
Certainly, public
school
administrators, parents and teachers would all be concerned
about
standardized test scores and the severe consequences of
failure.
Parents and teachers frequently justified the importance of
academic subjects by deferring to the curriculum –
one
established by their administrators. Their concerns, as
well as
the fact that they had not been trained to assess growth in
all
areas of intelligence are as important as their perceptions
about
musical intelligence. Leaving the teachers to voluntarily
implement MI any way they wished, shows a clear lack of
commitment to ongoing support necessary for teacher
change.
Recommendations
Based on
this research, several recommendations are suggested for
promoting the role of musical intelligence at Evergreen
School.
Preparation for MI Educators
Participating teachers suggested improvement in training
and
materials, as well as clear leadership from
administrators. In
their MI training, they learned how to design learning
activities
for all of the intelligences, but did not learn how to
correlate
those activities with the Sunshine State Standards
benchmarks for learning. The teachers felt that although
the
test scores could be improved by teaching to all of the
intelligences, most of them felt that training was needed
to
learn the standards and to design effective activities.
Materials and training for teachers interested in an
integrative
curriculum need to be available.
Contributions to
MI
literature are needed from the arts community in order to
help
teachers and parents define the role of musical
intelligence
based on a common understanding of what it is. Books and
articles about MI intended for elementary teachers often
leave
readers with the impression that any use of music in the
classroom is helpful for developing musical intelligence.
Such
materials emphasize music as an entry point, rather than a
body
of content as well.
Some teachers may
not
understand the differences between entry point and content
approaches to music or other intelligences in elementary
classes. Inadequate preparation in any one intelligence
may
reinforce its place as a frill or non-essential part of the
curriculum. This unfortunate reality which stems from
limited
training and understanding, may cause true change not to
occur.
Teachers who continue assessing only the subject area
academic
content do not show any evidence of change from more
traditional
treatment of both intelligence and assessment.
Teachers also need
"how-to" materials in which appropriate music
activities and assessments are provided. In order to
accurately
determine whether or not students are growing musically,
teachers
need music assessment strategies that are included in their
publications about MI. Teachers relied upon readily
available
curriculum materials, good or bad, for music activities.
They
expressed that they were unable to spend enough time
learning
about related music for their music activities, yet would
like to
continue improving the musical intelligence areas in their
curricula.
If a music
specialist can only work with students once every two weeks, then
teachers need to understand musical skills and knowledge well
enough to help their students think musically about music
activities and experiences. Teachers indicated a desire to grow
and learn about developing musical intelligence, but needed
assistance from an appropriate trusted source. If the only music
experiences children have are passive, such as focus sessions,
they will not grow in their abilities to read, perform, create or
analyze music. The music specialist's role could be
redefined, in such a situation, serving as a consultant to assist
teachers in planning their music activities.
Beyond the music
specialist's help, teachers need instruction during
pre-service and workshop training in how to create enabling
conditions for musical thinking. Differences in musical
and
non-musical contexts should be explored during these
training
opportunities to help MI teachers discover ways to instruct
children in the use of instruments and assess their music
making
and singing for musical growth. Students could benefit
from
teachers' training by undertaking thoughtfully
integrated
music activities. Effective integration would integrate
musical
content, musical skills needed or practiced, and
performance
assessments appropriate to musical tasks.
Music and arts
education
advocates need to bridge the gap between what elementary
teachers
and parents read and what members of the arts community
read by
writing for elementary educational journals and training
materials. The MI literature has not integrated concern
for arts
education with implementation of multiple intelligences
focused
education. If this were accomplished, strategies for
integration, rather than mere infusion of music activities
and
experiences might be more available to MI teachers.
Parents
might also become more interested in music activities and
more
involved with the assessment of musical growth.
Music Learning
Environment
Conditions
supportive to musical learning must be provided and
supported by
teachers, administrators and parents if students are able
to grow
musically, and to develop musical intelligence. Creative
thinking requires enabling conditions (Webster, 1994). Time
allotted for both music class with the specialist and music
activities integrated in the classroom needs to be great
enough
for children to engage in active involvement with music,
rather
than passive experience of background music during non-
musical
tasks. Instruments, songbooks, stereo equipment,
recordings and
instruments need to be available in all classrooms for
optimum
use. In order for teachers to create a context for musical
learning, proper equipment is essential.
Finally, the
commitment
to an MI focus in the curriculum needs to be fully
supported by
the principal and in the school district. Teachers,
although
they had received training in MI expressed concerns about
their
own lack of musical intelligence. Training for those
teachers,
emphasizing music activities and assessments is needed in
order
to strengthen MI teachers' musical skills, and their
confidence
in music.
