University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Case study of constructivist philosophy and policy implementation for music teaching and learning in two elementary schools in Los Angeles

(USC Thesis Other)

Case study of constructivist philosophy and policy implementation for music teaching and learning in two elementary schools in Los Angeles

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CASE STUDY OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
FOR MUSIC TEACHING AND LEARNING IN TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
IN LOS ANGELES
By
Ji Hae Lim
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
Music Education
August 2020
Copyright 2020 Ji Hae Lim
ii

Dedication

To Claire, Celine, Jeong, my mom, and dad

iii

Acknowledgements
First of all, God created me and allowed me to learn music and teach music. Thank God
that I could have this wonderful opportunity to study music and share my musical talents with
other people in my community. Thanks to my church pastors, Rev. Kyu Sung Park, Young Chun
Chang, Jeong Yup Lee, David SungJeen Kim, and Chun Su Kim, who prayed for my family
members and me.
I have had a long journey in my academic life, not only at USC, but also at Teachers
College, Columbia University, New York University, Manhattan School of Music, Seoul
National University, and Sun-Hwa Art Middle and High School. Throughout these years, I have
met wonderful teachers who inspired me to continue my study in music teaching and learning
including Dr. Harold Abeles, Dr. Lori Custodero, Dr. Randall Allsup, Dr. Solomon Mikowsky,
Mr. Eduardus Halim, Dr. Ick Choo Moon, Mrs. Hye Young Chun, Dr. Dae Wook Lee, Dr. Yong
Hee Moon, Dr. Ji Hyun Cho, Dr. Mi Kyung Kim, Dr. Hye-Sun Park, Dr. Young Bang Cho, Mrs.
Sun Hyang Kim, and Mrs. Kyung Mi Yun. I have also been motivated and encouraged to pursue
my doctoral study in music by my old friends who are Yoojin Kim, JaYoung Lee, Hye-Hyeon
Park, Sang Won Kim, Youngah Ha, You-young Kim, Joo Young Kim, Jinsang Lee, JaeWook
Lee, Junie Hong, SangHee Chun, HyoJee Kang, YeJeong Lee, Soojin Chae, Yejin Kim, Soojung
Kim, Sydney Baek, Mihye Kim, Bora Nam, Yoonjoo Um, Yumi Nam, KyungHye Baik, Jiwon
Choi, Hye Sung Hwang, Hyn Jee An, Hyomi Bae, Minjung Kim, Narae Choi, Seulki Lee, Sujin
Kim, Yun Kyung Choi, Woo Kyung Kim, Hye Young Shin, Moon Kyung Lee, Inmo Yang, Sun-
Hwa Kim, Seon Cho, Ye-Jin Han, Hei-Kyung Yu, Shinae Kim, Kook Hee Hong, Yungwook
You, Jae-Hyuck Cho, James Ra and Ji Hyun Shin.
iv

I am thankful for having Dr. Peter Webster as my advisor, who always supported me with
his great expertise and mentorship. I could not have completed this dissertation in this topic
based on constructivism and policy without his great guidance. I am very grateful to continue to
study piano with Dr. Stewart Gordon and Dr. Stephen Pierce at USC. Under Dr. Gordon’s
support and guidance, I could manage my life as a music educator and pianist.
I am also thankful to have amazing committee members for this dissertation. Especially,
I thank Dr. Beatriz Ilari for her guidance throughout my years at USC. Also, thank you to Dr.
Judy Lewis for sharing her precious time and talents with me for this dissertation. I am grateful
to have Dr. Susan Helfter in my dissertation committee, who helped me think about this topic
through a more logical and critical thinking process. I also thank Job Springer who advised me
in every single course I have taken at USC.
I want to say thank to my friends at USC, Eun Cho, Yooji Hwang, HyeJung Shin, Hee
Seung Lee, Sandra Nam, AhKyung Woo, Ookjin You, Lauren Lee, Elizabeth Palmer, Tina
Huynh, Kathleen Janert, Alex Clements, Alisa Chitwood, and Lisa Crawford who supported me
with their expertise in music teaching and learning for many years.
I am also very thankful to have wonderful supports from St. James School and
community where I met my precious friends, Grace Eun Jin Lee, Dorothy Kim, Jina Park, Helen
Park, Jihyun Hong, Lisa Kim, Lois Park, Sophia Lee, Sunny Choi, Kianna Yoon, Amy Jeong,
Ellen Park, Joanne Kim, Jahwon Lee, Jenipher Park, EJ, Miri Kim, Luci Kim, Ji Young Kim,
Young Hong, MiKyeong Chung, Hayley Chang, Jennifer Kim, Jinni, SoYeon Jung, Yoonhee
Choe, Julia Lee, Stacey Lee, Yoon Ha Choi, Young-Min Chang, Christin Lo, Woori Choi, Juliet
Kwon, Tess Lee, Nekesha Kyle, Molly Moen, Gina Riberi, Tom Nguyen, Charmaine Smith,
Michelle McCormick, Hannah Cannom, Amy Savagian, Talita Choudhury, Amanda Reno and
v

Susan Watanabe. Also, without support from Mr. Peter Reinke, Father Koh, Ms. Elizabeth
Desmarais, Mr. James Casey, and Mrs. Luisa Cartagenna, I could not complete my study in this
way.
I have been trying to build up my own constructivist curriculum with interdisciplinary
approaches and diversity. For this action, Kim Eung Hwa, head of Kim Eung Hwa Korean Dance
Academy, and Nikki Jang, a choreographer and dance instructor at NK Dance studio, have
influenced and helped on building up this constructivist curriculum by sharing their talents with
me. I want to appreciate their help and support for me to create a special music curriculum.
I am grateful for the CAL School of Music in the West Hollywood area, where I share
what I have learned with students and their parents. Thanks to Lisa Kim, Ji Kwak, Katie Lee,
and Jae Ho for believing in me and sending your kids for over six years to CAL School of Music.
Without your financial and mental support, I could not complete my doctoral study. I also
appreciate our wonderful current and past faculty members and staffs, Carissa Kim, Eloise Kim,
YuEun Kim, Alexander Knecht, Jieun Hwang, Etienne Gara, Aya Kiyonaga, Suzy Eun Won
Lee, Hwi Eun Kim, Stella Cho, Mann-Wen Lo, GaHyun Cho, Jeagal Somang, Jason Lo, Paul
SungMyung Kim, Wenjun Qi, Mitchell Thomas, Ines Thome, Jon Kleinhans, Chris Narae Lee,
Xavier Martin, and Hyoung Wuk Kim.
Finally, without my family’s sacrifice and their endless love, I could not have completed
my doctoral study. I love you, my family members, Claire, Celine, Jeong, Dong Yeon, Somi, my
uncles, aunts, mom-in-law, sister-in-law, finally, my mom and dad!

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………...i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….…….xi
Chapter 1 : Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Fictional Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 1
Personal Perspectives .................................................................................................................. 3
Effective for Some, But Not All: Complications along the Way ............................................... 5
Matters of Improving Aspects of Policy ................................................................................. 7
Need for This Research ............................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of Research .................................................................................................................... 9
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 10
Conceptual Base ....................................................................................................................... 10
Terminology .............................................................................................................................. 10
What is Progressive Education? .......................................................................................... 10
Constructivism and Its Conncection to Education ............................................................... 13
Constructivist Pedagogy ...................................................................................................... 15
Implications for this Study ........................................................................................................ 16
Overview of Remaining Chapters ............................................................................................. 16
Chapter 2 : Review of Relevant Literature .............................................................................. 17
Milestones in Music Education Policy ..................................................................................... 17
Early History ........................................................................................................................ 17
Decades of Experimentation and Curriculum Reform in Music Instruction: 1960-1980 .... 20
Comprehensive Musicianship Project ............................................................................ 20
Tanglewood .................................................................................................................... 21
Manhattanville ................................................................................................................ 22
Government Studies Important for Policy Development in Music Education .................... 23
A Nation at Risk ............................................................................................................. 23
No Child Left Behind ..................................................................................................... 23
Every Student Succeeds Act ........................................................................................... 24
Scholarship on Policy Development in Music Education at School System ....................... 25
Summary of the History of Policy and Music Education .................................................... 33
Endorsement of Constructivist Influence on Pedagogy in Music Teaching and Learning ...... 33
History/Definition ................................................................................................................ 34
Summaries of Past Writing of Constructivist Pedagogy ..................................................... 36
Teacher Education ............................................................................................................... 37
Implementation in the Classroom ........................................................................................ 37
Empirical Work in Music Teaching and Learning Inspired by Constructivist Thinking ........ 41
vii

Summary of Relevant Literature ............................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3 : Methodology............................................................................................................ 47
Intrinsic, Ethnographic, and Comparative Case Study of Two Schools ................................... 47
School Chareacter and Population ............................................................................................ 50
Mount Haven ........................................................................................................................ 51
James Madison ...................................................................................................................... 53
Recruiting Participants and Obtaining Consent ........................................................................ 55
Data Sets, Participants, and Timeline ....................................................................................... 56
Data Sets ............................................................................................................................... 56
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 56
Timeline ................................................................................................................................ 59
Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................................................... 60
Pilot Study ................................................................................................................................. 63
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 64
Socially Constructed Knowledge ......................................................................................... 65
Learning is Experiential ....................................................................................................... 65
Student-Centered Teaching and Learning Environments .................................................... 65
Scaffolding/Guided Participation ........................................................................................ 66
Learning as a Holistic Process ............................................................................................. 66
Data Management ..................................................................................................................... 67
Ethical Issues ............................................................................................................................ 67
Trustworthiniess ........................................................................................................................ 68
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 69
Chapter 4 : Findings ................................................................................................................... 71
Themes………………………………………………………………………………………...71
Theme 1: Endorsement of Constructivist Approaches in School's Policy................................ 75
Mount Haven ....................................................................................................................... 75
James Madison ..................................................................................................................... 79
Theme 2: Evaluation of Teachers on Constructivist Teaching ................................................. 81
Theme 3: Future Works Planned by School Leaders to Support Teachers .............................. 84
Theme 4: Engagement of Constructivist Pedagogy in Practice ................................................ 84
Theme 5: Plans to Re-tool or Re-construct Curriculum with Constructivist Pedadogy ........... 87
Social Learning Environment .............................................................................................. 88
Group Composition and Improvisation ............................................................................... 89
Teacher's Role as a Facilitator ............................................................................................. 90
Theme 6: Evidences of Constructivist Pedagogy in Observations ........................................... 90
Mount Haven ....................................................................................................................... 91
Socially Constructive Knowledge .................................................................................. 91
Learning is Experiential ................................................................................................. 92
Student Centered Teaching and Learning Environments ............................................... 94
Scaffolding, Guided Participation ................................................................................... 96
Learning as Holistic Process ........................................................................................... 97
James Madison ................................................................................................................. 100
Socially Constructive Knowledge ................................................................................ 101
Learning is Experiential ............................................................................................... 102
viii

Scaffolding, Guided Participation ................................................................................. 103
Learning as Holistic Process ......................................................................................... 104
Theme 7: Differences Between The School with More History of Constructivist Work and the
One that is Just Beginning ....................................................................................... 108
Ways of Endorsement of Constructivist Approach in Two Schools' Policy .................... 108
Engagement of Constructivist Pedagogy in Two Schools' Practice ................................. 109
Teacher Plans to Re-tool or Reconstruct Constructivist Pedagogy in Two Schools ........ 109
Evidences of Constructivist Pedagogy in Two Schools' Student-Evaluation ................... 110
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 110
Chapter 5 : Discussion, Conclusion and Implications ........................................................... 111
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 111
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................................... 111
Different approaches to endorsement ............................................................................. 111
Differences in communication between school leaders and music teachers .................. 112
Differences in professional development ....................................................................... 113
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................................... 114
Differences in understanding the concepts of constructivist approaches ....................... 114
Differences in music teachers' plans to re-construct the music curriculum .................... 115
Differences in evidence for constructivist pedagogy ...................................................... 116
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................................... 116
Differences in evidence for constructivist pedagogy in practice .................................... 116
Results from different periods of endorsement of practices ........................................... 117
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................ 119
Conclusion and Implications for Future Practice ................................................................... 121
References……………………………………………………………………………………...122
Appendix A: Interview Questions for Music Teachers ......................................................... 132
Appendix B: Interview Questions for Administrators .......................................................... 136
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form for Music Teachers .................................................. 140
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form for Administrators................................................... 143
Appendix E: Constructive Teaching and Learning in Data Analysis Form ....................... 146
Appendix F: Written School Policies that Show Constructivism is Teaching and Learning
Philosophy, Mount Haven .................................................................................. 150
Appendix G: Written School Policies that Show Constructivism is Teaching and Learning
Philosophy, James Madison ............................................................................... 163

ix

List of Tables
Table 3.1 ....................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 3.2 ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 3.3 ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4.1 ....................................................................................................................................... 73
Table 4.2 ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 4.3 ....................................................................................................................................... 98
Table 4.4 ..................................................................................................................................... 106

x

List of Figures
Figure 3.1 . ................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3.2 . ................................................................................................................................... 51

xi

Abstract
This research sought to compare constructivist music teaching in two school systems that
are led by heads of school with similar beliefs in constructivism-inspired pedagogy as part of
their schools’ policy and are leading programs with either a long-established history of
constructivism or a recent adoption of the approach. Specific research questions related to:
1) ways that heads of school endorsed, communicated, and supported constructivist teaching
with teachers, 2) how constructivist approaches were conceptually understood by music teachers,
and 3) evidence that constructive pedagogy was employed by music teachers in their practice.
Although not a dissertation about policy per se, a short overview of some policies that have
supported progressive and constructivist-related pedagogy in the music education efforts in the
United States schools was provided to help offer context.
The study was structured as an intrinsic, ethnographic, and comparative case study of two
schools in the Los Angeles, California area. Data sets for this dissertation included interviews
from two music teachers in each school and the heads of each school, observations of selected
music classes in general music and band performance at the 5
th
and 6
th
-grade levels, and artifacts
such as any written policies that endorsed or described constructivist approaches. Included in the
related literature was a review of related literature in music teaching and learning related to
constructivist theories and research done that relates directly to this study.
Among the many findings were that, as expected, the school with a longer history of
constructivist approaches in the school’s policy showed strong evidence of constructive
pedagogy, including socially constructed knowledge, experiential learning, student-centered
teaching and learning environment, scaffolding, guided participation, and leaning as a holistic
process throughout music classes. The school with less history showed appropriate planning and
xii

teacher development strategies but inconsistent communication with music faculty about the
newer aspects of policy. Again, as expected, music teachers in the school with a longer history
had carefully integrated constructivist approaches into their pedagogy; music teachers in the
school without that history exhibited a more limited understanding of constructivist pedagogy
and more allegiance to more traditional approaches. Interesting findings emerged regarding
ways that heads of school approached the communication and support for constructivist learning,
particularly as it related to music teaching. Findings further suggested that better understanding
of constructivist pedagogy as a theory of learning and not a specific methodology was necessary
for many teachers. Despite the differences between school histories, some evidence of
constructivist teaching occurred in each setting.
Key terms: constructivist philosophy, constructivist pedagogy, policy implementation,
endorsement of the constructivist practice, policy history in American music education.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction
Fictional Scenarios
Consider the following fictional scenarios:
Group A: There were 25 students in a class, and the students looked at the whiteboard
where their science teacher wrote down definitions of slow processes and rapid processes that
change the earth’s surface. The teacher told students that volcanos, earthquakes, and landslides
were rapid processes and weathering, erosion, and deposition are slow processes. The teacher
told students that they would have a test on writing definitions of those terms the next day. The
students wrote down those terms and definitions in their notebooks and brought the notebooks
home to memorize. At home, their mothers checked if they memorized the terms before they went
to bed. One of the mothers was upset with her daughter because the daughter did not
understand the difference between weathering and erosion, and just memorized the terms and
definitions for the test.
Group B: There were 25 students in a class, and the students were divided into five
groups. They were given a group project to choose one of the slow or rapid processes on earth’s
surface, including volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides, weathering, erosion, or deposition and do
experiments on the subject they chose. The first group made volcanoes with baking soda and
vinegar and found that volcanoes erupted rapidly as soon as they added drops of vinegar on
baking soda, which led to a little explosion right away. The second group decided to make a
landslide with sand and water. When they poured water on a sandhill, a sandhill collapsed right
after pouring the water. They figured out that landslide could also be a rapid process. The third
group set up blocks on the table and shook the table with their hands. They found some of the
2

blocks fell on the ground right after shaking the table. They concluded that earthquakes were
one of the rapid processes. The fourth group tried to pour water and sand on the rock to break
the rock, but the rock remained the same. The fifth group tried to make stone by mixing sand
and water, but the sand became clay-like, rather than looking like stone. The fourth and fifth
groups concluded that breaking rocks with the wind, water, and sand or making rocks with sand
and water could not be done in a short time; in other words, they found that weathering, erosion,
or deposition must occur very slowly. All five groups presented their experiments in front of
other groups and shared their findings and thoughts during the class.
After a month, one wonders which group of students might best remember slow and rapid
processes that change the earth’s surface and could explain those concepts more accurately.
Group A students learned in a teacher-dominated environment with a rote teaching and learning
system. The teacher dictated the knowledge to students, and they memorized the information to
take their tests. Group B students, however, learned by doing experiments with their peers
before testing. The teacher set up the learning environments for the students as a facilitator, and
the students developed their knowledge by doing group projects and sharing their experiences
with peers.
Many contemporary learning experts favor Group B. Mishra (2015) noted that the role of
a learner like the one in Group B is as much a contributor as a gainer in the learning process, and
thereby, students learn to be more independent and effective learners. Allowing students to have
the opportunity to work in groups will develop notions such as respect for individual differences
and the development of self-confidence and positive attitudes towards learning (Acat, Anilhan, &
Anagun, 2010). Rote teaching and learning would not necessarily have a profound effect on a
learner’s broader understanding of concepts, whereas, if a student is consistently engaged in
3

hands-on based activities, it may increase how perceptive a learner is to the discipline (Jones,
2018).
These two scenarios and their imagined effectiveness for learning suggest dramatic
differences between teacher-centered and student-centered teaching and learning. Group B’s
required learning might be more productive and more enjoyable for students. If Group B’s
heightened understandings arise from the endorsement of what some might term “constructivist”
approaches, this might be of interest to those framing vital parts of a school’s policy for
instruction. The change from teacher-centered pedagogy in Group A to a more student-centered
pedagogy in Group B could also play a role in the evaluation of teacher effectiveness.
Of course, one wonders about music instruction in light of the above. Learning music
while experiencing music listening, performing the music of others, performing one’s own music
(improvisation), and composition can easily be envisioned as the content of the above scenarios.
Personal Perspective
The first time I heard of constructivism was when I started a master’s degree in music
education at Teachers College, Columbia University, in 2010. Many faculty members offered
curricula based on constructivist pedagogy, which was a new experience for me. The professors’
roles were those of facilitators during classes, and students learned through their discussions and
musical activities.
I have tried to understand and value the more “progressive” idea of putting students in the
center of the curriculum. In my early years, my learning environments from elementary school
to high school were mostly teacher-centered in South Korea. Most classes were lecture-oriented,
and teachers were most often the only ones to talk during classes. At times, the teachers asked
questions, but the students’ answers were expected to be concise and to conform to the
4

“expected” and “correct” answers. Specific group discussions were not offered, and approaches
that boosted the students’ critical- and creative-thinking processes were rarely found in the
curriculum.
I have often thought about why my formative education did not take place in student-
centered environments because student-centered approaches were not valued enough to
implement to education systems in South Korea. I have arrived at several conclusions about why
student-centered approaches were not valued and implemented in education systems in South
Korea:
(1) Large class sizes of 50-60 students to one teacher were not amenable to that approach
of teaching.
(2) A standardized education system was tailored for college entrance exams.
(3) An objective test, the score-oriented educational environment was dominant.
(4) This traditional educational practice was dominant in South Korea.
There are several definite advantages to this kind of system that relate to efficiency and
short-term, lower-end understandings that can easily be assessed. But what about the
development of independent, long-term understanding that might lead to enhanced critical and
creative thought, particularly in an art form like music? Even in considering the four conclusions
above, one can imagine including some aspects of more constructivist approaches with some
creative pedagogical approaches.
John Dewey (2010) stated, “An environment where some are limited will always in
reaction create conditions that prevent the full development even of those who fancy they enjoy
complete freedom for unhindered growth” (p. 244). Wiggins (1996) also noted, “We will not
5

need to change what we teach, but we will need to think about making some changes in the ways
we teach it” (p. 26).
Based on this background and the apparent limitations imposed by such a teacher-
dominated system with a restrictive pedagogical mindset, I have come to value a more student-
centered curriculum that might limit the benefits of the more restrictive system but offer badly
needed deeper learning experiences. Such an approach has guided my thinking on pedagogy.
Effective for Some, But Not All: Complications Along the Way
Following my time at Teachers College, I started teaching my private piano students and
students in general music settings using more constructivist approaches, which often included
music composition and improvisation experiences. I discovered that beginning students were
easier to guide using constructivist approaches since they did not have expectations from past
work of how music lessons should be conducted. However, if students had experienced
advanced instruction with extended instrumental lessons taught using a teacher-dominated
approach, these students tended to resist new learning approaches. Even though they had more
advanced playing skills, it seemed harder for them to accept constructivist approaches, especially
in the creation of music through composition and improvisation.
Moreover, I had come across parents who had not liked the constructivist approach when
they attended my classes. For example, when I have asked preschoolers and elementary school
students to compose or improvise music on the piano, students usually began composing and
improvising by exploring sounds with their fingers and palms on the piano. Of course, students
could not make songs right away—they needed time to explore different kinds of sound,
including loud, soft, heavy, and light sound on the keyboard to express their ideas on the
instruments. I sometimes gave prompts to students in order to inspire composition or
6

improvisation. When I asked students to compose a “dinosaur song,” children loved to explore
lower keys on the piano to represent their ideas of dinosaurs stomping and growling. Then,
when I asked students to compose a song about a butterfly, children usually explored sounds that
were produced by upper register keys on the piano, making soft and light sounds.
During this sound exploration, parents expressed to me that this process was unnecessary
for their children to learn, and time should be better spent on reading notes from the music and
playing pre-composed music by others in an appropriate fashion. Parents were in their 30’s and
40’s, and they have diverse socio-economic status. Since these parents had not been exposed to
such teaching methods before, they were confused—simply wanting their children to learn using
traditional methods as they had done when they were young. My efforts to convince some
students and their parents of the wisdom of these newer musical experiences in partnership with
more traditional ones have been complicated.
Although the study of parents’ reactions to the work of their children in music was not
the focus of the present study, it has been a strong part of the reasons for my interest in this
study. I have struggled with constructivist approaches personally. Given that I was educated
following teacher-oriented learning curricula for a long time, I have sometimes taught students
unconsciously using a “cramming” method of teaching. Certainly, rote teaching and learning
systems are much easier to use with students for certain kinds of musical teaching and learning,
especially teaching of music theory, within a short amount of teaching time; however, I also have
realized that rote teaching and learning approaches that dominate all of what teachers do might
not make students think creatively and critically. Thus, I continue to struggle with harmonizing
my ideal education system with the realities I face. As I approached the time to consider a
dissertation topic, the formal study of more progressive approaches such as those associated with
7

constructionist principles seemed intellectually appealing in my journey to develop better, more
balanced pedagogy.
A Matter of Improving Aspects of Policy
While working to incorporate constructivist approaches into my lesson plans for studio
work, I began to think about the larger issue of policy, including those that might relate to local
schools and to higher-level governmental agencies. Turning my attention from private studio
instruction to more formal public-school education, I wondered if students would learn in
constructivist ways more effectively when the school's official educational philosophy and
established policy might be enhanced by constructivist ideas. I was not prepared to delve into
policy studies as a major part of my dissertation work, but I was intrigued in how such thinking
played a role in instruction in selected schools.
Interestingly, as I began to explore my community in Los Angeles, including Hancock
Park and the Hollywood area, I found that some of my private studio students attended local
schools that endorsed constructivist approaches to some extent as part of the stated policy. These
schools advertised their constructivist curricula on their schools’ brochures and websites. As I
did more observation in my area, I found that most students who attended these schools seemed
open to engaging in constructivist instructions since they were used to the experience. Many
parents seemed more open to accepting the constructivist approaches because they had heard of
the constructivist curriculum during their parents’ meetings with teachers and administrators.
Considering all of this, I began to wonder if a systematic study of the implementation of
constructivist approaches as a working part of the policy in schools could be a project for my
dissertation.
8

Need for This Study
Researchers have supported the need for further studies of constructivist approaches in
the world of music teaching and learning. In his extensive chapter on the construction of music
teaching and learning at the time of his writing, Webster (2011) asserted that constructivist
pedagogies had made little headway in changing the fundamental way teachers were prepared or
how in-service professionals did their jobs.
We need evidence about language as a mediator for learning, constructed meaning and
its variance with established canonic principles, and the levels of active engagement
that teach musical understanding. We need more knowledge about individual
assessment in the face of social construction. We certainly need evidence about how
best to deal with parents and administrators in terms of constructivist techniques that
feature process and product. Perhaps the most critical evidence we need is the extent
to which constructivist techniques lead to real and lasting music learning, a case that is
yet to emerge from the literature. (Webster, 2011, p. 74)

Shively (1995) also suggested that we lack an articulated philosophy of constructivism
that might unify professional work. He provided a perspective on the nature of music learning
and teaching by taking a constructivist stance and by positioning students at the center of that
classroom. He believed that this is the stance we must take if we want to advance music
education in meaningful and authentic ways. He asserted that maintaining an open vision of
constructivism and applying it to our own music teaching situation allows us to avoid treating
constructivism as a method of teaching. In addition, Cuban (2008) noted that the study of
blended teaching that involved a combination of well-designed direct instruction and
constructivist approaches are needed for future research.
With the advent of national and state music education standards, such as the 2014 Music
Standards (https://nafme.org/my-classroom/standards/core-music-standards/) that endorse
creative activity, it seems clear that further examination of constructivist approaches and their
relation to the policy in the world of music teaching and learning is badly needed. An analysis of
9

the implementation of constructivist approaches in schools that purport to use constructivist
philosophy might lead to an effective understanding of such work. Using data from observations
of selected music classes and interviews with selected teachers and administrators, I reasoned
that it might be possible to uncover evidence about these issues.
I reasoned too that evidence from such work might enlighten parents about the benefits of
constructivist teaching and learning since many parents I have encountered do not fully
understand these approaches. For example, some evidence has suggested that parents only favor
constructivist teaching methodology for young children enrolled under the age of 7, but favor
test-prep teaching methodology for children over the age of 7 (Levine, 2013). Levine’s work
suggested that further study of constructivist teaching and learning is needed to inform parents
about the value of constructivist approaches.
Purposes of Research
Given my own experiences with constructivist approaches and the need for further study,
the purpose of this research centered on the extent to which heads of schools that lead the charge
to endorse constructivist approaches understand and support music teachers’ work to conform to
such approaches. Moreover, of interest was how music teachers at these schools actively plan
for, execute such teaching, and how these practices are monitored and rewarded? Do schools
with long histories of endorsing constructivist learning differ from ones that have only recently
begun in this direction?

10

Research Questions
Specific research questions that framed this work were:
1. Considering the role of school leaders as policymakers, in what ways have leaders
endorsed, communicated, and supported constructivist teaching with music teachers
in two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such practices?
2. In what ways have constructivist approaches been endorsed conceptually by music
teachers in two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such
practices?
3. What evidence is there that the constructive pedagogy is practically embedded in
pedagogy in two selected schools with different time of endorsement of such
practices?
Conceptual Base
Chapter 2 will review relevant literature that relates to these three research questions and
will help with the understanding of the conceptual base with terminology. What is included
below is a consideration of what is meant by progressive education, constructivism, and policy
enhancements that relate to these concepts. This will, in turn, further explain the conceptual base
for this study.
Terminology
What is Progressive Education?
Progressive education began as a movement in Europe and the United States during the
late 19
th
century that reacted to what was traditional education dominated by teacher-centered
approaches. Progressive education has been placed in a dichotomous relationship with
“traditional” education, content-based approaches to curriculum, and teacher versus child-
11

centered approaches to learning and development (Carr, 2014). Progressive education is, “…at
least of contrast with an education that is pre-dominantly static in subject-matter, authoritarian in
its methods, and mainly passive and receptive from the side of the young” (Kaplan, 2013, p.
123).
Like constructivism itself, progressive education and its meaning today is a complex
mosaic of educational principles that recognizes diversity, social justice issues, and student-
centered pedagogy. Often associated with John Dewey and his writings from the early part of
the twentieth century, its popularity was challenged in the 1950ies during the Cold War era but is
now enjoying a resurgence of interest among contemporary educators. “The philosophy of
education must go beyond any method of education that is formed by way of contrast, reaction,
and protest, as an attempt to discover what education is and how it takes place” (Dewey, 1934, p.
194)
There have been many progressive education writers whose works are worth considering,
including writings by Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827), Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852),
Maria Montessori (1870-1952), and Jean Piaget (1896-1980). These scholars often argued that
the child learns naturally in this vision of education. These themes may be traced through
various forms of progressive education (Barrett, 2017). Barrett found progressive education
movements’ roots in the enlightenment with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)’s text, Emile.
The central educational practice advocated in Emile is that of discovery-led learning, regulated
by the child under the guidance of a tutor and governed by the child’s interests and desires.
In progressive education, the school was considered as a laboratory where the child was
learning actively through doing. Children were encouraged to learn through their
experimentation and independent thinking. The distinguishing characteristics of the method of
12

progressive education were child-centered, freer, and less rigidly academic activities in order to
create a more informal, socially exchanging, and intellectually stimulating classroom climate.
This contrasted with the more traditional forms of education that seemed to overvalue tidiness,
precision, and other ritualistic pursuits associated with adult images of perfection (Zimiles,
2008).
Progressive education has also been coupled with ideas of democracy stemming in part
from Dewey’s early text Democracy and Education (1916) and includes in its history, over the
course of the 20
th
century, educational innovations, and approaches such as experiential learning,
whole language learning, and cooperative learning (Barrett, 2017). Within the arts, progressive
education tenets may be found in a curriculum emphasis on personal expression, unfettered play,
and spontaneity (Abbs, 1987).
Educational theorist, Kieran Egan (2002), provided a comprehensive critique of the
progressive movement as embodied in the work and writings of Herbert Spencer, John Dewey,
and Jean Piaget. He suggested that “the emphasis on natural learning approaches growing from a
view of the biologic psychology has suppressed the search for and recognition of …much of
what is most distinctively human in learning and development…” (p. 113). Egan drew on
Vygotsky’s developmental theories to argue that:
…our intellectual abilities are not “natural” but are socio-cultural constructs. They are
not forms of intellectual life that we are programmed in some sense to bring to
realization; there is no naturally preferred form of human intellectual maturity. We are
not designed, for example, to move in the direction of “formal operations” or abstract
thinking or whatever. These forms of intellectual life are products of our learning,
particular cultural tools invented in our cultural history. (Egan, 2002, p. 113-114)

Egan’s condemnation of progressive education might be viewed as somewhat surprising
in one whose work has focused on the promotion of imaginative approaches to teaching and
learning that bear all the hallmarks of a child-centered approach (Barrett, 2017). For this
13

discussion, Egan’s position points to several issues about progressive and student-centered
approaches to education. Firstly, Carr (2014) noted, “the approaches generally referred to as
progressive or child-centered might be better understood as a diverse collection of rather
different educational ideas or perspectives” (p. 52). In short, there seems to be no singular
definition of progressivism in education. Egan’s critique of progressivism seeks to separate
notions of child-centered education from ideas of the natural unfolding of development in age-
related stages (Barrett, 2017). As Egan (2002) asserts:
The flaw in progressivism is the belief that we can disclose the nature of the child.
Whatever is the substratum of human nature is less accessible and less useful to the
educator than understanding the cultural cognitive tools that shape and mediate our
learning, development, and everything else to do with the conscious world of educational
activity. (Egan, 2002, p. 184 – 185)

However, other statements referred to the need to scaffold children’s learning in and
through play and explicitly draws on developmental theories, socio-cultural theories, socio-
behaviorist theories, critical theories, and post-structure theories (DEEWR, 2009). There is
evident distancing here from any notion of child-centered education as one in which the
‘progressivist natural child’ regulates learning in all its dimensions and complexities (Barrett,
2017). Regardless of the substiles noted in the interpretation of progressive education, the main
spirit of the movement is clearly related to many of the major tenets of constructivism as a
theory.
Constructivism and its Connection to Education
Constructivism is a theory of thinking and learning that holds that learning is an
interpretive process, with new information processed and constructed within the context of the
student's social and individual experiences (Cox, 1998). Constructivism is a “…complex mosaic
14

of beliefs by philosophers, approaches by researchers, and strategies endorsed by practitioners.”
(Webster, 2011, p. 36).
Webster argues that, in a broad sense, constructivist thinking has its roots in
epistemology, the branch of philosophy that is concerned with theories of knowledge.
Constructivist thinking differs from the standard rationalist and empirical views. For
example, it is generally held that rationalism celebrates innate reason and ideas with
knowledge derived mostly from a priori process. Empiricism maintains that the
external world is the source of all knowledge and that the world is made up of laws of
nature that can be understood and often discovered through experimentation. In
contrast, constructivism holds that all knowledge and meaning are constructed by the
individual either personally or through social/cultural interaction. Information is
interpreted by the mind, and the world is perceived and constructed by individuals in
different ways. Newer definitions of knowledge and truth may form new paradigms,
and inter-subjectivity instead of classical objectivity is valued. (Webster, 2011, p. 5-6)

This philosophical position on the construction of knowledge, in turn, influences certain
sociological theories, especially those associated with more postmodern thinking. In terms of
educational theory, constructivism is based on the notion that reality is individual perception and
any knowledge that we consider it is a construction (Buchanan, 2010). Its name is derived from
the word “construction” because its fundamental concept is that students learn through the
process of constructing their own personal understanding of new information and ideas (Context
of 2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to the Los Angeles Unified School District Charter
Schools Division, p. 18).
Shively (2015) believed that the importance of a constructivist classroom is on knowing
and the act of meaning-making knowledge in teaching and learning circumstances. According to
Ormond (2003), the term "constructivism" is derived from Piaget's proposition that an
individual's knowledge is not limited to a collection of isolated pieces of information but is
constructed from the cumulative information derived from experiences into an overall
perspective of the operational aspects of the environment.
15

Constructivist Pedagogy
For Richardson (2003), the constructivist pedagogies of the 1990s involve the following
characteristics, as shown below.
(a) Teaching is student-centered, attending to the individual and respecting his or her
background, beliefs, and understandings;
(b) Students engage in group dialogue to build shared understandings;
(c) Ideas are introduced, in planned and unplanned ways, through discussion, exploration
of texts, and participation in situations in which questions emerge;
(d) Students are prompted to engage in tasks that offer opportunities to question, change,
or expand their beliefs; and
(e) Students develop meta-awareness of their own learning and processes of
understanding over time (Thompson, 2015).
Matthews (2000) noted as many as 17 different kinds of constructivism. Across these
many varieties, he cited four significant ideas:
- Knowledge is formed as part of the learner’s active interaction with the world.
- Knowledge exists less as abstract entities outside the learner and absorbed.
- Meaning is constructed with this knowledge.
- Learning is, in large part, a social activity (p. 189).

Fosnot (2005) had a constructivist view of learning, which suggested an approach to
teaching that gives learners a chance to construct. Webster (2011) amplified this position by
noting that constructivism is not necessarily a theory of teaching as much as a theory of learning.
Webster also noted that the argument is often made that simply ‘learning by doing’ is not enough
for constructivist learning to occur and “it must go deeper by encouraging the learner to link the
new with the old by using collaborative communities and engaging in questioning and problem-
solving techniques” (2011, p. 4-5).
16

Implications for the Present Study
Chapter 2 will continue to make clear the importance of contemporary progressive
education thinking and its strong linkage to constructivist epistemology. The study of how
selected elementary and middle schools with different histories apply these approaches as part of
the stated policy and how teachers of music work in these environments is at the heart of this
study.
Overview of Remaining Chapters
Chapter 2 helps frame the purpose of study and the research questions in the context of
relevant literature. Topics for the review focus on 1) a brief overview of policy for American
music education and possible connections to constructivist elements, 2) endorsement of
constructivism as an influence on curriculum in music education, and 3) a selected review of
empirical work in music teaching and learning inspired by constructivist thinking
Chapter 3 describes aspects of the research methodology, which includes the intrinsic,
ethnographic, and comparative case study, the school character and population, recruitment of
participants, consent, description of participants and timeline, and limitations. The study
methodology includes data sets’ description, data collection procedures, pilot study description,
data analysis approaches, data management, ethical issues, and trustworthiness.
In Chapter 4, I will present findings from my analysis of the three major data sets, which
include interviews with music teachers and principals, class observations, and collected artifacts.
Several themes and subthemes will be described and related to research questions.
In Chapter 5, I discuss and analyze my findings and provide conclusions, implications,
and suggestions for future research.

17

Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature
Two main research keywords for this study were “policy” and “constructivism.” To
examine the relevant literature which supports research questions, three bodies of literature were
used. The first was a review of selected historical milestones in music teaching and learning
influenced in part by policies that favor constructivist and progressive tendencies. This was an
attempt to not study educational policy itself in the abstract, but to examine selected
developments, especially in music. The second body of work involved conceptual writing that
has endorsed constructivist learning theory in music teaching and learning and its role as a major
influence on the formulation of aspects of school policy. The third body of work was a selected
review of empirical evidence in music teaching and learning inspired by constructivist thinking
and related to the issues raised by the purposes and research questions that drove this study.
Milestones in Music Education History
Early History
There was no one unified system of music education in public or private schools in the
early history of American public education, and this still remains true today. No one policy or
philosophy of instruction influences music education. Music education, in fact, all of the
education, is a matter for the individual states their communities, despite much well-intended
work on state and national curriculum standards. This has been a source of some concern over
the years. In fact, one critic has maintained that our historical policies in music education were,
and are, designed to be exclusive, not inclusive, while being self-supporting of one particular
mode of education (Cutietta (2017).
Despite this free-spirited history, there are remarkable milestones in the development of
music education history in the United States that can be linked to aspects of systematic
18

progressive thinking. Mark and Gary (1992) chronicled the beginning steps in the 1800s of
music instruction inclusion in public schools in their book, A History of American Music
Education. Mark and Gary (1992) noted that Pestalozzi, who was inspired by Rousseau’s Emile,
advocated the education reform movement because he believed that education was the only way
to change the social and economic status of poor citizens. Mark and Gary (1992) asserted that
Pestalozzi also valued music in education (p. 125). Woodbridge was a practitioner who
implemented ‘Pestalozzianism’ in American music education and became an advocate of public-
school music (Mark & Gary, 1992, p. 134).
Due to Woodbridge’s efforts, the Boston Academy was incorporated in 1833. In 1836,
Boston citizens submitted two petitions, and the Boston Academy of Music submitted a paper to
the Boston School Committee. Each document included the inclusion of music classes in public
schools. In 1837, four public schools began music classes. In 1838, the Boston School
Committee approved an action to appoint a music teacher of public schools in Boston. This
marked an important milestone in the United States for the establishment of music as a subject in
the public-school curriculum, like mathematics and English. Music had been taught in American
public schools before; however, “never as an integral subject of the curriculum” (Mark & Gary,
1992, p. 164). This action might be considered among the first steps in adopting a kind of policy
for music teaching and learning for education in the United States.
After Boston’s first action of music instruction in public schools, school music spread to
other cities, including New York, Connecticut, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey,
Kentucky, and Ohio. Several cities established music classes in public schools before the Civil
War (1861-1865), although music as a subject was not included in the public-school curriculum
extensively. The inclusion of music in public school curriculum was a crucial and memorable
19

event for American education history “because it opened the way for the development of music
education as we know it today” (Mark & Gary, 1992, p. 174) and “the arts were not always
included as part of the core academic subjects.” (Aguilar, 2011, p. 150).
Influenced by Rousseau and Pestalozzi, Froebel (1782-1852) invented a new kind of
school, where a teacher helped to draw knowledge or potential from students rather than just
giving them to students (Mark & Gary, 1992, p. 220). He created the kindergarten system in
Germany, and music played an essential role in the development of the kindergarten movement.
Influenced by Froebel, Margarethe Schurz is often credited with founding the first kindergarten
in the United States in Watertown, Wisconsin, in 1856. It is not clear if the music was part of
her kindergarten, but it might be safe to assume that as the kindergarten spread in the schools of
the United States that music was of some was part of the experience children encountered.
The Cardinal Principles of 1918 were focused on secondary education, including health,
command of fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, citizenship, proper use
of leisure, and ethical character. The goal of “worthy use of leisure” included education in music
and art (Aguilar, 2011, p. 153). The notion of “worthy use of leisure” is the idea that schools
should educate students to enrich their bodies and minds in their leisure activities. Furthermore,
the writers considered music and art as aspects of leisure. This influenced the inclusion of music
in secondary education. This was underscored by the expansion of performance ensembles such
as bands in schools after the world wars.
These samplings of early developments in American music education show the roots of
organized support for music in public education and hence the beginnings of organized policy
influenced by aspects of progressive thinking.