Teachers' perceptions of musical growth are complex
and are
informed not only by their operational learning theories
(Wilson,
1999) or backgrounds, but by district and school support of
musical growth. Parents' perceptions are likely to
be
affected by the emphasis voiced by the school's
principal
and teachers. Students' perceptions are based on
their
daily experiences, and largely reflect the perceptions of
their
parents and teachers. The triangulation of data from all
three
sources lent consensual validity to the study, however, the
small
number of participants limits the generalizability of the
findings.
In order to
transfer some of the research findings to other settings,
the development of a survey instrument inquiring about
particular conditions in an MI school would be helpful. A survey
using the findings from this study of the major factors influencing
the role of music could be used as a basis for the questions.
Evidence of MI training that includes materials designed by
arts
educators, appropriate facilities and time allotments for
music
learning, and commitment to MI from school and district
administration are all relevant areas that could be
identified
through the survey. Results of the study might be helpful
in
formulation of MI schools and schools that wanted to
promote the
role of music.
Conclusion
This study
provides
evidence an ineffective model of musical growth and
assessment,
as a result of developing elementary curricula based on
MI. The
idea of separate musical intelligence is so new for many
educators and parents that it is not yet affecting policy
change
or parent expectation. Administrators are required to
serve the
higher authority of district leaders and taxpaying
citizens, who
may be unaware of MI or its impact on the current
curriculum. In
addition, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about
the
meaning of musical intelligence. Confusions began with
Gardner
himself, when he termed musical intelligence as the ability
to
produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timbre; and
appreciate
the forms of musical expressiveness (1983). The ability to
appreciate may have been interpreted by teachers as a
passive
experience that requires no knowledge about music, or
development
of identifiable musical skills.
Elementary
education
depends on capable teachers, who seek out effective
strategies
for teaching and activities for learning. Most teachers
expressed an awareness of the limits of their musical
activities
and experiences. Some teachers attributed the limits to
their
own perceived lack of musical intelligence, others
attributed the
limits to external factors, primarily the role of music in
elementary education as a diversion from the more important
academic subjects.
Including music
activities in an elementary classroom can enhance the
overall
learning environment. Yet the role of musical intelligence
as a
separate, important area of growth and assessment does not
necessarily follow based on this research. Parents are not
trained in the subtleties of assessment and rely on
teachers' judgements about their children's
progress
in school. MI educators and parents need to address music
as an
area worthy of time and expense if they are to succeed at
developing the highest degree of intellect in all
children.
Commitment to facilities and training in all areas of
intelligence should not omit those of musical intelligence
if the
musical intelligence is sincerely valued as a viable part
of the
entire Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
References
Ackerman, D. and Perkins, D. (1989). Integrating thinking and
learning skills across the curriculum. In (Ed.),
Interdisciplinary
curriculum: design and implementation (pp. 77-96).
Alexandria: ASCD.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the
Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bellanca, J., Chapman,
C. and Swartz, E. (1994). Multiple assessments for
Multiple Intelligences. Pallatine, IL: Skylight
Publishing.
Campbell, D. (1997).
The Mozart effect: tapping the power of music to heal
the body, strengthen the mind, and unlock the creative
spirit. New York : Avon Books.
Campbell, L., Campbell
D. and Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning
through the multiple intelligences (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Campbell, P. and Scott-Kassner, C. (1995). Music in childhood
from preschool through the elementary grades.
New York: Schirmer.
Colwell, R., and
Davidson, L. (1996). Musical intelligence and the benefits
of music education. NASSP Bulletin. 80 (583)
55-64.
Duval, J. and Mark, T. (1994). The Pawlett Project:
applications of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory
in a rural Vermont elementary
school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ASCD,
Chicago,
IL.
Eisner, E. (1994).
Commentary: putting multiple Intelligences in
context.
Teachers College Record. 95 (4) 555-560.
Elliot, D.
(1995).
Music matters: a new philosophy of music
education. New York: Teachers' College
Press.
Emig, V. (1997). A
multiple intelligences inventory.
Educational Leadership.
55 (1) 47-50.
Failoni, J.W. (1983).
Music as means to enhance cultural awareness and literacy
in the
foreign language classroom. Mid-Atlantic Journal of
Foreign
Language Pedagogy. 1, 97-108.
Fogarty, R. and Stoehr,
J. (1995). Integrating curricula with multiple
intelligences:
teams, themes and threads. ED 38345.
Fowler, C. (1990).
Recognizing the role of artistic intelligences. Music
Educators Journal. 77 (1) 24-27.
Gardner, H. (1983).
Frames of mind: the theory of multiple
intelligences.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993).
Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences
(2nd ed.) New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995a).
Multiple intelligences as a Catalyst.
English
Journal. 84 (8) 16-18.
Gardner, H. (1995b).
Reflections on Multiple intelligences: Myths and Messages.
Phi Delta Kappan. 77 (3) 200-203, 206-209.
Gardner, H.
(1996).
Probing more deeply into the theory of Multiple
Intelligences.
NASSP Bulletin, 80(583), 1-6.
Gardner, H. (2000).
Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. and
Hatch,
T. (1995). Multiple Intelligences go to
school: educational
implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. In
Forgarty, R. (Ed.), Multiple Intelligences: a
collection
(pp. 147-168). Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight
Training and Publishing, Inc.
Hatch, T. (1997).
Getting specific about Multiple Intelligences.
Educational
Leadership. March,
1997.
Hatch, T. and
Gardner,
H. (1996). If Binet had looked beyond the classroom: the
assessment of multiple intelligences. The NAMTA
Journal.
21 (2) 5-29.
Hinckley, J.
(1998).
What gets tested gets taught. Teaching Music,
6(2), 6-7.
Kassell, K (1998).
Music
and the theory of multiple intelligences. In (Ed.),
Music
Educators Journal. 84 (5) 29-32.
Lazear, D.
(1991).
Seven ways of knowing. Palatine, IL: skylight
Publishing.
Lazear, D.
(1994).
Seven pathways of learning. Tuscon, AZ: Zephr
press.
Lazear, D.
(1995).
Multiple intelligences approaches to assesment: solving
the
assessment conundrum. Tuscon, AZ: Zephr
Press.
Liess, E. and Ritchie,
G.V. (1995). Using multiple intelligence theory to
transform a
first-grade health curriculum. Early Childhood
Education
Journal. 23 (2) 71-79.
Mallonee, R.
(1997).
Applying multiple intelligence theory in the music
classroom. ED
411240.
Marks-Tarlow, T.
(1996). Creativity inside out. Menlo Park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Morgan, H. (1992).
Multiple Intelligences: a review of the literature.
Roper
Review.
Potter, R.
(1997).
Musical intelligence: the final frontier? Phi Kappa
Phi Journal. 77(3) 1-4.
Reimer, B. (1998).
Beyond the theory of multiple intelligences. Paper
presented at Seashore Symposium.
Rauscher, F., and
Shaw, G. (1998). Key components of the mozart effect.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86 (3), 835-842.
Ross, E., Cornett J.,
and McCutcheon, G. (Eds.)1992). Teacher personal
theorizing: connecting curriculum practice, theory and research.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Smagorinsky, P.
(1995). Multiple intelligences in the English class: an
overview. English Journal 84 (8) 19-26.
Smagorinsky, P.
(1996). Multiple Intelligences, multiple means of
composing: an
alternative way of thinking about learning. NASSP
Bulletin. 80 (583).
Smith, L. M. (1990).
Ethics in qualitative field research: an individual
perspective. In Eisner, E.W., and Peshkin, A. (Eds.), Qualitative
Inquiry in Education. pp. 258-276. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Sternberg, R. (1994).
Commentary: putting multiple intelligences in context.
Teachers College Record 95 (4) 561-564.
Tucker, B. (1995).
Minds of their own: visualizers compose. English
Journal. December, 1995, 18-26.
Vincent, M.C. and
Merrion, M. (1990). The musical mind considered: a new
frontier. Design for Arts in Education. 92 (1)
11-18.
Waibel, D. (1998). The
importance of integrating music in the elementary general
classroom: a rationale. Unpublished paper, Master's Thesis,
Towson University.
Webster, P.
(1987).
Conceptual Basis for creative thinking in music. In Peery, J.,
Peery, I. & Draper, T. (Eds.). Music and Child
Development. (pp. 158-174). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Winner, E., Davidson, L.
and Scripp, L. (Eds.). (1992). ARTS PROPEL: a handbook for
music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Wilson, S.L. (1999) The
role of musical intelligence in a multiple intelligences
focused central Florida elementary school. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Central Florida, 1999). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 110 AAG9923726.
About the
Author
Susan W.
Mills
Frostburg State University
Email: smills@mail.frostburg.edu
Susan W. Mills is an Assistant Professor of Music Education at Frostburg
State University in the Allegheny Mountains of Western Maryland. She holds
a Doctorate from the University of Central Florida in Curriculum and
Instruction in Music Education and recently taught music in South African
public schools as part of UMCOLO: The Kimberley Project. Mills has woven
musical and multiple intelligence research into her career as a general and
choral music educator as well as an educational foundations specialist since
1989.
|