20

Decades of Experimentation and Curriculum Reform in Music Instruction: 1960-1980
In the early history of policy for music in schools, there were justifications for music as
an influence on personal and social good, but notions of child-centered education and related
pedagogies were not necessarily featured. But beginning with the major curriculum projects and
events of the 1960ies, including the Comprehensive Musicianship Project (1965), the
Tanglewood Report (1968) and the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program (1970), new
efforts to improve music teaching and learning in the schools were introduced after several other
approaches were proving their success in other countries (Mark & Gary, 1992, p. 436).
This was an age of great experimentation and curriculum reform. As noted in Chapter 1,
there was a renewed interest in progressive educational practices during this time period—born
out of a hope to give new energy to Dewey’s ideals and to address what was stagnant teacher-
centered pedagogy in many fields of study. Following the launch of the first successful space
satellite, Sputnik I, by the Soviet Union, schools came to be more important to the nation’s
survival during the Cold War. There was generally a new interest in generative teaching
practices and the encouragement of creativeness in schools.
Comprehensive Musicianship Project. In 1957, the Ford Foundation became interested
in the relationship between the arts and American society. This led to the funding of the Young
Composers Project in 1959 that embedded young composers in schools with the hope of
improving understanding of contemporary music thought the performance of new music. This
project led to a far larger curriculum effort, The Comprehensive Musicianship Project (CMP)
funded again by the Ford Foundation and eventually by Ford, the Presser Foundation, and the
then Music Educators National Conference (MENC) which now is the National Association for
Music Education (NAfME). This was an unprecedented effort to improve the music curriculum
21

in schools. Several curriculum project seminars followed regionally around the country, often at
colleges and universities, with the intent of improving instruction in music by encouraging the
interdisciplinary study of music across music history, theory, performance, and education. The
projects ran until 1973, and today CMP is considered a major landmark in progressive
educational thinking in music instruction with clear constructivist-inspired implications. (Mark,
1986).
Tanglewood. Also, during this period, and for some, even more historically important
for policy and progressive educational practices in music than CMP, the Tanglewood
Symposium was held at the Berkshire Music Center in Tanglewood, Massachusetts, in 1967.
The meeting lasted several days and was attended by performance musicians, music educators,
sociologists, scientists, labor leaders and other prominent individuals. The purpose of the
summit-like gathering was to define policy with respect to the role of music in American society
and its instruction in schools. At the conclusion of discussion and the hearing of position papers,
a famous declaration was written advocating the following major points:
1. Music serves best when its integrity as art is maintained.
2. Music of all periods, styles, forms, and cultures belong in the curriculum.
3. Schools and colleges should provide adequate time for music in programs ranging
from preschool through adult or continuing education.
4. Instruction in the arts should be a general and vital part of education in senior high
school.
5. Developments in educational technology, educational television, programmed
instruction, and computer-assisted instruction should be applied to music study and
research.
6. Greater emphasis should be placed on helping the individual student to fulfill his
needs, goals, and potentials.
7. The music education profession must contribute its skills, proficiencies, and insights
toward assisting in the solution of urgent social problems as in the “inner city” or
other areas with culturally deprived individuals.
8. Programs of teacher education must be expanded and improved to provide music
teachers who are specially equipped to teach high school courses in the history and
literature of music, courses in the humanities and related arts, and music teachers
22

equipped to work with the very young, with adults, with the disadvantaged, and with
the emotionally disturbed. (Choate, 1968, p. 139)

This document and its declarative points noted above continue today to be an important
underpinning of policy efforts by many in this current era.
Manhattanville. The Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program (MMCP) was a major
curriculum project designed to create an alternative approach to K-12 instruction current at the
time. It was named for Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart, where it began with a
substantial grant from the U. S. Office of Education. The founder and director of the program
was Ronald Thomas, a faculty member at the time at Manhattanville College. The major activity
of this curriculum project centered on the years from 1966 to 1970. (Moon & Humphreys, 2010).
The major aim of the program was to develop an extensive curriculum for music
instruction, K-12, using discovery approaches and to do this using a spiral-type curriculum. The
work of creating the curriculum was done over a period of two years with several consultants
from music performers from wide genres of music and education at various levels. Using
Jerome Bruner’s concept that curriculum should be built on a particular discipline’s structure, the
curriculum in music was based on concepts of sound, rhythm, pulse, meter, duration, pitch,
timbre, volume, form, texture and style.
The MMCP strategy was devised to help students understand these concepts. First, the
teacher presents a problem as a creative musical assignment and students compose and
rehearse. Next, students perform and record their compositions. Finally, the class,
teacher, and students evaluate the compositions. The focus of evaluation was to be on
three types of thinking: ‘analytical: what did you hear?’ ‘Judicial: was that factor used
appropriately?’ and ‘creative: what other possibilities are available?’ The Synthesis
specified that composing could be carried out singly or in groups of three, four, or five
students. (Moon & Humphreys, 2010, p. 80)

The complete curriculum was published in 1970 (Thomas, 1970). It represents a major
historical achievement in curriculum design that contains a clear endorsement of constructivist
23

views. Thomas and others working on the project both during and after its years of funding had
high hopes of the curriculum having a major impact on the way music was taught in the schools.
Moon and Humphreys (2010) provided a useful analysis of why the effort did not have the effect
expected (pp. 92-96). Embedded in this analysis are important aspects of why such approaches
(including the dramatic curriculum implications of CMP) are so difficult to accomplish. These
include the difficulty of music teachers to include music composition and improvisation
activities for fear of losing control, concerns about the time it takes to do constructivist teaching,
and personal concern that they do not have the expertise to oversee such activities.
Government Studies Important for Policy Development in Music Education
A Nation at Risk. In 1981, T. H. Bell, the Secretary of Education, asked to form the
National Commission on Excellence in Education to improve the status of American education.
The committee comprised 18 members. They suggested several ideas related to making
education more successful in preparing students as a competitive workforce for the nation,
including specifications for content in the curriculum (Tanner & Tanner, 2007). Music and other
arts were not the main subjects. However, the report included music and other arts. The
decisions of music in the curriculum were left for local authorities to decide.
No Child Left Behind. In 2001, The House of Representatives introduced the first draft
of the No Child Left behind Act. In the draft, ‘core academic subjects’ were included, and arts
were mentioned as a part of local programs for before- and after-school activities. The core
academic subjects included English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics, and
government, economics, arts, history, and geography. There was a section titled ‘Sense of the
Senate Regarding the Benefits of Music and Arts Instruction.’ This section ended with the
following statement:
24

(1) Music and arts education enhance intellectual development and enriches the academic
environment for children of all ages.
(2) Music and arts educators significantly contribute to the artistic, intellectual, and social
development of the children of our Nation, and play a key role in helping children to
succeed in school (H.R. 1, 2001c).
Mark and Gary (1992) noted:

‘Arts in education’ was explicitly mentioned in the part titled “Local Innovations for
Education,” which stated that the arts are fundamentally crucial to education” (H.R. 1,
2001c). The final version of the bill for the No Child Left behind Act passed on
December 18, 2001. In part titled “Funds for the Improvement of Education” (H.R. 1,
2001e), the government would support all students in demonstrating competency in the
arts. President George W. Bush called the No Child Left Behind, “a cornerstone
administration” because the act was for all children, including the underprivileged. (p.
452).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). President Obama signed into law Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015. ESSA attempted to ensure that all public schools
provide a quality education for every student. Plans were to include a description of the
following:
• Academic standards
• Annual testing
• School accountability
• Goals for academic achievement
• Plans for supporting and improving struggling schools
• State and local report cards

Under ESSA, states must test students depending on the grade level of the child. States
must test students in English and math from grade 3 to grade 8 once a year and one time in high
25

school. States must also test kids in science once in middle school and high school.
National Association for Music Education (NAFME, 2015) introduced ESSA Facet Sheet
and key terms on their advocacy web page like below:
This law includes music as part of a well-rounded education. These well-rounded
subjects replaced core academic subjects from No Child Left Behind Act. The “Well-
Rounded Education” provision, previously known as “Core Academic Subjects,” is a
section (Sec. 8002) within ESSA that lists courses, activities, and programming in
subjects deemed critical when providing students, a broad and enriched educational
experience. The provision includes “music” and “arts,” which articulates the importance
of music as a part of every child’s education. This provides an unprecedented step
forward for music education, as “Well-Rounded” is mentioned in a variety of other
significant provisions throughout the bill (https://nafme.org/wp-
content/files/2015/11/Fact-Sheet-ESSA-RL-12-7-Edits.pdf).
Scholarship on Policy Development in Music Education
Olsen, Barresi, and Nelson (1992) mentioned in the first Handbook of Research on Music
Teaching and Learning that there had been “little systematic study directed to the development
and implementation of effects on music education of policy decisions” (p. 760). These authors
suggested a definition of policy and the stages of policymaking based on the work of Mayer and
Greenwood (1980). The Mayer and Greenwood text did not focus on policy formation and
analysis. Rather, it centers on conducting research on social policy. It is unclear if Olson,
Barresi, and Nelson (1992) meant to suggest this as a specific model for music education policy
research, as they never make this claim, or if it was one model with which they were familiar.
Whatever the merits of their theoretical model, Olsen, Barresi, and Nelson recommended
26

systematic research on policy formation and implementation.
Embedded in much of the writings on policy in most recent times are clear considerations
for progressive and constructivist leanings. Below is a short summary of a few of these.
Reimer (2003) stated a need for policies sufficiently bold and imaginative to transform
ideas and practices. He acknowledged music education’s success in allowing students the
opportunity to become performers of composed music; however, this vision of success might not
be enough to satisfy the musical enthusiasm of students from diverse cultures. He noted the
paradox of students who possess strong musical abilities not always being involved as
performers in traditional school music ensembles. Reimer proposed the concept of ‘cultural
empowerment’ as a comprehensive and balanced program of music education, thus encouraging
the profession to consider more inclusive musical needs—a strong part of progressive thinking
for school curriculum reform.
Polin (2006) recommended that it was important to strengthen music education policies
and seek adequate resources to allow excellent music education for young children. She
mentioned that strong policies must be supported with the necessary resources to achieve
excellent access and availability for all. She also suggested that professional development
courses be improved for music educators, teaching artists, and all others connected with the
delivery of music education by including more attention to policy. She asserted the need for
engagement with more parents and community leaders as advocates for music education
programs. She mentioned the full responsibility of maintaining music education programs is
often placed on the music educator who must also serve as an administrator and advocate.
Polin asserted further that music educators must consider the potential future state of
music education before voting in future elections. She stressed that voters who elect school
27

board members and other senior administrators should consider the potential future state of
music education.
Like the work of Polin (2006), Abeles (2012) mentioned in the Oxford Handbook of
Music Education that he voted for Obama and urged others to vote for him because presidential
candidate John McCain's campaign did not issue any position statement on arts education.
However, candidate Barack Obama's campaign did in 2008. He quoted Obama's arts platform in
Obama/Biden Campaign of 2008 including the following statements:
We should encourage the ability to think creatively that comes from a meaningful arts
education. Barack Obama believes that the arts should be a central part of effective
teaching and learning. Barack Obama will raise resources for the U.S. Department of
Education's Arts Education Development and Grants, which develop public and
private partnerships between schools and art organizations. As president, Barack
Obama will use the example he will set in the White House to increase the
importance of arts and arts education in America (cited in Abeles, 2012, p. 595).
Abeles also asserted that music educators must consider the potential future state of
music education before voting in future elections. To ensure the centrality of music and the arts
in educating people genuinely and thoroughly, as well as to secure a place for these aspects of
education in schools, Abeles suggested that music educators need to band together to elevate the
status of music education. More music-education research on the positive effects of music
instruction based on constructivism should be conducted for the future of music education.
Jones (2009) categorized music education policy at school systems as hard and soft
policies in his article.
28

When applied to music education policy, hard policies are compulsory requirements such
as accreditation standards and government mandates, whereas soft policies influence
music teachers’ perceptions, values, and personal goals. Soft policies include policies
such as university admissions criteria and curricula, music teacher organizations’
activities, textbook and sheet music publications, and products from the professional
performing arts and music industries. (p. 28)
Jones believed music teachers “must develop the capacity to understand, study, and
influence both hard and soft policies” (p. 30). He suggested music teachers to develop their
abilities by understanding, studying, and influencing policy with resources, including online
information, professional development workshops, conferences by music educators’
associations, and music education degree programs.
Hunter (2011) asked questions regarding music education policy, “What are ways to
effectively support and encourage in-service music teacher participation in policy issues?”
“Should the undergraduate music education curriculum include the study of policy issues?” and
“If policy is integrated within the undergraduate curriculum, to what extent is policy inclusion
necessary and effective?” (p. 138). Like Jones, Hunter also believed that there might be inherent
conflicts between policy and actions in music classrooms. She also suggested that the
preparation of pre-service music teachers and the professional development of in-service music
teachers should be needed for bridging the gaps between hard policy, soft policy, and practices
by collaborative efforts among music professionals.
Frierson-Campbell (2007) also pointed out that the professional development of music
teachers had not been recognized as a pressing concern by either the federal government or the
education profession. One exception to this was the ‘No Child Left Behind’ initiative, which
29

specifically mentioned professional development as essential for improving the knowledge of the
teaching force. She also pointed out the system that many music teachers paid for all their
professional development to study the assessment, advocacy, creativity, and compositional
development. She also gave an example of the federal arts education study revealing that 72
percent of music teachers were involved in professional development. She questioned, how
policies can be better addressed the in-service needs of music teachers concerning the
counterforces they face in the school setting and if there are policy organizations within the
music education profession that might also address these issues. To answer these questions, she
mentioned consideration of the forces most directly impacting the direction of music education
in the classroom, including who, what, where, why, and when they will teach should be needed.
She believed administrators had a huge impact on when, where, and who of music in school
settings. Schedules and facilities of music classes are decided by the school policymakers.
Therefore, she concluded that music teachers must be able to communicate with administrators
because connecting the vision of music education to a school administrator’s vision is very
important.
Perhaps the most critical policy influence on arts in education in recent times was the
‘The Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994’ (Elpus, 2013). Elpus (2013) maintained that
this was a landmark piece of policy for the music and arts education in the United States since it
was the first federal education law to enumerate the arts as a core subject in American schools.
He also noted that the music education field more heralded this legislation than any other major
public law in the United States. He said, “Many authors were optimistic that the implementation
of the National Standards for Music Education would help promote the status of music as a
school subject, moving the discipline away from the margins” (p. 20).
30

From his study (2013), Elpus found that, as a result of Goals 2000, the probability of high
schools requiring arts courses for graduation and the number of arts credits required by those
schools also were increased significantly. He also stated that the United States Department of
Education data on arts education consistently reported that, of the four traditional arts disciplines
of music, visual art, dance, and drama, music education had the broadest implementation and
availability within the nation's schools. After the publication of the Goals 2000 legislation, the
arts became more established as core subjects in American schools and, as a result, has
influenced policy. Elpus (2013) asserted that education reform efforts in the United States
tended to be cyclic. Elpus also mentioned that a movement had been launched to draft high-
quality standards for what children in the nation should know and be able to do. Once again, the
arts have not been included among the initial list of subjects for which standards have been
drafted. He gave an example of the present study showing that parity in “core” status and state
adoptions of arts standards helped improve the status of arts education.
Perhaps the most current and influential scholarship on policy is the recent volume edited
by Schmidt and Colwell (2017), Policy and the Political Life of Music Education. A careful
reading of this book will reveal significant contemporary thinking on policy and its relation to
quality music education. Overall, the book advocated for (1) the music educator to be involved
with political entities, (2) the need for active research on policy, and (3) more grassroots
engagement in policy by profession. Three chapters are especially important for the
endorsement of more progressive and constructionist-inspired pedagogy:
Myers (2017) noted that policy is important in relation to three important areas of
concern for music educators’ work: “a) policies that advance the importance of, and access to,
lifelong learning for all citizens; b) arts and cultural policies that advocate access to quality arts
31

experiences and engagement, and that support practicing artists and the creation of art in
communities; and c) social and health welfare policies that recognize multiple avenues of
support for the general well-being of citizens” (p. 191).
Cutietta (2017) addressed two questions by Bledsoe (2015), who interviewed three adult
musicians that did not participate in their schools’ music program when they were in their
elementary school years. The two probing questions were; “Why was there no place for them in
school music programs?” and “Is there a place for them now?” Cutietta laid out what he felt was
the answer to the first question. There is no doubt whatsoever that this policy has built high-
quality programs and superbly educated students. However, he believed that we have embraced
and sustained this policy at the expense of including many students who probably deserved a
better formal musical education.
Cutietta also thought that the second question was harder to answer since there were
places where some change was happening, but it was difficult to envision that any substantive
change will happen quickly. The infrastructure is just too strong and formal to allow this.
He also mentioned that it was hard to deny that most school-aged children love and value music.
He gave examples of formal evidence such as recording sales and YouTube views, which
strongly support school-age children’s love of music and the importance they place upon it. He
gave other examples of informal evidence, such as the number of students with music-related t-
shirts and other accessories that support this as well. He felt that the ingredients are in place for
some transformational change.
Scott (2011) noted that art teacher education should continue to emphasize practices that
are appropriate to the production and understanding of visual images and objects while providing
students with an understanding of the contexts of schooling that they are apt to encounter that are
32

incompatible with their approach to teaching. She also asserted that strategies for
communicating with parents, colleagues, and administrators in order to advocate for progressive
approaches to music teaching should be central to the undergraduate art education curriculum.
She suggested art teachers to find allies within their fields and related areas of the
curriculum in order to actively build alliances and affect school policies and understandings of
the range of pedagogies that are traditional and effective within the arts and across subject areas
at the school and district levels. She felt that art teachers should join with university-based
researchers to document examples of progressive practice, wherever it occurs, in order to
squarely address concerns about the sequence of instruction, quality of work, student
engagement, and learning. She mentioned the video and social media are promising ways of
gathering and disseminating this information. She strongly insisted that art educators at all levels
should become politically engaged at the local and federal government levels to inform and
influence policies that help preserve the possibilities of making art in the schools in ways that
support personal and social learning, mastery of media, and engagement with issues that matter
to children and youth.
Finally, Daniel Johnson and his colleagues (2017) advocated redesigning educational
policy processes so teachers could become independent agents creating reflective and
differentiated professional development policy, rather than just reacting to and implementing
policies written by others. They recommended such policies that support reflective, organized
professional development interactions within and between schools and teachers. By using these
professional development policies, administrators and teachers could create professional
development policy, based on evidence gathered from reflective and differentiated professional
development, by utilizing structures created with participant input and keeping music teachers’
33

needs at the forefront.
Summary of the History of Policy and Music Education
This literature about the perspectives on policy for music teaching and learning and
possible ties to progressive and constructivist pedagogy tendencies beings from the very
beginnings of formal music education in the United States in the 1800s. At the core of this body
of literature are the concerns for music as a powerful force for personal growth and social well-
being that marked the beginnings of progressive changes in curriculum and pedagogies to the
central endorsement of student-centered learning and its potential for creative and meaningful
long-term understanding.
The landmark curriculum work of the 1960ies and 1970ies in music remains as
inspirational work during a time when education in the arts was valued and financial support
forthcoming. Important government studies that followed have contributed a conceptual base for
these developments, and scholarship about policy has grown steadily but perhaps not as quickly
as it should. Twenty-first-century concerns that arise out of issues of social justice, student-
voice, need for diversity, equity, inclusion, and creativity can be seen in this history and support
the need for more research on how policy awareness can help inspire better music teaching and
learning.
Endorsement of Constructivist Influence on Pedagogy in Music Teaching and Learning
Consideration of progressive education and constructivism as a conceptual base for this
study, which is noted in Chapter 1, is further expanded here. There are four categories of
scholarship that help organize this literature: 1) history/definition, 2) summaries of past writing
of constructivist pedagogy, 3) teacher education, and 4) implementation in the classroom.

34

History/Definition
Wiggins (2004), a leading practitioner and advocate of constructivism thinking in music
teaching and learning, provided the following list of constructivist teaching characteristics:
• People learn through constructing their understanding as a result of their experiences
and interactions with others.
• Each individual constructs his or her reality through experiences and interactions.
The ways we perceive the world are colored by our personal collection of
experiences.
• All ways of knowing and interpreting the world are valid-each for the individual who
holds them.
• To learn, people must have chances to construct their personal understanding of what
they learn.
• People are best able to construct understanding when new information is presented in
a holistic context-one that enables them to understand how parts connect with the
whole.
• Learning occurs in a social context. Teaching and learning are social processes.
• School learning experiences should be real-life experiences that include ample
opportunity for meaningful interaction with peers and teachers.
• Within these experiences, both teachers and peers provide scaffolding that enables the
individual to succeed.
• Students need to understand the goals of the experience and have sufficient grounding
in the processes and understandings necessary to achieve the goals.
• Learning experiences should be highly contextual, rooted in a musical experience.
• The context, goal, processes, and understandings necessary for reaching the goal must
be evident to the student.
• The ideal teaching and learning experience enable students to engage in the solution
of musical problems rooted in musical contexts.
• Good problems are structured in ways that enable students to find and seek solutions
to new problems.
• Problems for learning should be designed in ways that foster multiple solutions-and
the various solutions should be considered and valued for their uniqueness, creativity,
and originality” (p. 88-89).

Wiggins (2009) maintained “a social constructivist view where learning operates in a
framework of shared or mutual understanding of the learning situation, including a shared
understanding of the problem to be solved” (p.22). For her, conceptual understanding should be
centered on the individual response, discovery learning, and the autonomy of the learner.
35

Shively (2015) asked a very important question in terms of our need to examine the term
‘constructivism’ as it relates to policymaking in music education. He noted that the ubiquitous
presence of constructivism in our literature and our discussions about music education might
lead us to mistakenly assume we have accepted both a standard definition of the term as well as a
common understanding of how we apply it. He asserted that we are at a point in the
implementation of constructivism in music education, where we might benefit from taking a step
back to examine how music educators interpret and apply constructivism across a range of music
learning contexts. Further, he believed that constructivism had influenced discussions about
music education reform. For successful embedding of constructivist thinking in music
education, he insisted that a re-examination of these discussions in conjunction with a
consideration of how we define constructivism would provide a basis for making decisions about
future directions for music education is needed.
Constructivism, as both an epistemological view and a theory of learning (Fosnot, 2005),
provided us with fertile ideas for considering learning and teaching in music classrooms and
other music learning settings. It is about how we make meaning of our experiences and come to
know the world. As music educators, we should use constructivism as a lens for examining our
practice (Shively, 2015).
This may be viewed as yet another variant on our understanding of child-centered
education, one in which assessment and a particular understanding of learning outcomes are
placed in a dichotomous relationship (Barrett, 2017). Barrett considered ways in which some
trends in educational policy have been received and understood in the lives and education of
children and youth. She suggested that key historical developments, specifically the
progressivist movement in education, served as a point of comparison with policy thought and
36

practice. She explored what is understood by the terms: ‘progressivism’ and ‘child-centered
teaching and learning approach,’ outlining possibilities and challenges for both teaching and
learning. She was struck by a singular absence of discussions regarding child-centered
education: that of the child’s voice as agent and critic. To return to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Children (1986), specifically Article 12, it would seem that these
historical views of child-centered education have not necessarily ensured that children have their
right to express what they think should happen when grown-ups are making judgments that
influence them and to have their choices taken into account (Barrett, 2017).
Summaries of Past Writing of Constructivist Pedagogy
Webster (2011) noted that a review of the evidence-based work in music teaching and
learning with constructivist techniques showed only a start toward the promise that is
characterized in the general literature and in the conceptual and practical literature in music
teaching and learning. He believed that we seem to have the beginning of “…credible data for 1)
how music meaning could be constructed, 2) what strategies for teaching seemed plausible, and
3) how we moved as teachers off the center stage to boost student involvement” (p. 69). He also
suggested that music educators “need evidence about language as a mediator for learning,
constructed meaning and its variance with established canonic principles, and the levels of active
engagement that teach musical understanding” (p. 69). Moreover, he asserted that music
teachers need more knowledge about individual assessment in the face of social construction.
He suggested ways for music teachers to deal with parents and administrators by presenting the
process and product of constructivist techniques. As Reimer (2013) suggested, real music
learning does not come from just knowing about from active engagement in musical experiences
of the highest quality. Some music teachers are likely to not think much at all about
37

understanding that is formed by their students when that are actually engaged in constructing
music (Webster, 2011).
In a review and analysis of the development of child-centered education practices within
the progressive tradition from 1950 to 2010, John Finney (2011) charted a move away from
child-centered music education policy and practice to a place where the focus became one of
“…equipping children with knowledge, and one size of knowledge to fit all” (p. 90). Finney
suggested that this move from child-centered to outcomes-centered practice reduced music
education practice to the teaching of what could be assessed.
Teacher Education
Morford (2007) assumed if constructivism was to flourish within the American music
education system, teachers trained in constructivist programs must achieve a degree of success
equal to— or perhaps greater than— that of educators who received training in more traditional
settings. He also stated that constructivism dictates that successful instruction depends on the
teacher's ability to guide students toward a conceptual understanding that can be demonstrated
through but is not necessarily indicated by the performance of appropriate behaviors. He
believed in constructivist approaches for both students and teachers. The ‘why’ and ‘how’ of
behaviors are more important than the behaviors themselves during music classes. He concluded
that, while the theoretical foundations of its tenets are valid, an all-encompassing shift to
constructivism in post-secondary education is unlikely to occur.
Implementation in the Classroom
Keast (2009) wrote about the constructivist approach to music education as “a cognitivist
instructional design model based on the premise that learners construct their personal knowledge
based on interaction with their environments (p. 11).” He also mentioned his techniques for the
38

implementation of constructivism to online music history classes. Keast suggested that music
educators conduct further research to report on the current constructivist practices of music
teaching and learning.
Webster (2011) suggested the implication of constructivist approaches for music teaching
and learning by asking questions based on constructivism.
• How can musical meaning be constructed?
• How can I use students to teach one another?
• How can we honor the experiences that students themselves bring into the
classroom?
• How can we use language in different ways to mediate learning in a musical
environment?
• And what music can we choose to feature-multiple styles, cultures?
• What about the balance between the process and the product?
• Most importantly, how can I know that such an approach is effective?
• How can we harmonize various kinds of constructed knowledge that emerge from
students with accepted aspects of musical knowledge?
• How “active” does a student need to be in music to construct knowledge?
• How can I reconcile learning objectives from curriculum guides and still support
constructivist learning?
• How can I prepare my students for musical performance while working to achieve
constructivist learning?
• With so many approaches to encouraging constructivist thinking, what can I choose?
• Can I believe in students to accept responsibility for their learning?
• How can I modify my thinking process of not becoming center stage?
• How can I communicate with parents and administrators for the support of such a
constructivist approach to teaching music?” (p. 43-45)

Constructivism, as both an epistemological view and a theory of learning (Fosnot, 2005),
provides us with fertile ideas for considering learning and teaching in music classrooms and
other music learning settings. It is about how we make meaning of our experiences and come to
know the world. As music educators, we should use constructivism as a lens for examining our
practice (Shively, 2015). This examination should lead to continual refinement of our teaching
practice— “a teaching practice in which learning and teaching have a symbiotic relationship.”
(Shively, 2015, p. 156).
39

Shively (2015) posed the question of what versions of music education might best serve
the range of learners that we teach. He argued that a great variety of music and ways of being
musical might be best to serve the range of learners that we teach. In taking a constructivist
stance; he asserted that we could not simultaneously value multiple perspectives while
stubbornly limiting how we think music education should look. He believed that the attitude of
embracing multiple perspectives is critical to accept constructivist approaches, and this
acceptance can best happen in taking a constructivist teaching stance.
This may be viewed as yet another variant on our understanding of child-centered
education, one in which assessment and a particular understanding of learning outcomes are
placed in a dichotomous relationship (Barrett, 2017). Barrett considered ways in which some
trends in educational policy have been received and understood in the lives and education of
children and youth. She suggested that key historical developments, specifically the
progressivist movement in education, served as a point of comparison with policy thought and
practice. She explored what is understood by the terms, ‘progressivism’ and ‘child-centered
teaching and learning approach,’ outlining possibilities and challenges for both teaching and
learning. She was struck by a singular absence of discussions regarding child-centered
education: that of the child’s voice as agent and critic. To return to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Children (1986), specifically Article 12, it would seem that these
historical views of child-centered education have not necessarily ensured that children have their
right to express what they think should happen when grown-ups are making judgments that
influence them and to have their choices taken into account (Barrett, 2017).
Horsley (2017) noted that the implications of state-wide standardized curricular policy
were profound, and some of those implications and how music educators might respond to,
40

adapt, or subvert them need to be discussed. She mentioned that we should look back so that we
might better understand the political mechanisms through which state-wide standardized
curriculum became so prevalent in today’s public systems of education because once the policy
was created, it was not adopted, resisted, and subverted during the process of implementing it ‘on
the ground.’ She also asserted that multiple levels of the policy must coexist and, individuals
who implement the policy must find a way to negotiate a path among them in addition to
drawing on their experience, knowledge, and values in regard to policy content and the context
of implementation.
Returning then to the work of Webster (2014), he expressed the hope that the profession
would actively consider seven big ideas that should guide research and practice. He talked about
various subjects, including constructivist approaches, creative thinking in music, and popular
music pedagogy.
Webster’s first big idea was the consideration of teaching as a blend of constructivist
approaches and direct instruction that values student-centered work primarily as evidence of
learning. His second big idea in music education was the development of personal philosophies
of music teaching and learning that place creative thinking in music as a central tenant. His third
big idea was interdisciplinary connections between music and a host of allied fields in the arts
and in other disciplines as well. His fourth big idea was student-centered assessment, which is
consistent with constructivist approaches.
His fifth big idea was that student-centered assessment involves more sophisticated and
more complicated evidence for music learning by rethinking who we teach. Considering the
constructivist approach, he argued that teachers must find ways to balance their attention
41

between those students that show interest in Western art music tradition and students who are
interested in more alternative ensembles and classes that expand music horizons.
His sixth big idea related to more sophisticated thinking about what we teach in terms of
repertoires. The whole question of the role of vernacular and world music as partners with our
great Western art music is perhaps the most critical curriculum issue we face today. His seventh
big idea was where we teach and the whole question of multiple venues for teaching and
learning.
Popular music pedagogy is also related to constructivist thinking about what students
learn in terms of repertoires. Thinking of whom we teach, what we teach, where we teach all
relate to the student-centered thinking approach. Therefore, I believe Webster’s seven big ideas
in music teaching and learning (2014) rest on largely constructivist approaches and suggest
implications of constructivist approaches for music teaching and learning. I also believe that
these constructivist approaches in music teaching and learning need to be embedded in teachers’
education for its practical use in schools’ music curriculum. Then, policies that advocate the use
of constructivist approaches in music teaching and learning are required in schools for both
students and teachers.
Empirical Work in Music Teaching and Learning Inspired by Constructivist
Thinking
Constructivism is considered “a theory about knowledge and learning and not necessarily
a theory about teaching practice” (Webster, 2011, p. 36). In this context, many researchers have
conducted their empirical work in music teaching and learning inspired by constructivist
thinking.
42

Buehrer (2000) conducted an action research study that adopted constructivist approaches
to teaching college courses. She discussed the issues related to the implementation of the
constructivist approach to aural skills instruction, such as assessment techniques as well as the
changing role of instructors and students. Based on her findings she concluded that
“constructivism has great potential for implementation into aural skills curricula, which would
suggest an alternative paradigm for aural skills instruction” (p. 7).
Xydas (2014) conducted a qualitative study to investigate the composing experiences of
students in a band ensemble class. A group of 334 students in all sixth, seventh, and eighth
grades participated. Among 334 students, 59 participated in all three years from their sixth to
eighth grades. He studied his students’ learning experiences within a socially constructed,
student-centered teaching and learning environment as students engaged in composing music in a
middle school band program. Data consisted of video and audio recordings of class rehearsals
and group work, students’ compositions and written reflections on their composing experiences,
and follow-up interviews with students. Both audio and video recordings were transcribed, and
all data analyzed for themes reflective of the nature of participants’ experiences in this middle
school band ensemble setting. His findings suggested that composing music enabled students to
develop a sense of agency and become empowered and provided the opportunity for them to
choose how, when, and why to be musicians; in addition, composing fostered a partnership
between students and the teacher and among students and fostered a learner-centered, social
constructivist learning/teaching environment in band class.
Holsberg (2009) investigated the creation of a constructivist educational environment in
traditional instrumental music settings supported by practitioner research. He conducted
practitioner research in his own classroom and set up a constructivist band scenario to determine
43

“its relative benefits and challenges, identifying and describing the roles that teachers and
students play and the key dynamics that inform the experience” (p. 11). He stated the following
question: “Can the integration of these constructivist paradigms create more meaningful
experiences for students enrolled in instrumental music education?” He found evidence of
strong performances and high levels of student satisfaction throughout his research.
Gustafson-Hinds (2010) studied a comprehensive musicianship (CMP) unit that
implemented music technology in a high school band setting. This study was implemented at a
midwestern high school where 200 band members participated in one of the three-level concert
bands. The intermediate level symphonic band served as the experimental group, and the
beginner level concert band and advanced level wind ensemble served as control groups. Data
included student performance pretests, post-tests of all three-level bands, and experimental group
data, including daily observation of CMP instruction, students’ journals, informal and formal
interviews with teachers, and a post-questionnaire. Gustafson-Hinds decided to design this
quasi-experimental study with a constructivist approach based on Bartram’s (2001) constructivist
ideas and on Wiggins’s (2007) discussion that constructivism should align with developing
comprehensive musicianship. The results suggested that students experiencing the
comprehensive musicianship unit were not only able to learn musical concepts more completely,
but also improved their technical mastery of musicianship compared to other groups.
Bae (2010) conducted an action research study to determine “if long-term collaborative
teacher professional development experiences in constructivist teaching and use of flow
indicators were effective for Korean piano teachers to identify their own problem situations and
find solutions to bring about their students' enjoyment and motivation in learning piano.” (p. 14)
Her study was based on “the theoretical foundation of constructivism, which was meant to
44

provoke critical thinking in the teacher participants, leading them to interrogate their own
practices and see possibilities for change. (p. 8) Her findings were: “1) teachers' beliefs should
be considered and explored in the process of teacher professional development, 2) applying
constructivism in piano instruction is valuable, 3) careful examination of students learning
behaviors is important and valuable to help their learning improvement, and 4) collaborative
action research is a viable means of quality professional development.” (pp. 174-175)
Becker (2011) described the process of constructing constructivism both theoretically and
practically as the director of a small youth choir. She employed autobiography as a research
method for examining her understanding of constructivism and the impact of her research on
constructivism in her teaching. She focused on four aspects of the constructivist theory:
constructivist epistemology, psychological constructivism, social constructivism, and
constructivist pedagogy. With her own practice, she applied the constructivist theories of
teaching and learning in the process of constructing musical meaning through the music learned
and performed by students. Her own constructivist pedagogy and her interpretations of
observations during rehearsals revealed that giving students’ autonomy and allowing them to
have their ownership of the learning processes during rehearsal allowed students to have their
own personal connections to the music in many ways that develop meaning-making, enhanced
musical engagement, and more abilities for self-expression.
Spears (2014) investigated high school band students’ processes of learning and their
responses and reactions to student-centered and aural-based learning projects. She collected data
in this case study from observation and audio or video recording of weekly rehearsals, interviews
with teachers and participants, and artifacts, including students’ notation and scribblings on
paper. Twenty participants were divided into four small groups in a 45-member high school
band. The data were collected during band classes for eight weeks and were analyzed by creating
45

a case study of each of the four groups to determine their working processes. Her research
focused on multiple aspects of constructivist approaches, including informal learning and
student-centered learning. She found that students perceived benefits from participation in this
student-centered learning project, including the development of students’ ability to play by ear
and their confidence.
Haynor (2018) conducted a case study on the application of a constructivist aspect to the
assessment of compositions in a technology-based music classroom’ in order to determine the
perspectives of students and teachers who engaged in the assessment techniques in a high school
classroom. He conducted three observations and two interviews with a teacher and four students
over three months. Data were interview transcriptions, student journals, videos of the classes,
and field notes. He found that the teachers and students replied that versioning, providing
information about student’s productivity level and composition process, and critiquing was
beneficial to them in many ways.
Summary of Relevant Literature
The inclusion of music in public school curriculum was a crucial and memorable event
for American education history even though “the arts were not always included as part of the
core academic subjects.” (Aguilar, 2011, p. 150). There were major curriculum projects and
events in the 1960ies. There was a renewed interest in progressive educational practices during
this time period: born out of a hope to give new energy to Dewey’s ideals and to readdress what
was seen as stagnant teacher-centered pedagogy in many fields of study. Reimer (2003) stated a
need for policies sufficiently bold and imaginative to transform ideas and practices. Polin (2006)
recommended that it was important to strengthen music education policies and seek adequate
resources to allow excellent music education for young children. She also mentioned that strong
46

policies must be supported with the necessary resources to achieve excellent access and
availability for all.
Constructivism is both “a philosophical perspective and a theory of learning, and though
it is not a policy, constructivist understandings and beliefs can underlie both formal policy and
the work of practitioners within it.” (Wiggins, 2015, p. 115) Many researchers wrote about their
perspectives on the endorsement of constructivist influence on pedagogy in music teaching and
learning; they argued that music educators at all levels should become politically engaged at the
local, state, and national levels in order to inform and influence policies that help preserve the
possibilities of making arts in schools in ways that support personal and social learning, mastery
of media, and engagement with issues that matter to children and youth (Scott, 2011). There
might be problems with implementing constructivism in the classroom and cases in which the
exclusive inclusion of constructivism might not be needed because demonstration and imitation
are appropriate for certain cases of learning (Selley, 1999). This was also seen in the years
following the work done on the Manhattanville project (Moon and Humphreys, 2010)
Evidence-based research seems to generally support the inclusion of constructivist
approaches (Becker, 2011). In each research study, there were conclusions that supported the
continued study of the implementation and effectiveness of such approaches.
This empirical work in music teaching and learning inspired by constructivist thinking,
together with the heritage of policy development for progressive approaches and the conceptual
writing about constructivist positions, support the basis of this study and specifically the
formation of research questions about: 1) implementation, 2) conceptual endorsement, and 3)
actual practice. We now turn to the details of the methodology for this study in Chapter 3.

47

Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter contains information about the research methodology selected for the study.
An intrinsic, ethnographic, and comparative case study approach was selected. The approach is
explained, together with information about school character and population, recruitment of
participants and informed consent, and participant characteristics and timeline. Also explained
are data collection procedures, pilot study, data analysis, data management, ethical issues,
trustworthiness, and limitations for the study.
Intrinsic, Ethnographic, and Comparative Case Study of Two Schools
Informed by the purposes of this study and findings from related literature, the following
research questions were formed:
1. Considering the role of school leaders as policymakers, in what ways have leaders
endorsed, communicated, and supported constructivist teaching by teachers in two
selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such practices?
2. In what ways have constructivist approaches been endorsed conceptually by music
teachers in two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such
practices?
3. What evidence is there that constructive pedagogy is practically embedded in
pedagogy in two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such
practices?
In order to answer the research questions, the study was structured as an intrinsic,
ethnographic, and comparative case study of two schools in Los Angeles in which constructivism
has been applied or is just beginning to be applied.
48

The intrinsic case study approach was individualistic rather than a cultural approach
(Henderson, 2018). The intrinsic case study design was utilized to capture the research
environment for the intrinsic value to that organization (Svoboda, 2014).
This study employed an ethnographic research method with its emphasis on observations,
in-depth interviews, and time spent at school sites during data collection to determine the ways
that constructivist perspectives were applied during classes. In qualitative research, ethnography
has been used as a research method as it makes researchers engage with “real-world settings
using tools like observations, interviews, and artifacts, and emphasizing the whole rather than the
discrete unrelated phenomena. It interprets participants’ perspectives based on the researcher’s
fieldwork” (Chong, 2017, p. 6). Creswell (2007) mentioned qualitative researchers “recognize
that their own background shapes their interpretation, and they ‘position themselves’ in the
research to acknowledge how their interpretation flows from their own personal, cultural, and
historical experiences (p. 21)”.
My position is that of an Asian female instrumental music educator who grew up in
South Korea. I worked to become a classical pianist and came to the United States for graduate
study in music education. I was attracted to constructivism, its implication for music education,
and the policy that supported it. I am also interested in music teaching and learning in school
systems in Los Angeles. I believe that learning is the construction of knowledge by people’s
personal beliefs of what they see, what they hear, how they feel, and what they like. I also
endorse the value of social interactions with people, including teachers, peers, families, and all
other people one meets in everyday life.
Márquez (2012) examined and described her findings through a comparative case study
approach in her dissertation. Likewise, I used the comparative case study approach, which was
49

chosen to examine the similarities and differences between two schools where one school had an
established history of constructivist practices, and the other school was beginning to take on this
approach. The comparative case study approach was chosen to help me understand the
similarities and differences between two schools in significant detail. The comparative method
requires that data be available from more than one case, such that the effects of various candidate
causal factors can be controlled or assessed (Hammersley, Gomm, & Foster, 2009). The case
study design was based on data collection from multiple sources using participant observation,
interviews, focus groups, and archival records (Svoboda, 2014). Moreover, case studies often
focus on analyses of participants, philosophies, policies, decisions, pedagogies, projects, or other
school elements that can be studied holistically by one or more methods (Thomas, 2011, p. 513).
In order to answer my research questions, the data were collected from personal
interviews with music teachers and the heads of school (senior administrators) in two chosen
schools in the Los Angeles area. Included are a series of observations of class instruction by the
selected teachers in the two schools over several months. I studied each school’s overall policy
and its inclusion of constructivism by analyzing interview data from the heads of school and by
studying written artifacts published by the schools, such as the schools’ policy statements on
constructivism and documents related to the music curriculum. I also studied each schools’
constructivist approaches to their music curricula by analyzing data from interviews with music
teachers and by the study of personal observation data. I attended a total of 24 classes taught by
four music teachers across both schools, and video/audio recorded these classes for data analysis.

50

School Characteristics and Population
I identified two similar target schools in the same Los Angeles area that met the
important criterion that one should have an established history with constructivist practices, and
the other was just starting to adopt this approach. The first school, Mount Haven,
1
has endorsed
constructivism as part of its overall policy and its program since its inception in 2005. In
comparison, James Madison, at the time of this study, was just beginning the application of
constructivist approaches to its curriculum, led by a new head of school.
Mount Haven is a charter school, and James Madison is a private school in the Los
Angeles area, with each serving a diverse social, economic, and racial population. Both schools
were committed to promoting diversity in their students and their families’ cultural identities,
faiths, backgrounds, and heritages. Below are some comparative ethnicity statistics from each
school. The data for Mount Haven and James Madison is displayed for students only.

Figure 3.1 Pie chart showing the ethnicity statistics of Mount Haven School. From
www.greatschools.org.

1
Schools’ identities in this case study are protected with pseudonyms.
21%
19%
12%
48%
White Hispanic Asian Black
51

Figure 3.2 Pie chart showing the ethnicity statistics of James Madison School. From
www.greatschools.org.
Four ethnic groups are dominant in both schools: White, Asian, Hispanic, and African
American. Both schools have high percentages of white and Asian populations. Hispanics and
African Americans are the next significant populations. James Madison’s annual school tuition
is around $27,000 to 30,000 depending on grades, while Mount Haven is a tuition-free school but
runs on parents’ donations.
I operated under the assumption that there would be differences in the schools’ curricula
and applications of constructivist approach according to the extent each school included
constructivism in their histories. Mount Haven has established constructivism within schools’
culture since 2005, while James Madison began constructivist teaching at the start of the 2018/19
school year. Background information is provided below that supported the decision to include
these schools in this study. I provide sample artifacts from each school that support histories of
constructivist activities in Appendix L and M.
Mount Haven. Mount Haven is a K-12
th
public charter school with approximately 1,400
students. Mount Haven was chosen as a target school because of its long tradition of
35%
33%
19%
8%
4%
White Asian Multiracial or Other African American Latino
52

constructivist techniques. Mount Haven opened as a K-2
nd
-grade elementary school with 120
students in 2005. The following is the school’s mission statement taken from a charter school
petition to the Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division.
Mount Haven, a grades K-12 school, has established itself as one of the top-performing
public schools in Los Angeles. Unique among public charter networks in our focus on
racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity, Mount Haven School aims to provide a
richly diverse community of students with a high-quality public education. Mount Haven
grew out of a dream of a group of dedicated parents, opening in September 2005 as a K-
2
nd
-grade elementary school with 120 students. Inspired by the success of Mount Haven,
the second group of parents advocated opening a sister school. The result was …a
separate K-8 charter school, which opened its doors … With Mount Haven’s expansion,
the dream grew. The community now wanted to offer every student a path from
kindergarten through 12
th
-grade. Mount Haven School amended its charter to include a
high school, and in 2011 the LAUSD Board of Education approved the petition. But,
Mount Haven–West Hollywood continued to operate as a separate entity, and our
students were limited to a K-8 program. (Source specifics withheld to mask identity)

Mount Haven submitted a 2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to the Los Angeles Unified
School District Charter Schools Division in 2014 to expand their school from K to 12
th
-grade.
Their aim was to be a unique school that provides students and the school community with a
constructivist curriculum through K-12
th
grade and this was contained in this recent petition.
However, for this study, I conducted research on the 5
th
and 6
th
-grade levels only in order to
match the James Madison’s program, which extends only to the 6
th
-grade.
Admission to Mount Haven is competitive and runs by a lottery system. Parents are
aware of the constructivist curricula and its long history at the school because the mission and
constructivist teaching are conveyed to parents during briefing sessions. I heard about these
briefing sessions from the parents of Mount Haven. It is also clearly stated in its promotional
materials. There is a tradition of allowing teachers to design their own constructivist curricula.
Here is a school review that was written by a teacher at Mount Haven:
53

This school is a very progressive school, and teachers have flexibility on how to teach
items that best fit each student. There is ample support for students. Teachers are very
devoted. (Source withheld to mask identity).

Mount Haven has music programs, including general music classes, pop-band, and vocal
workshops. Fifth graders have 50-minutes music classes two times a week, and 6
th
graders have
45-minute music classes two times a week. Band rehearsal and a vocal workshop are once a
week for 1 hour and 45 minutes during after school hours. Both 5
th
and 6
th
graders can take any
music classes.
James Madison. James Madison is a PK-6
th
private school with around 350 students.
James Madison has been best known for its traditional education approaches and systems since
the school’s founding in 1968. Admissions are also competitive and have a religious affiliation.
The new head of school joined the administration team in June of 2018 and believed that
constructivism should be at the core of the school’s teaching pedagogy. He began working on a
plan to modify the school’s curriculum toward constructivism from traditional approaches. On
James Madison’s school website, the endorsement of constructivist approaches at the time of the
research was added by the head of the school. It consisted of a welcome and some details about
the school’s philosophy.
This new policy and changes in the curriculum toward constructivist approaches are
documented more completely in Chapter 4. The following comes from the school’s website:
Paramount to our philosophy of teaching and learning is the belief that intelligence is
neither a fixed nor an unchanging commodity. Our school intentionally expands each
child’s capacity for learning in a thoughtfully designed environment where children are
not just “taught;” they are encouraged to explore, investigate, work collaboratively, and
probe the world around them.
Though we are best known for our traditional educational approaches, we also believe
that children should have the opportunity to construct meaning as they assimilate
knowledge. Rather than merely providing rote learning in our classrooms, we encourage
our teachers to stretch the children’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate what
54

they learn, to apply their learning to new situations, and to present confidently and in a
variety of formats what they have learned.
Because our children will inherit a complex and unpredictable world, we believe that a
James Madison education should provide our students with the thinking strategies they
will need to solve problems and resolve conflicts. We acknowledge that our children
must grow into adulthood with equal measures of creativity and critical thinking skills,
and we foster the ability to seek and apply knowledge from a wide variety of sources.
However, above all, we at James Madison’s pledge to inculcate in our students a
commitment to ethical behavior and an abiding appreciation for the differences that mark
each human being as an individual of inestimable worth and dignity. (Source withheld to
mask identity).

Many faculty members have worked at James Madison for an extended period. As will
be seen in the data, I discussed the matter of transition to a new constructivist approach within
the traditional structure with the new head of James Madison. During those preliminary
conversations, I learned that he had been working on training the faculty to learn about
constructivism and to think about implementing constructivist approaches into their curriculum.
The precise extent of this for all faculty was unclear.
James Madison’s music department includes general music classes for all grades, choir
program from 3
rd
to 6
th
grades, band program from 4
th
to 6
th
grades, and string orchestra program
from 2
nd
to 6
th
grades. Students have 30 minutes of general music class two times a week.
Students can choose to join in the afterschool music program: band, string orchestra, or choir.
All these afterschool music programs require students to take classes two times a week. Band
and String programs have two groups of students, beginner and advanced groups. Students are
assigned to band or string class on their levels by audition. Beginner groups take 30-minute
classes, and advanced groups take 45-minutes classes. There are three music instructors in the
entire music department.

55

Recruiting Participants and Obtaining Consent
The sampling of participant teachers from the two schools was based on convenience
with the added dimension of “snowball” techniques. Convenience sampling is a type of
sampling method where the sample is chosen from a group of people who are easy to reach.
Snowball sampling is a method used to generate a pool of participants through referrals made by
individuals who share a characteristic of research interest with the target population as chain
sampling or chain referral sampling (Crouse & Lowe, 2018).
Since I knew students who attended these sample schools, and I knew some of their
parents, I established a convenience sample of teachers. For Mount Haven, I asked both students
and parents to help me recruit other participant teachers using a snowball technique until my
target number of teachers was reached. For James Madison, I verbally asked the general music
teacher and band teacher if they could allow me to observe their classes and have an interview
for this study. These two teachers were my own children’s music teachers. My own two children
attended James Madison during my research period, but neither participated in classes that I
observed. I confirmed that my goal was to enlist the aid of two teachers at each school, one
teacher of general music, and the other teacher of band instruments for a total of four teachers. I
emailed them the interview questions and consent forms before the data collection began.
Next, I contacted the head of the school of both institutions by email and asked them if they
would be willing to participate in my research as an interviewee. Each head of the school
graciously agreed to participate.
Consent for participation was obtained both from the schools themselves and more
formally from teacher participants who signed consent forms as dictated by the Internal Review
Board at the University of Southern California. Both the head of the school and music teachers
56

signed the consent form indicating that they would permit video-recording during class
observation for this study. Examples of the consent forms are displayed in Appendix C and D.
Data Sets, Participants, and Timeline
Data Sets
There were three data sets in this study: 1) the interview data from the two selected music
teachers in each school and interview data from the heads of school for both schools, 2)
observation data from selected class instruction, and 3) written artifacts of school policy related
to constructivist approaches. As noted below, Appendices A and B include the questions used
for the interviews with teachers and administrators. The questions were drafted based on careful
consideration of the research questions for this study.
For the second data set, written analyses from observation of teaching based on notes
taken during the observations and from recorded videos formed this body of evidence. This set
was enhanced by an analysis checklist of observed markers of constructivist pedagogy as
identified from the literature (see Appendix E.)
For the third set, materials from artifacts other than public websites such as written
policies that endorsed or described constructivist approaches used were collected and studied
carefully in order to augment interview and observational data.
Participants
The target participants included three individuals from each school. Mount Haven
offered all students an hour general music classes two times a week and two hours band
rehearsals once a week. James Madison offered all students 30-minute general music classes
two times a week and 45 minutes band rehearsals two times a week. A general music teacher, a
band teacher, and a head of school were selected from each school for a total of six interviewees.
57

An initial interview with the teachers was followed by a second more informal interview after
observation of classes in order to clarify the data obtained. This contributed to the reliability of
the data. I audio-recorded all interviews with my iPhone voice memo under permissions by
participants. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show information about the participants.
Table 3.1
Information about the head of two schools
Mount Haven James Madison
Head of School Head of School
Master’s degree in TESOL Bachelor’s Degree in history and master’s
degree in education

Her main teaching philosophy approach is
every kid should be able to learn but should
be different from each student’s way of
demonstrating their learning.

She believes constructivism is not actually a
policy; it is a practice we do. She also
believes constructivism is the best practice
that everyone should use.

His main teaching philosophy is educating
children to go out to interact with our world
and make it a better place.

He believes constructivism comes down to
student’s voices and agency that our
classroom setting is supposed to be a place
where we are talking with children, having a
conversation with them, and hearing how they
react and respond to the curriculum.

58

Table 3.2
Information about music teachers of two schools
Mount Haven

James Madison
Position General Music
Teacher,
Full-Time

Pop Band
Teacher,
Part-Time
General Music
Teacher,
Full- Time
Classical Wind
Ensemble/Band
Teacher,
Part-Time

Degree

Certification

Major
Music
Making
Area

Main
Teaching
Philosophy

Bachelor’s
degree in music
performance

Certified
Kodaly, level 1

Drummer,
guitarist, ukulele
player,
composer, and
singer

His main
teaching
philosophy is
that music is all
about hearing
and music is
learned first by
ear, and then
learned to read
it.

Bachelor’s
degree in
religious study,
and master’s
degree in
clinical
psychology

Not certified in
any special
methodology

Violinist and
singer/
songwriter

Her main
teaching
philosophy is to
be directed by
kids in their
interest.
Bachelor’s
degree in organ
performance and
church music,
and master’s
degree in organ

Certified Kodaly
and Orff level 1

Organist and
conductor

His main
Teaching
philosophy is
every child
should be able to
access music.
Bachelor’s degree in
professional music
master’s degree in
music education

Not certified in any
special methodology,
but familiar with
Kodaly and Orff

Flutist and conductor

Her main teaching
philosophy is every
child should sing.
Her philosophy is
very heavily on
performance. She
tried to have kids
perform for peers,
have them try to
teach themselves.

For classroom observations, an attempt was made to maximize the number of different
classes at each level and each school as possible. I observed general music and band classes at
59

the 5
th
and 6
th
-grade level at each school. The result was a total of eight general music classes
and four-band classes from each school at each grade level for a total of 24 classes in all. As
noted, after class observations were done, I questioned teachers about how they felt about current
teaching and thoughts on their future teaching plans. For effective data analysis, I video-
recorded all classes I observed by using the Power Director program using my laptop and USB
condenser microphone.
Timeline
All interview data with the heads of school, music teachers, and class observations were
collected in the spring semester of 2019. In January 2019, IRB approval was granted (see
Appendices C and D), and I received confirmation from the head of both schools that I could
conduct my dissertation research in their schools. Then, I contacted music teachers to ask if I
could observe their music classes. All heads of school and music teachers gladly scheduled their
time for interviews with me. The teachers shared their teaching schedules with me before I
started my observations. The interviews with both heads of school were performed before the
observation started.
In February 2019, before starting the video recording of music classes, I visited several
music classes in both schools to determine which specific music classes would be suitable for my
dissertation research. Mount Haven had four classes in each 5
th
and 6
th
-grades, and James
Madison had two classes in each 5
th
and 6
th
-grade classes. The music teachers recommended
observing certain classes for my study, and I complied with their suggestions. I observed each
class one time and chose specific classes as my data group in February 2019. I chose each one
class per grade for my study, depending on their interest in music and focus on their group works
because a certain class was better in focusing during music classes. This was told and
60

recommended by music teachers. The data collection started on March 5
th
and finished on May
24
th
, 2019.
Data Collection Procedures
I prepared semi-structured interview questions and gave a copy of the interview questions
to the participants ahead of time to expedite the interviews. The interview questions are
displayed in Appendices A and B. Questions were designed to address the research questions. I
also designed the interviews to build on interviewee’s structures of experience and consciousness
in order to generate in-depth descriptions of participants’ thinking related to constructivism—
including questions of how participants’ education and experiences influenced their teaching and
learning philosophy. Many scholars consider all qualitative research to be phenomenological in
nature and concerned with the essence of the experience—all with the understandings that come
with exploring the researcher’s own perspective and bias in progress (Conway, Hourigan &
Edgar, 2014).
In addition to interview data, direct observation was a primary tool that allowed me to
learn about constructive teaching and learning as practiced at each school. Dewey (1934)
distinguished between two modes of observing: ‘recognition’ or ‘perception.’ Recognition is
“bare identification” and perception is “begin to study and take in” (Conway & Schmidt, 2014, p.
227). As Dewey suggested, ‘perception' was my goal of observation during this qualitative
research.
During interviews with teachers, I inquired about how they developed plans to re-tool or
reconstruct their pedagogy. In observations, I sought evidence that constructive pedagogy was
embedded in pedagogy. I also studied artifacts, such as written policy containing constructive
teaching and learning philosophy, to obtain further evidence for constructivist policies and
61

practices. The six interviews lasted between 50-75 minutes and the 24 class observations ranged
between 30-150 minutes. Band classes took longer than general music classes. Mount Haven
offered 50 minutes of general music classes twice a week, and James Madison offered 30
minutes of music classes two times a week. Observations were done for general music classes
and band rehearsals to seek evidence.
From the interviews with administrators and teachers, I sought evidence for constructivist
educational philosophy and its relationship to personal education philosophy. In addition, I
sought the relationship between administrators’ policies and support for teachers and actual
curriculum design, including future plans by teachers and administrators. I sought to confirm
these relationships with findings from class observations. I looked to see if teaching and learning
were constructed as experiential and holistic processes. The results from the teacher
observations were compared to administrators’ constructivist perspectives and teachers’ teaching
philosophies and methods as determined from their interviews. Table 3.3 displays how data sets
are related to the research questions.

62

Table 3.3
Data sets related to the research questions.
Research Questions Data Sets
1. Considering the role of school leaders as
policymakers, in what ways have leaders
endorsed, communicated, and supported
constructivist teaching with teachers in two
selected schools with different periods of
endorsement of such practices?

• Interview data from school
administrators
• Written school policies that show
constructivism is conceived as part of
the policy
2. In what ways have constructivist
approaches been endorsed conceptually by
music teachers in two selected schools with
different periods of endorsement of such
practices?

• Interview data from music teachers
• Data from observing music classes
3. What evidence is there that the
constructive pedagogy is practically
embedded in pedagogy in two selected
schools with different time of endorsement
of such practices?

• Comparison of interview data with
teachers and administrators from
schools
• Data from observing music classes
• Written school policies or other
artifacts that show constructivism is
teaching and learning philosophy

For each class, I arranged for a video/audio recording. I also audio-recorded interviews
with teachers. This enhanced the reliability of my data analysis (Alvesson, 2011). Moreover,
this allowed me to have more time to think and ask the right questions in follow-up procedures.
I used the iPhone voice recorder as a tool of audio recording during every interview. I also used
the iPhone’s camera to capture pictures of special musical moments from music classes and
performances to aid my memory of my experiences. I tried to focus on capturing how
constructivist teaching and learning music was or was not used during music classes. I also
wrote down information about the kind of music experiences students were having and made
notes on my perceptions of how students and teachers responded to each other. I used video
63

recording software and hardware with my laptop. All video and audio recordings were permitted
by the school and by teachers in advance as guided by the IRB research agreement.
In addition, for each observed class, I was studying the markers for constructivist
pedagogy using the analysis observation form in Appendix E.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was completed several weeks before the actual data collection. I visited
another private school in the Los Angeles area to observe one of the 6
th
-grade music classes at
that school. I wanted to observe a music class of the same grade level as my target school. My
goal was to verify my data collection techniques, both conceptually and technically.
The teacher selected for study in the pilot was well known for her progressive education
applications, including the use of music composition approaches. I wanted to observe the 6
th
-
grade music class in which music composition was occurring.
With the music teacher’s permission, I video-recorded the music class I observed. I
analyzed the video of the music class with my dissertation advisor to have experience with
generating a possible analysis form and to have my analysis approaches verified by a
knowledgeable other. I practiced observing and analyzing throughout this pilot study. From this
work, I obtained a sense of how to observe and how-to video-record the class. I also gained the
experience of analyzing videos with the analysis form. In the analysis form, I put four parts,
including segments, teaching goals, descriptions of what teachers and students are doing, and
analysis. I also used questions of ‘how is musical meaning constructed?’ for five questions parts,
including socially constructed knowledge, learning is experiential, student-centered teaching and
learning environments, scaffolding, and learning as a holistic process. Those question parts were
64

selected from Webster (2011). After collecting data, observing a music class, and analyzing data
during this pilot study, I became more confident with each research process.
Data Analysis
The grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis was used to interrogate the
interview and observation data. Grounded theory seeks to discover or construct theory from
data, systematically obtained, and analyzed using comparative analysis of both similarities and
differences between two categories (Chun, Birks, & Francis, 2019). I used this grounded coding
technique to compare Mount Haven’s policy implementation with James Madison’s.
Coding, as a qualitative analysis technique, is the term used for attaching a conceptual
and particular label to a particular chunk of data, and if we start to link together these codes in
relationships, we can start to theorize about the data (Urquhart, 2013). I tried to label certain
data and put the data in themes and sub-themes by this coding process.
After interviews with both teachers and administrators, I listened to the audio-recordings
and transcribed the data into Microsoft Word text files for careful study. As documented in
Appendices A and B, the content was based on designated sections. For the administrators’
interview questions, there were six parts: 1) his/her educational background; 2) personal
educational philosophy and its relationship to his/her policies support for your school; 3) the
relationship between policy and actual curriculum design at school, as well as work with
professional staff; 4) questions about discipline; 5) questions about parents and students; and 6)
questions about future plans. For the teacher’s interview questions, there were five parts: 1)
his/her educational background, 2) personal educational philosophies and its relationship to
policies from school, 3) relationship between policy and actual curriculum design at school, 4)
general questions about teaching, and 5) future plans.
65

Next, observation of the classroom activities, data including musical activities, students’
and teacher’s actions, and reactions during classes and performances were noted in analysis
forms. The analysis form is shown in Appendix E. The vital evidence and descriptions of
constructivist pedagogical concept that I sought from the observations are noted below:
Socially Constructed Knowledge
In this section, I analyzed if a teacher used the students’ open-ended questions to learn
more about the students’ perspectives and their level of understanding and used the students to
teach one another. Class observations were analyzed to determine if the students used
collaborative learning processes, including supporting group music learning environments, group
discussion, interactions with teachers and peers, problem-solving as a group, feedback to other
students’ ideas, and questions posed to the teacher.
Learning is Experiential
This section helped to analyze if the teacher honored the experiences that students
themselves brought into the classroom and encouraged students to express their own musical
ideas. In this section, the goal was determined if the students were active in constructing
knowledge, listening to music, exploring different kinds of musical instruments, performing
music, creating (improvising or composing) music, analyzing and interpreting musical ideas,
doing music activities through games, and learning through their musical projects.
Student-Centered Teaching and Learning Environments
This section focuses on evaluating if teachers tried to not become the central focus of
teaching and learning and if they validated the students’ ideas and understanding. This section
also focused on evaluating if teachers made efforts to understand and connect with the students’
perspectives; whether the teacher used language in different ways to mediate learning in a
66

musical environment, taking on a role of teacher ‘facilitator’ in music classroom, giving choices
to students to choose their repertoires to feature multiple styles of music, and reconciling
constructed knowledge that emerges from the students that seems to be at variance with accepted
aspects of music knowledge. This section further demonstrated the students’ musical
understanding using their own words that were different from standard musical terms and
showing the students’ own ideas as being central to teaching and learning progress.
Scaffolding/Guided Participation
The scaffolding section assessed if the teacher trusted students to accept responsibility for
their own learning, provided scaffolding where his/her help was needed and stepped back when
it was not, gave time and space for students’ own musical thinking and process, and supported
ideas of students inviting other students to take the lead during music classes. This section also
sought evidence of the following: 1) students gradually taking over tasks that they were able to
do on their own, 2) if students knew class goals and their own progress toward the class goals, 3)
what students were supposed to learn during each class, 4) why students needed to learn their
tasks, and 5) how students proceeded with their own learning work in groups without teacher
direction at the end of the class.
Learning as a Holistic Process
In this section, analysis questions assessed if the teacher: 1) connected that day’s
experience to the problem that students solved in previous classes, 2) monitored students’
understanding and progress on an ongoing basis and 3) designed curriculum which enabled
individual students with different levels of expertise to participate in the same experience. From
this analysis, it was possible to understand what students already learned in their past classes, if
67

they connected their new musical ideas to what they already learned in past classes, and if they
further linked their musical inquiry and new musical understanding.
Data Management
The interview data were saved as participant names and dates in a digital folder for each
school. Observational information generated a large volume of data, requiring the development
of systematic and accessible methods for organizing the data (Conway & Schmidt, 2014). Since
the data needed to be stored for at least three years, a secure arrangement was made to save all
written, audio, and video data in databases. The databases were designed to allow for quick and
accurate access during data analysis for this research.
Ethical Issues: Possible Conflict of Interest
Three research participants were my own child’s music teachers and head of school. In
addition, three research participants were introduced to me by individuals whom I knew. I tried
to be careful with these possible conflicts of interest during research. Conflicts of interest are
defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a
primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest, including promoting and
protecting the integrity of research and the quality of education (Lo, Lo, & Field, 2009).
Conflicts of interest arise when an author, reviewer, or editor has connections to a
source/organization, causing a bias in their judgment of the journal manuscript, even if the
ultimate decision is not affected by such a bias (Kojima, 2016).
To prevent bias, I chose one video and analyzed the music class with the analysis form
and shared the video with my dissertation advisor. We analyzed the same video together and
figured out if there was any decision affected by a bias resulted from the conflict of interest.
68

Some parts of my analysis were not the same as his analysis. In these cases, we determined if
there was any bias from my analysis of that video.
I constantly tried to make ethical decisions, minimize pressure on participants, and
protect data integrity, including participants’ confidentiality during research. Safeguards for
privacy were established to protect the privacy of research participants. I conducted interviews
at venues other than the classroom or faculty room so I could minimize the potential risks of
exposing a participant’s private data to other people. I watched videos of all four music and
band teachers and wrote my analysis of class observation on analysis forms. I chose samples of
video clips from each teacher and sent the video link to my advisor and two experienced music
educators to compare my analysis with their analyses to see if there were significant differences
due to conflicts of interest.
Trustworthiness
Two experienced music educators who were familiar with constructive approaches
reviewed and analyzed the research data using the same analysis form I utilized. Both
experienced music educators were familiar with constructivist teaching, and learning from
Teachers College, Columbia University and USC while pursuing their degrees. I chose two
video files for their analysis. One video was a general music class of 6
th
graders at Mount
Haven, and the other video was a general music class of 6
th
graders at James Madison. I chose
those two videos based on the same grade and course level of the students. I sent the music
educators a video link of each school’s music class and asked them to answer the questions in the
analysis form (Appendix E). I finished analyzing all the data on my own, but without
mentioning any findings to them. The music educators analyzed the video independently
without any prior information about the schools.
69

Next, I compared my analysis with theirs. The analysis results of the two music educators
were very similar to mine as follows: Two music educators pointed out they found evidence of
constructivist teaching and learning at Mount Haven’s music classes. They also revealed that
they did not find much evidence of constructivist teaching and learning from James Madison’s
music classes.
Limitations
There were several limitations that arose from this study. First, in both schools, students
were aware of the camera during each observation, even though I was observing and videotaping
in the back of the classroom. Second, at Mount Haven, as the data were collected both inside
and outside of the classroom due to their drumming practices, students’ reaction to the class was
not the same, perhaps due to mood changes associated with the different venues. Students
looked more excited to have a class outside. Third, I interviewed James Madison’s
administrators and music teachers only one semester after the new head of school came to James
Madison. Therefore, it was not possible to learn about all curriculum changes from a new
endorsement of constructivist approaches during the interview. Lastly, Mount Haven was a
public charter school, and James Madison was a private school. Their education environments
were somewhat dissimilar due to the differences between the public and private school systems
and environments.
In addition, there might have been other limitations due to convenience and snowball
sampling. Administrators and teachers might not express all their ideas or criticism during the
interview because I, as a researcher, was referred by someone they knew. Furthermore, there
were limitations due to music teachers at James Madison, not knowing too much about
constructivism. If this research could be done after all music teachers had enough time to learn
70

more about constructivism and include constructivist approaches in their curriculum, the findings
might have been different.

71

Chapter 4: Findings
This chapter includes the findings from three data sets: 1) artifacts published by the
schools, such as schools’ policy statements on constructivism and any documents related to the
music curriculum, 2) interviews with music teachers and principals, and 3) class observations
throughout this study. These data sets were studied systematically guided by the three research
questions of the study, which, in turn, were formed after stated purposes and review of the
literature. This chapter is divided into first a section that reveals the themes identified and how
they relate to research questions. Second, each theme is described in detail, as it is evidenced in
the data collected.
Themes
Seven critical themes emerged from the data analysis and helped answer the research
questions. Themes identified were:
1. Endorsement of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy
2. Evaluation of teachers regarding constructivist teaching
3. Future work planned by school leaders to support teachers
4. Engagement of constructivist pedagogy in practice
5. Plans to re-tool or re-construct constructivist pedagogy
6. Evidence of constructive pedagogy in observation
7. Differences between the two schools that had different histories of endorsement
of constructivist pedagogy
I found ‘endorsement of constructivist approaches in school’s policy’ from artifacts
published by the schools, such as schools’ policy statements on constructivism and documents
related to the music curriculum. From interviews with music teachers and principals, I found
72

‘evaluation of teachers regarding constructivist teaching,’ ‘future work planned by school leaders
to support teachers,’ ‘engagement of constructivist pedagogy in practice,’ and ‘plans to re-tool or
re-construct constructivist pedagogy.’ From the analysis of class observation, I found ‘evidence
of constructive pedagogy.’ After finding these aspects, I was able to investigate ‘differences
between the two schools that had a different history of endorsement of constructivist pedagogy.’
These themes are linked to each research question, as noted below.
Research Question 1: Considering the role of school leaders as policymakers, in what ways have
leaders endorsed, communicated, and supported constructivist teaching with teachers in the two
selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such practices?

1) Endorsement of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy
2) Evaluation of teachers regarding constructivist teaching
3) Future work planned by school leaders to support teachers

Research Question 2: In what ways have constructivist approaches been endorsed conceptually
by music teachers in the two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such
practices?

4) Engagement of constructivist pedagogy in practice
5) Plans to re-tool or re-construct constructivist pedagogy
6) Evidence of constructive pedagogy in student-evaluation
Research Question 3: What evidence is there that constructive pedagogy is practically embedded
in pedagogy in the two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such practices?

7) Differences between the two schools that had a different history of endorsement of
constructivist pedagogy

73

Table 4.1 shows how these research questions, themes, and data sets are used and how
these are related.
2
Table 4.2 Shows seven themes and sub-themes.
Table 4.1

Research Questions, Themes, and Data Sets

Research Questions Themes Data Sets
Research Question 1:
Considering the role of school
leaders as policymakers, in
what ways have leaders
endorsed, communicated, and
supported constructivist
teaching with teachers in two
selected schools with different
periods of endorsement of
such practices?
1) Endorsement of
constructivist approaches in
the school’s policy

2) Evaluation of teachers
regarding constructivist
teaching

3) Future work planned by
school leaders to support
teachers

Artifacts published by the
schools
Research Question 2
In what ways have
constructivist approaches
been endorsed conceptually
by music teachers in two
selected schools with different
periods of endorsement of
such practices?
4) Engagement of constructivist
pedagogy in practice

5) Plans to re-tool or re-
construct constructivist
pedagogy

6) Evidence of constructive
pedagogy in student-
evaluation

Interviews with music teachers
and principals

Analysis of class observations

Research Question 3:
What evidence is there that
constructive pedagogy is
practically embedded in
pedagogy in two selected
schools with different periods
of endorsement of such
practices?
7) Differences between the two
schools that had different
histories of endorsement of
constructivist pedagogy

Analysis of all three data sets:

Artifacts published by the
schools

Interviews with music teachers
and principals, and

Class observations throughout
this study

2
Research question 3 deals with the embedding of constructivist practices. There were multiple themes
repeated from previous research questions.
74

Table 4.2
Themes and Sub-themes
Themes Sub Themes
1. Endorsement of Constructivist
Approaches in School's Policy

2. Evaluation of Teachers on
Constructivist Teaching

3. Future Works Planned by School
Leaders to Support Teachers

4. Engagement of Constructivist
Pedagogy in Practice

5. Plans to Re-tool or Re-construct
Curriculum with Constructivist
Pedagogy
• Social Learning Environment
• Learning is Experiential
• Teacher's Role as a Facilitator
6. Evidences of Constructivist
Pedagogy in Observations
• Socially Constructive Knowledge
• Learning is Experiential
• Student-Centered Teaching and
Learning Environments
• Scaffolding, Guided Participation
• Learning as Holistic Process
7. Differences Between The School
with More History of Constructivist
Work and the One that is Just
Beginning
• Ways of Endorsement of
Constructivist Approach in Two
Schools' Policy
• Engagement of Constructivist
Pedagogy in Two Schools' Practice
• Teacher Plans to Re-tool or
Reconstruct Constructivist Pedagogy
in Two Schools

75

Theme 1: Endorsement of Constructivist Approaches in the School’s Policy
Mount Haven
Mount Haven submitted the 2015-2020 Charter School Petition to the Los Angeles
Unified School District Charter Schools Division on September 26, 2014, to expand their school
from K to 12
th
-grade school. Their intention to present Mount Haven as a unique school to
provide students and school communities with a constructivist curriculum received approval to
become a charter school from K-12
th
-grade. In that petition, constructivism as its school’s main
philosophy and mission were endorsed in no uncertain terms. Moreover, its curriculum was
endorsed based on the philosophy of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, and Lev
Vygotsky, who were known as philosophers of progressive education where constructivism had
its root.
Mount Haven considers a constructivist and inquiry-based curriculum that inspires
independent thinking to be the reasons for Mount Haven’s success. Mount Haven has its own
unique approach to translating constructivist theory into the actual curriculum. Mount Haven is
dedicated to constructivism as the educational philosophy and strategy to achieve its mission as
described below:
Our unique approach to translating constructivist theory into practice is our signature
innovation. The Mount Haven curriculum is progressive, interdisciplinary, and
experience-based, and rooted in social justice and the humanities. Students build and
deepen concepts through the use of concrete manipulatives and experiential learning, and
our curricula draw on the work of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Reggio Emilia, Jerome
Bruner, and Lev Vygotsky (2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to the Los Angeles
Unified School District Charter Schools Division, p. 13).

Mount Haven believes that the social learning environment is also an essential part of
constructivist teaching and learning. Vygotsky (1978) described that the key to a learning
experience within a student’s “zone of proximal development” is “problem-solving under adult
76

guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). For ensuring the social learning
environment, the mixed-age grouping is a way of educational setting at Mount Haven. The
school has different strategies of mixed-age grouping depending on students’ grade levels, as
noted below.
In order to support relationships that result in higher cognitive functioning in students,
primary grade students in TK-3
rd
grade participate in a loop in which students have the
same teacher and classroom of peers for two consecutive years. This looping allows for
more in-depth and personal relationship develops between teachers and students, as well
as students and peers. This practice results in a strong focus on building relationships and
strengthening social problem-solving skills. Further, small school size and class sizes
develop a more intimate social learning environment and support positive academic
outcomes through positive social relationships (2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to the
Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division, p. 30).

Not only is an endorsement of constructivism noted in the 2015 -2020 Charter School
Petition, Mount Haven’s school handbook also contains an endorsement of constructivist
approaches, specifically in the overview and introduction, mission statement, glossary (effective
educational and charter terms), and educational program. Here is an example of the endorsement
of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy.
Mount Haven offers a project-based, inquiry-based, and experienced-centered curriculum
to serve the culturally rich and diverse populations in Los Angeles. (Mount Haven School
Handbook, 2018)

In the mission statement, peer-learning from a diverse group of students is discussed. A
group learning system evidenced in the experience-centered and inquiry-based environment also
represents a constructivist learning approach.
The mission of Mount Haven is to provide a culturally, racially, and socio-economically
diverse group of students with a neighborhood public school where they learn with and
from each other in an experience-centered, inquiry-based environment. (Mount Haven
School Handbook, 2018)

The glossary, written in educational and charter terms within the Mount Haven School
Handbook, is designed to help parents understand educational terms related to constructivist
77

approaches. By endorsing these educational terms, including “constructivism,” “experience-
centered,” “inquiry-based,” “project-based learning” and “whole child/holistic approach” in the
glossary, schools’ policymakers inform parents what their primary teaching and learning
philosophies are and how they execute these philosophies in their curriculum. Parents might
already know what constructivist approaches look like and chose this school for their child
because they like the school’s constructivist approaches; however, some parents might not know
the school’s core values and philosophies are based on constructivism. Therefore, this
endorsement can help parents understand what educational environment their child would have
in this school.
Moreover, in the section of the educational program on the Mount Haven handbook,
there is a description of what constructivism is.
Constructivism is a learning theory that asserts that students learn best when able to
construct understanding themselves, building on the unique set of knowledge, talents, &
life experiences they already have. Thus, they must interact actively and engage with
new material in unique ways to bridge their previous understanding with new information
and construct a deeper understanding of the world they live in (Mount Haven School
Handbook, 2018)”

According to the handbook, constructivism is not limited to a curriculum, project-based
learning, nor instructional methodologies. In this introduction regarding educational programs in
the school’s handbook as noted below, constructivism is defined very specifically with
demonstrations of how constructivism works with the school’s curriculum in different age
groups. At the elementary school level, students are encouraged to construct knowledge by
group works and by their own experiences of understanding concepts as described below:
At the Elementary level, students think about real-life circumstances in order to apply
conceptual learning to complex situations. Children engage with information that is
visual, graphic, auditory, tactile; they demonstrate their ideas and understanding through
writing, drawing, acting, singing, conversing, debating, building, hypothesizing, testing,
sharing, and exploring. There is no single lesson that embodies a “constructivist”
78

approach-instead, a rich array of lessons and opportunities creates a constructivist
program that supports a broad array of learning styles. (Mount Haven School Handbook,
2018)

In upper-grade levels, students are encouraged to use their knowledge in their real lives,
so they can connect their knowledge to the real-world and use their findings to create their own
understanding in depth. Since Mount Haven is a charter school from Kindergarten to 12
th
grade,
this endorsement shows that constructivist approaches can be useful in teaching and learning in
various age groups as below.
At the middle and high school level, constructivism looks like students writing for real
audiences and on topics about which they are passionate; debating ideas; grappling to
make meaning of complex texts; going through a process of drafting work that includes
practicing skills; applying them to measuring projects; reflecting on feedback from peers
and teachers; and revising the work before presenting it to a real-world audience. (Mount
Haven School Handbook, 2018)

In terms of the instructional framework on Mount Haven School Handbook, project-
based learning and their signature projects are explained in detail as an academically
interdisciplinary approach and a constructivist approach. Students can construct knowledge
broader and deeper throughout these interdisciplinary works with their groups. This signature
project needs complex processes of creative and critical teaching and learning, but students’
learning scope can be more productive by constructing and utilizing the knowledge at the same
time.
The content of the yearly curriculum is based on the California Common Core State
Standards and structured through what is known as a ‘Signature Project.’ This overarching
project sets the theme for the year through the principles of eco-literacy and social justice,
providing a meaningful structure through which to learn the standards in social studies, science,
language arts, mathematics, world languages, physical education, and the visual/performing arts.
Signature projects have multiple smaller units and lessons, connected through their thematic
79

consistency and focus through which students learn the standard concepts in other subjects like
science and social science. A Signature Project is based on two approaches of teaching and
learning: content/skill-based lessons and action-based lessons. Content/skill-based lessons are
provided in which children create their knowledge base and develop the academic skills to use
their knowledge. Action-based lessons are provided in which children are active agents in order
to learn how to put their knowledge to work together with others.
Faculty and staff take part annually in the process of self-assessment in which the
content, design, and implementation of the Signature Project at each grade level are
examined and improved. Faculty and administration validation that the signature project
at every grade level is: An academically interdisciplinary approach, Standards-based and
grade-level appropriate, based upon the concepts and theories of eco-literacy & social
justice, Action-oriented, Using a constructivist approach to learning. (Mount Haven
School Handbook, 2018)

From all these data endorsing constructivist approaches as part of the school’s policy, as
evidenced by artifacts published by the school, I found that the school’s policy systematically
endorsed in detail constructivist thinking. In fact, the school’s policy on a constructivist
curriculum from K-12
th
-grade might be considered a model for such an approach.
James Madison
On James Madison’s school website, endorsement of constructivist approaches is shown
as part of the head of the school’s welcome and stated school philosophy:
Our classrooms are laboratories, in the best of what John Dewey envisioned for excellent
schools over a century ago. (Head of School’s Welcome, James Madison’s school
website).

The head of school did not mention a constructivist teaching and learning approach
specifically in his welcome statement; however, the reference to John Dewey’s vision is some
indication of endorsement. He also called classrooms “laboratories,” which shows his education
philosophy might be leaning toward a progressive education philosophy.
80

Children are encouraged to explore, investigate, work collaboratively, and probe the
world around them. Though we are best known for our traditional educational
approaches, we also believe that children should have the opportunity to construct
meaning as they assimilate knowledge. We acknowledge that our children must grow
into adulthood with equal measures of creativity and critical thinking skills, and we foster
the ability to seek and apply knowledge from a wide variety of sources (Philosophy,
James Madison’s school website).

In this philosophy statement, the school does not directly use the terms “constructivism”
or “constructivist approach,” however, there is the statement that “children should have the
opportunity to construct meaning as they assimilate knowledge.” This is very similar in meaning
to Mount Haven’s constructivist philosophy, which states that “students can think about real-life
circumstances in order to apply conceptual learning to complex situations.”
Not only is there some indication of endorsement of constructivist approaches indirectly
in school’s policy, but there is also evidence that the school’s head of school has tried to change
curriculum toward constructivist approaches with his communications to parents in emails from
the school’s communication office.
He has offered his time for book clubs to enlighten parents’ mindset in three sessions of
book club meetings in the spring semester, 2019, by sharing his ideas on the book Mindset: The
New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck (2006). The book clubs were intended to help
parents change from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset.
Furthermore, the head of school also communicated with parents about his constructivist
philosophies and plans to re-tool the curriculum during coffee meetings, which occurred four
times during the spring semester in 2019. The head of school explained to parents that it was not
just abilities and talent that brought student success, but whether they approached their goals
with a fixed or growth mindset. He also suggested that the book club for parents consider the
book Drive by Daniel Pink (2001) for the fall semester, 2019. He noted this book as an
81

exceptional text that will allow parents to reflect on how they might imbue their children with a
lifelong love of learning. In Drive, Pink explored how extrinsic motivation through rewards and
punishments is an outdated paradigm that is not effective in today’s educational environments.
He asserted that intrinsic motivation is suitable for today’s complex tasks that need our creative
and critical thinking processes via constructivist teaching and learning.
Therefore, step by step, the head of school appeared to be influencing the school’s
curriculum by endorsing constructivist approaches on the school’s policy and communicating his
ideas to parents. From these data, I determined that constructivist approaches to school policy
were indirectly endorsed by the head of school in various ways described.
Theme 2: Evaluation of Teachers Regarding Constructivist Teaching
From the interviews with teachers and principals, I found evidence during the time spent
in the schools for this study that all four music teachers from both schools were evaluated in
terms of constructivist approaches during professional development days at their respective
schools. Professional development sessions throughout the year are designed to develop many
aspects of teaching and evaluation of teachers for promoting students’ learning. Teachers also
had personal appointments with principals or teaching and learning specialists for their
evaluation in which constructivist approaches were discussed.
Mount Haven supported teachers, leaders, and staff by providing frequent opportunities
for professional growth and development. Mount Haven fostered a collaborative school
environment where teachers were given opportunities to work with and learn from other teachers
and develop their leadership.
Driven by principles of constructivism, Mount Haven provides teachers with chances for
discussion and planning with other faculty members; guidance and self-reflection around
individual needs for growth and learning; active participation in the experimental,
investigatory, and reflective practice; data-analysis, leading to critical thinking skills
82

specific to the field of education; and building on prior knowledge and adapting best
practices through structured support. (Context of 2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to
the Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division, p.86)

Documents suggest that music teachers are given the support that includes time,
resources, and autonomy to develop their pedagogical skills in a professional learning
community continually; create, evaluate and refine curricula; and ensure that all students had
every opportunity to achieve (The Context of 2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to the Los
Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division, p.16).
Mount Haven has a tradition of offering professional development days for teachers
every Wednesday afternoon. This day is an early dismissal day, allowing all the teachers,
including those in music, to meet and discuss constructivism in many ways.
Every teacher at Mount Haven is asked to site-visit another school. Teachers go to see
how other teachers in the area to observe methods of teaching. This activity may or may not
focus on constructivism, but the process does allow teachers to get a glimpse of different
approaches that they could bring that back and incorporate into art instruction.
Documents from Mount Haven suggest some attention to teaching policy in terms of
constructivist thinking. For example, from the Charter School Petition for Mount Haven, the
following sentiments are noted:
To create a constructivist educational experience, teachers must find ways to present new
information and ideas through a varied set of experiences to capture the many unique
methods that the brain uses to process information. They must create opportunities for
students to connect their new learning to their pre-formed schemata –or to make
meaningful connections between the new information and the way of understanding that
their life experience has provided (Context of 2015 -2020 Charter School Petition to the
Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division, p.29).

An interview with a music teacher at Mount Haven is revealing:

I just had my evaluations with the principal yesterday. I feel really good about it, and
what she always does is, at the beginning of the year, we write down three goals as a
83

teacher we want to accomplish throughout the year, and then, pre-observation we meet,
she reminded me of those goals and watched me in action, she got copies of my lesson
plans, and then we go over what she saw. (Interview with a music teacher at Mount
Haven, Recorded: 2019-01-29)

Mount Haven’s principal explained how to evaluate teachers on their constructivist
teaching, as evidenced below.
Lots of professional developments were done over the summer. There is also the
teacher’s observation day that teachers observed each other to see what others practiced if
they are new. People get to choose what they want to focus on and dig deep into learning
more by reading books and watching videos on that topic. An expert on that field came
into professional development, as well. This Wednesday, teachers are going on their trips
to a model school to observe their practice. Then, we will gather and plan out the
different presentations. Hopefully, they can incorporate what they learn with their
curriculum. (Interview with the principal at Mount Haven. Recorded: 2019-01-28)

James Madison also provided professional developments to teachers before the scope of
this study. They brought in teaching and learning specialists to school instead of evaluating with
internal personnel. These specialists worked with teachers monthly and were given full days to
work with teachers. Specific steps taken or will be taken to work with James Madison’s music
teachers is the document in the following interview:
They do provide good professional development. Last year, they brought in a teaching
and learning institute. Specialists worked with us monthly, and they gave us full days to
work with her. They brought subjects for teaching us. So, they give us good
development opportunities. I have to get evidence of my goals and view what I have
accomplished in those areas. I have had to give them examples of how to extend my
teaching and to show how my teaching has changed. We set up the goals at the
beginning of the academic year, but the curriculum is up to me. (Interview with the music
teacher at James Madison. Recorded: 2019-01-28)

James Madison’s principal noted the school’s evaluation of teachers on constructivist
teaching as below.
We set up the goals together. We will add the curricular department and curricular
coach. Teachers can benchmark classrooms and mutually set up the curriculum.”
(Interview with head of school at James Madison. Recording: 2019-02-06)

84

Theme 3: Future Work Planned by School Leaders to Support Teachers
Both school leaders have plans to continue professional development with outside
organizations. Mount Haven has professional development day on every Wednesday from 2 to 4
pm. Faculty members take a day off from the students and go to various schools to observe
different types of teaching and learning for developing their teaching curriculum.
For James Madison, one such organization noted was Growing Educators
(http://growingeducators.com/). Since James Madison is in the early stages of curriculum
policies that endorse constructivism, the head of school was planning to build a curriculum
committee that would address work on more scope and sequence for Pre-K to 6
th
Grade. A
music teacher at James Madison noted that the school provided good professional development
such as teaching and learning specialists, and the head of school described the plans to support
teachers as below:
Building a curriculum committee having more sense of scope and sequence, Pre-K to 6
th

Grades, our philosophy is going to be very important, building out our teaching and
learning institute as a regular opportunity for our faculty members to be engaged in
professional development. I am so excited about the future of our school. We will have
extraordinary things over the next few years. We just started shifting our evaluation
systems. Build cultures where your relationship with your students is growth minded.
(Interview with head of school at James Madison. Recording: 2019-02-06)

Theme 4: Engagement of Constructivist Pedagogy in Practice
Evidence was found that Mount Haven teachers understood the school’s constructivist
philosophy and its related policies for their instruction. Their teaching philosophies and
curriculum have been influenced by the school’s philosophies and policies. They found social
interactions with peers from group work, students’ active learning, music composition or
improvisation, and project-based learning all played an important role in their curriculum. They
mentioned their role as a facilitator during music classes. Mount Haven teachers naturally
85

engaged constructivist approaches in their curriculum since they fully understood what
constructivism is. They tried to integrate arts with academic subjects by group songwriting
projects. Both teachers at Mount Haven were always focused on project-based learning and
small group learning during their classes. One music teacher at Mount Haven felt that his
philosophy of music teaching and learning naturally aligned with the school’s philosophy.
Mount Haven’s teaching philosophy is constructivism. I think naturally, in music, we
are constructivists by doing it. Music is naturally a constructivist method of learning
already. It fits perfectly with how we are doing it at Mount Haven. I think, as a music
teacher, constructivism has more affirmed my philosophy and approach in teaching
music. So, I think I always have had this approach to it, but it has only helped me to
deepen that method of teaching as a constructivist teacher. Constructivism, I would say,
is 1) project-based learning and 2) small group learning.” (Interview with the music
teacher at Mount Haven. Recorded: (2019-01-29)

The band teacher at Mount Haven also agreed that her philosophy of music teaching and
learning naturally aligned with the school’s philosophy, as noted below.
When we came here, I was already aligned with their philosophy that drew me to this
school. I came in with that philosophy as well. It just cemented more. Seen it more in
action and seen how it relates to this development in this age, which is different. It
changes when kids get older, differences at the age of development. My husband and I
have learned how Mount Haven School has applied it to different ages. The challenges
are different levels to find the balance. I love group work. I work with each one a little
bit individually and bring them all together. (Interview with band teacher at Mount
Haven. Recorded: (2019-05-14)

I found the culture at James Madison in terms of this question to be different. Since
teachers at James Madison were committed to Kodaly and Orff curricular approaches, they
expressed a desire to continue their styles of teaching from their past teaching experiences. They
believed that the adoption of constructivist views might be antithetical to approaches based on
Kodaly and Orff. Both teachers also thought they had enough freedom from administrators to
design their curricula unless the curricula violated national standards and the school’s
philosophies.
86

Before welcoming the new head of school, James Madison’s philosophy was deeply
influenced by views that support diversity and equity because of the schools’ population. James
Madison teachers understood their school’s philosophy regarding cultural diversity; however,
they did not recognize changes suggested by constructivist approaches since the arrival of the
new head of school. They did not feel they had changed their teaching philosophies based on the
new policies.
One of the James Madison music teachers thought Kodaly might be the best traditional
teaching approach for whole group learning as support for everyone. He felt that pedagogies
such as station rotation learning, project-based learning, and group songwriting might be too
hard to do due to limited space and its negative effect on whole group learning and ear-training.
The other music teacher at James Madison, a band teacher, felt adopting constructivist
approaches might be hard on the control of group teaching and learning environments. It was
difficult for him to understand how project-based learning would work for his classes.
Both teachers were seriously concerned about the cultural diversity aspect, which was
endorsed by their school’s policy as their school’s core value from previous times, so they voiced
support for the notion of multi-cultural repertoires for their curriculum. However, they felt that
they were not comfortable with implementing constructivist pedagogy in their practice yet.
One James Madison music teacher explained his negative thoughts on constructivist
teaching and learning for his music classes as follows:
Station rotation learning is hard to do in music classrooms. Kodaly, that approach is
better for whole group learning. For project-based learning, it’s hard for me to let go and
control the whole group. It is hard for me to understand how project-based learning
works for the music classroom. You can’t hear the sound when four different kinds of
songs are going on in the same classroom. I don’t know if I can make music with four
musicians, incorporating project-based learning and constructivism. It may ruin the
benefits of whole group learning and ear training. It’s kind of distracting when students
87

have group work together in the same classroom. (Interview with the music teacher at
James Madison. Recorded: (2019-01-28)

Mount Haven’s band teacher also mentioned difficulties in using constructivist
approaches for her classes:
I think group learning works depending on the contexts. In the recorder club, it is a little
tricky because they are learning the instruments and play the same song together. When I
test them, I like to take them individually, just to address any issues and any habits
individually, which sometimes I can’t tell in their group playing. (Interview with the
band teacher at James Madison. Recorded: (2019-03-14)

Theme 5: Plans to Re-tool or Re-construct Curriculum with Constructivist Pedagogy
This theme had several subthemes that emerged related to social learning, group work,
and teacher’s role. After some general observations, these are treated separately below.
Music teachers at both schools seemed to be aware of plans to re-tool or re-construct
music curriculum with constructivist pedagogy, as noted in professional development days at
their schools. Teachers were aware that the curriculum at both schools was in the process of
being updated and modified. Both school leaderships also communicated with teachers about
developing their lesson plans to fit into national standards and schools’ policy, including mission
statements and philosophy. Music teachers at both schools understood the schools’ policy, and
there is evidence that they were trying to adjust their curriculum.
This was especially true for Mount Haven teachers. They had been working on re-
designing and re-constructing their curriculum with constructivist pedagogy, and they seemed to
endorse plans to re-tool or re-construct their curriculum with more social learning environments
and group composition or improvisation. Moreover, they considered themselves as ‘facilitators’
to facilitate constructivist teaching and learning environments during music classes. This was
less so for James Madison teachers. I found that both James Madison teachers did not have their
thinking processes focused on not being center stage in teaching. In addition, students’ ideas
88

were not central to the teaching and learning process. Teachers did not take on the ‘facilitator’
role during music and band classes. Teachers did not give choices to students to choose their
repertoires to feature multiple styles of music since this was seen as not central to Kodaly and
Orff curricular. Students did not express their musical understanding using their own words
other than the standard musical terms.
Social Learning Environment
Evidence suggested that teachers at Mount Haven have tried to re-design the curriculum
with more social learning environments in mind. Teachers intended to make students work with
their classmates as partners or groups. Students were asked to construct their knowledge by
helping each other.
Mount Haven’s general music teacher talked about social learning environments as
below:
I think, more than the past, I have seen students work as partners and groups in my
classes. So, I have intentions about creating those times when they were sitting down
together. If they don’t know how to do something, they can talk to a partner. Students
help each other out. I was watching two girls in the last class, and one girl helped the
other girl. (Interview with the music teacher at Mount Haven. Recorded: 2019-01-29).

Mount Haven’s band teacher also described her positive opinions on social learning
environments as follows:
I love group work. I work with each one a little bit individually and bring them all
together. Sometimes, the music teacher (the music director) provided us with arranged
music for this band group; then, we should work on that music. But we have the songs
we can work on (Interview with the band teacher at Mount Haven. Recorded: 2019-05-
14).

I found no evidence of social learning environments during interviews with teachers at
James Madison or observation of classes. In band classes, students sat in groups based on their
89

instrumentation; however, their sitting was not intentionally designed for boosting social learning
environments.
Group Composition and Improvisation
Music teachers at both schools said they did group composition and improvisation during
music classes. Teachers at Mount Haven used group composition and improvisation more
frequently than those at James Madison as was evidenced in the class observations. Evidence
exists that shows Mount Haven teachers offering signature songwriting projects, which include
group composition and improvisation, and were based on interdisciplinary and constructivist
approaches. For example, in 6
th
-grade music classes at Mount Haven, students learned about
their environment around them and how they can create sustainable environments for the future.
Many of the 6
th
graders write songs about homeless people and how they could find a
solution to homelessness or help with human rights, or with animal rights. All these
ways, we can let them engage. (Interview with the music teacher at Mount Haven.
Recorded: 2019-01-29).

Mount Haven’s band teacher mentioned her teaching experiences with group composition and
improvisation as follows:
We did compose and improvise before. Last year, that happened a lot. We had
keyboards, and they made up and created their songs. I helped and supported that group
last year (Interview with the band teacher at Mount Haven. Recorded: 2019-05-14).

James Madison’s general music teacher also mentioned that he offered a composition
class project at times:
I do a class-project occasionally. For the 1
st
graders, we wrote the lyrics and put the
rhythm on the board. I said, “Let’s compose melody lines together.” Then, I shared their
projects with the other class (Interview with the music teacher at James Madison.
Recorded: 2019-01-28).

Furthermore, James Madison’s band teacher asked students to do improvisation during
classes:
90

We just had an improvisation class two weeks ago, and some students got inspired by
writing their music, and they brought me their compositions. (Interview with the band
teacher at James Madison. Recorded: 2019-03-14).

Teacher’s Role as a Facilitator
Music teachers at both schools indicated that they have an awareness of their roles as
facilitators or guides for constructivist teaching and learning. One Mount Haven teacher
mentioned the word “facilitate” for describing their role as a facilitator during music classes.
My role is to facilitate their learning as a facilitator. I think that it’s really important,
instead of dictate, pull them along, and push them along, by influencing them as much as
possible in their learning (Interview with the music teacher at Mount Haven. Recorded:
2019-01-29).

A James Madison music teacher mentioned, ‘guide’ for describing his role during music
classes:
My role is to guide their thinking and awareness to get them to listen more to encourage
to take risks, to learn to appreciate music as an art form, and to understand the value of
the process of learning, not just finish products (Interview with the music teacher at
James Madison. Recorded: 2019-01-28).

Theme 6: Evidence of Constructive Pedagogy in Observations
From observations of both music and band classes across each school, I found
considerable evidence of constructive pedagogy in observations at Mount Haven, but less so at
James Madison. I explain my findings based on supportive data from the two schools. I also
identify certain subthemes related to constructed knowledge, learning, scaffolding, and student-
centered work. A summary table is provided at the end of this section.

91

Mount Haven
Socially constructed knowledge.
There is evidence that Mount Haven music teachers use students to teach one another.
Teachers let students give feedback to other students’ ideas during discussions. For a 5
th
-grade
music class (March 26, 2019), the general music teacher allowed students to share their thoughts
on a video showing a young 11-year-old boy performing with a small bass guitar during an
episode of the Ellen DeGeneres show. Students were motivated to play the ukulele after
watching this YouTube video, and they were also eager to play the ukulele with their peers. The
teacher led students’ group learning and peer-learning by asking them to practice ukulele in a trio
or quartet settings. Students learned from each other and sometimes asked questions of the
teacher if they had any problems with their learning. Students had group music learning and
group discussion, and they worked together to solve problems. The teacher asked open-ended
questions of students and welcomed students’ questions. Students also gave feedback to other
students’ ideas. The teacher used students’ questions to learn more about students’ perspectives
and levels of understanding.
Here is a short example of this socially constructed knowledge from class discussions
during the described music class:
The music teacher showed a YouTube video of ukulele prodigy, Feng E, rocking out to
‘Smells like Teen Spirit’ by Nirvana to students at the beginning of the class.

Teacher: “So, any thoughts or any comments on what you just saw? He is one year older
than your age.”
Students raised their hands.
Student 1: “I thought I did not like to play ukulele to learn, but it looks like I love it
now.”
Teacher: “Oh, you love it now. And, did you hear he is moving on? What is he moving
on to?”
Students: “To Electric guitar!”
Teacher: “Not only electric, but acoustic, too.”
92

Student 2: “What’s acoustic?”
Student 3 explained the meaning of acoustic to student 2.
Student 4: “I heard he had played guitar for six years.”
Teacher: “Yes. They said he is 11 years old in 6
th
grade. And, he has played for six
years.”
Student 5: “He started playing since he was very young.”
The music teacher brought a container box of ukuleles and held one ukulele with his left
arm and his iPhone with his arm.
Teacher: “Ukulele is like a kind of this little device. I take my iPhone all the time and
know-how to use every little part of it. I know some of you have your own phone.
You learn it quickly, don’t you? Because wherever you are, you take it out and use
it. In the same way, you can take this ukulele to the beach. You can take it to the
car. I am going to go on the trip this summer and take this to the plane. I can get
better and better at this. It’s so cool about this small instrument like this. What are
some other instruments which are small, so you can take them with you wherever
you go?”
Student 6: “I can make my sister annoyed with bringing these small instruments.”
Teacher: “There you go; that is the funniest part of bringing a small instrument.”
Student 7: “Harmonica.”
Student 8: “Recorder.”
Student 9: “We can do our vocal performance.”
Teacher: “Yes. We can do our vocal performance, that’s why we can see so many great
singers. They can practice all the time, right? I want you to have ukulele practice
time with your trio group. I expect to hear your ukulele music with your trio at the
end of this class. I know some of you have a quartet instead of a trio. You need to
play the whole song like a ukulele band by playing in the same steady beat.”

Students stood up and brought their ukulele from the container box. Then, they gathered
as a trio or quartet and practiced ukulele together. (5
th
-grade music class, recorded
on March 26
th
, 2019)

The teacher tried to motivate students to practice ukulele by showing the ukulele prodigy
on the YouTube video. He wanted to discuss what students saw and felt while watching this
video. The teacher asked opened-ended questions of students, and students commented on other
students’ questions and answers. After discussion, the teacher naturally turned the students’
attention to their ukulele groups, which were either a ukulele trio or ukulele quartet.
Learning is experiential.
Teachers at Mount Haven honored the experience of encouraging students to express
their thinking listening to music. Both music teachers made students listen to music via YouTube
93

and encouraged them to express their own ideas about the video. Students listened to teacher
drumming and responded to the rhythms by exploring different kinds of musical instruments.
Students could also construct their knowledge by listening to other students’ singing or playing
instruments throughout their group songwriting projects. If students were in the band, they could
play other instruments as well. Students learned through listening to music, performing music,
creating (improvising or composing) music, analyzing and interpreting musical ideas, games, or
creating musical projects. All students were required to play at least one instrument for a
songwriting project, and most of the students chose ukulele because ukuleles, which were
provided to all students during music classes. They all knew how to play chords with the
ukulele.
Here is a description of experiential learning experience during a 5
th
-grade general music
class:
In the African drumming class, the music teacher asked students to improvise with a
drum or shaker as a solo. The teacher gave a bass drum beat to students and pointed out a
single student to improvise with a drum or shaker. Some students refused to improvise as
solo, so the music teacher did not push them to improvise and asked other students.
Students became quiet as the student played his solo rhythms with his drum. The student
just played rhythms as fast as he could, so students giggled and laughed out loud. The
teacher gave bass drum tones to students again and gave a cue to another student. He was
holding shakers, so he shook his shakers to the fast rhythms. The teacher gave bass drum
tones to students again and pointed out another girl, and she played her drum
enthusiastically. Students called her name loudly with their drumming to encourage her
more.
After improvisation time was done, the teacher asked students to compose a short song
with lyrics, melodies, and instrumental accompaniment with their classmates. Two big
drums, two small drums, and one shaker were needed to be used for this in-class group
music composing assignment. The teacher gave the students 20 minutes to make the
song and consistently checked students’ music-making. Students presented their songs in
front of other students at the end of the class.
Students listened to the teacher’s drumming and responded to the rhythms by exploring
many kinds of musical instruments. They had to switch their instruments by rotating
their seats during class. The teacher gave students improvisation time with their drums or
shakers. Students learned through performing rhythms together with their peers, listening
94

to their classmates’ improvising, improvising rhythms, and composing their songs in
groups.
(Observed and recorded May 7, 2019)

Student-centered teaching and learning environments.
At Mount Haven, there was evidence that the general music and band teachers were not
thinking of themselves as needing to be on center stage, and the students’ ideas seemed central to
teachers’ thinking. During music classes, the teachers’ role was that of a facilitator in order to
make students learn with their peers and allowing the monitoring of student progress by the end
of class. For the majority of the time, there was plenty of space for students’ musical thinking
and process throughout the classes that I observed. During the times I observed, teachers seemed
to validated students’ own ideas and understanding and made efforts to understand and connect
with students’ perspectives. Teachers used language in different ways to mediate student
expression of their musical understanding using their own words.
When the general music teacher introduced African drums and rhythms to students by
listening to both the teacher and student rhythms, words like “Calypso,” “Kuku,” “Alligator.”
and “Crocodile” were used for specific rhythmic patterns. The teacher gave choices to students
to pick repertoires to feature multiple styled of music and reconciled constructed knowledge that
emerges from students. The teacher also gave students choices in selecting any kinds of rhythms
and drumming styles during student improvisation time.
Here is an example of how the general music teacher made students use language in
different ways to express their musical understanding using their own words and naturally
improvised rhythms with their new instruments.

95

The teacher and students were sitting in a big circle with their drums.
The teacher gave bass rhythms with his drum and said rhythmic words.
Teacher: “Let me hear your bass tone!”
Students: “What did you say?”
Teacher: “I said, let me hear your bass tone!”
Students: “What did you say?”
Teacher: “Woo-ah-ah-ah, Woo-ah-ah-ah, Woo-ah-ah-ah, Ca-lyp-so.”
The teacher and students played the dotted rhythmed, called ‘Calypso.’
Teacher: “Did we learn ‘Kuku’ last time?”
Students: “No.”
Teacher: “Let’s turn to the next person and say ‘Kuku.’ ‘Kuku’ comes from West Africa.
The rhythm is like this. [Teacher plays]
Everybody says, ‘Boom, Kuku-ku, Boom Kuku-ku.” (Observed and recorded on May 7,
2009)

This scenario continued with the teacher reducing his drumming volume and asking all
students to reduce their drumming volumes. When everyone played the drum very quietly, he
pointed to one student with his finger. The student hesitated a few seconds and then played the
simple rhythms on the steady beat given by other students. Then, the teacher said “Calypso”
loudly, and students played their drums with the “Calypso” rhythm. As the teacher played his
drum quietly, students started drumming quietly again. The teacher pointed to another student,
and the student played speedy rhythms with enthusiasm. Other students greeted the student’s
drumming with their exclamations.
This teacher also used particular words for certain rhythms of teaching rhythms to
students. When he said ‘Calypso,’ students noticed their rhythmic patterns would be changed
soon to dotted rhythmic patterns. When he said ‘Kuku,’ students prepared to change their
rhythmic pattern to another rhythm. Moreover, students explored their improvisation and
coordinated their rhythmic playing by listening to bass rhythms played by the entire class. Every
student learned rhythms through playing their instruments, sometimes as a solo, but most of the
time, students played instruments in groups. The teacher did not dictate how to improvise with
their drums in detail, even though he taught different kinds of African rhythms. The students
96

performed all different styles of improvisation with their drums. The teacher simply facilitated
the learning environments, and the students chose their styles of improvisation.
Scaffolding, guided participation.
Scaffolding and guided participation were evidenced at Mount Haven during class
observations. Students appeared to be accustomed to accepting responsibility for their learning.
Students were responsible for setting and cleaning up their assigned instruments during music
and band classes. None of them complained about why they needed to do this. The students
even helped each other when their peers needed to move heavy instrument parts like drum sets.
The music teachers honored students’ experiences and ideas which could be used in their lyrics
to express their own musical thinking. During the songwriting project, the students’ own
musical ideas were central to producing their project. The teacher provided scaffolding time and
space for students’ own musical thinking and process. The teacher stepped in when his/her help
was needed and stepped back when it was not required. The teacher recognized and supported
ideas and invited students to take the lead and tried to understand what the students chose to
write about and what styles of music they wanted to write throughout extensive conversations
with them.
During band rehearsals, for example, students began their practice in small groups and
started practicing together in large groups after they could play their parts well enough. String,
wind, and brass players practiced separately in the room with a band teacher. They came out to
join the full band practice after they mastered their parts. Students took over tasks and became
aware of class goals and of their progress. The students knew what they were supposed to learn,
why they needed to learn, and how to proceed with their learning. They came to know how to
proceed with their learning and could play their parts in large groups without a teacher's direction
97

at the end of the class. The students worked in groups without a teacher’s direction and
evaluated their work and their peers’ work. Table 4.3 displays routines I observed during band
classes.
The students seemed to have experience with setting up their instruments for many
months, so they were good at moving and setting up instruments and gear. The teachers often
tried to have a discussion time to solve problems together and share lesson plans with students.
The students actively constructed their knowledge by listening to other students’ sounds.
Throughout small group work, the students seemed to develop their skills by peers and
collaborative learning.
Learning as a holistic process.
A final subtheme was learning as a holistic process. Several instances of more holistic
learning were noted during the many observations of the band teacher.
During one observed day, I noted that the band director made a connection between a
problem being solved and students’ past understanding. The teacher reviewed how students
performed in front of the entire school during the last community gathering. The teacher asked
how they felt about their performances, and the students commented on their mistakes and what
they might do for the next performance.
On another day, during a songwriting project, the students made up their own melody
lines by using pentatonic scales that they learned during music classes in the past. The teacher
seemed to design a curriculum that enabled individual students with different levels of expertise
in order to accommodate success. For example, some advanced students had already made up
their melody lines with instrumental accompaniments during music class, while other students
98

asked questions of the teacher because of difficulties or problems composing melody parts. The
teacher seemed able to accommodate these levels of understanding.
Table 4.3
Routines of Band Classes at Mount Haven

Routine Duration What teachers and students were doing
Set-up 15-20 minutes The teacher brought out instrument racks, and
students pulled out their instruments from racks.
They moved instruments, music stand, carpet,
and power outlets to their space and assembled
them.
While students set up their instruments, the
teacher set up all technology parts, including
microphones, sound systems, and PowerPoint.

Group Practice 45-50 minutes Students had their group practice time. Keyboard
students practiced their parts together, drummers
practiced separately, and string and wind
instruments practice separately in the separate
room. When they could play their parts fluently,
the teacher tried to put them together.

Break 10-15 minutes Students sat down in the corner of the rehearsal
room and ate snacks together. While students ate
snacks, two teachers talked about students’
learning process and their plans.

Entire
Band Rehearsal
15-20 minutes The teacher let students play their instruments
altogether. Students listened to each other and
played through the entire song.

Clean-up 10-15 minutes Students packed up instruments and moved
instruments to storage by both teachers and
students

The teacher walked around the classroom and checked if students could solve their
problems well during their composition. When the students finished their composing, the
teacher video-recorded their singing and mentioned that he would send this video to students
later. The students understood and reflected on what they already learned and seemed aware of
99

the connection between their new musical ideas and what they already learned by having these
steps.
In another lesson, the music teacher asked students to write about topics related to social
activism, including environmental issues, animal rights, or social justice. Several 6
th
-grade
students already had experiences with songwriting since they had done it last year. The students
seemed to make connections that lead to their further musical inquiry and new musical
understanding from their past musical experiences.
The following is a specific example of holistic instruction:
The music teacher explained guidelines for a songwriting project, which was one of the
signature projects in Mount Haven. Students started asking questions on this songwriting
project.

Student 1: “Can I use GarageBand for this project?”
Teacher: “This is an in-class project, and you must complete every week’s exit ticket in
class. If you want to work with GarageBand in your house, I will love to hear a cool
song, but that means extra work for you outside of class, which is fine.”
Student 2: “I have a USB microphone connected to the laptop at home, and I want to use
it for sound recording of my bass guitar and my voice, is it ok?
Teacher: “Absolutely, you can. I want you guys to be super creative as much as possible.
You can think outside of the box.
Student 3: “Can I just use the loops in GarageBand?”
Teacher: “Thanks for clarifying that. You must create your own instruments and
harmonies with GarageBand.”
Students: “Oh, No.”
Student 4: “My dad’s computer has Ableton Live, and I want to use it for this project.”
Teacher: “Yes. I have used that for my gigs, too. You can use it. Any software is fine.
But, no parodies, you must have your original melodies and two different sections A-B in
song form. You may add rap only after you sing your melody in the A and B sections.
You may have your partners or groups, but you must compose your own melody and
compose the song. You must play your instrument, and you must sing. Others can play
with you and sing with you. You can help brainstorm songs together. I encourage that.
But you must turn in your original song in video file to me. If you have questions, come
and see me.”

Students grabbed their ukulele and started working on their songwriting project. They
were creating their original melody lines with singing and using ukulele accompaniment.
The teacher walked around the classroom and checked out if they were doing well. Some
100

students finished making their original melody lines and showed their song to the teacher.
The teacher video-recorded each of their work products with his iPhone.
(Observed and Recorded: May 17
th
, 2019)

In observing the above directives for the project, it seemed clear to me that the teacher
expected students to connect the music composition to knowledge which had been constructed
throughout the semester. During the in-class songwriting project, students made up their original
melody lines by using pentatonic scales and chord progressions that they learned during music
classes in the past. All students with different levels of expertise participated in their
songwriting project. Some advanced students already had made up their melody lines with
instrumental accompaniments and quickly and showed it to the teacher. The students understood
and reflected what they already learned, including pentatonic scales for their melody lines and
ukulele chords. They also tried to make the connection between new musical ideas and
harmonic progressions with what they already learned.
James Madison
In contrast, I did find some evidence of constructive pedagogy in music teaching and
learning during my class observations at James Madison, but not as much as evidenced at Mount
Haven. It was unclear to me if the newly established approach to constructivist pedagogies by
the head of school had taken effect in music.
Evidence of constructivist pedagogy in music teaching and learning that I did see seemed
to stem from teachers’ teaching methods based on Kodaly or Orff’s work and not from the new
head of school’s constructivist approaches. In talking with the teachers and headmaster at James
Madison, it became clear that the general music teacher and band teacher had not learned about
the need to re-designing their music curriculum toward constructivist approaches due to the short
amount of time the headmaster had been in place since he came to James Madison.
101

As noted earlier, the teachers mentioned that they felt they had enough freedom to design
music curriculum if their music curriculum were designed within national standards and what
they thought to be the school’s policy. Both teachers tried to include ‘diversity’ in their music
curriculum because they noticed that one of the main school policies was ‘diversity.’
Neither teacher felt the need to adjust her or his curriculum toward constructivist
approaches at the time of the interviews. However, interestingly, there was still some evidence
of constructivist pedagogy, including socially constructed knowledge, experiential learning,
scaffolding, and learning as a holistic process. This is likely since Kodaly and Orff’s methods do
support some constructivist approaches. This might be an interesting point for further discussion
and a good topic for future study.
Socially constructed knowledge.
Students asked questions of teachers by raising their hands, and teachers welcomed
students’ questions. Teachers also asked questions of students, mostly short-answer questions,
but sometimes open-ended questions as well. For an example of short-answer questions, when
teachers asked students to analyze the melodic forms, students raised their hands and said that
was the sequence part. Open-ended questions were like, “What was happening here in music?”
Students could learn from their peers’ questions and answers.
Here is a specific example of the 5
th
-grade general music class, which seemed typical:
The music teacher began the class with voice exercises with hand motions. Then, he
showed music on the class board and asked students to sing a song with their hand
motions. The music teacher showed his hand motions together in front of students while
students were singing. The music teacher chose specific rhythm patterns that most
students had problems with their singing, and he made students practice clapping those
rhythms. The music teacher asked students to show their clapping to other peers, and
some students raised their hands and gladly showed their tapping rhythms to their
classmates during the class. Most of the time, the teacher used Kodaly methods to teach
songs by using hand signs. Students mostly sang songs with their hand motions. The
music teacher showed his hand motions in front of the students. It was teacher-directed
102

teaching and learning most of the time during their singing time. There was no small
group activity, but the teacher asked students to practice clapping rhythms by listening to
other students’ clapping. The music teacher made some students show their solo
clapping, so students could learn how to clap the right rhythms by listening to their peers’
clapping. The music teacher welcomed the students’ questions, and students could learn
from their peers’ questioning. (Observed and recorded on March 5
th
, 2019)

This example shows that there was some evidence of constructivist pedagogy, including
learning from questioning and answering between music teachers and students. Students learned
from other students’ questioning and answering. Students also learned from listening to other
students’ singing songs and clapping rhythms. However, all these activities were controlled by
the music teacher, and the curriculum was strongly based on Kodaly approaches, but with
constructivist approaches naturally included.
Learning is experiential.
Students at James Madison learned through listening and performing music. Students
mostly sang songs and listened to other peers’ singing during music classes, as noted above. The
general music teacher often asked students to show their individual clapping to other peers, and
some students raised their hands and gladly showed their tapping rhythms to their classmates
during the class. Students could learn how to clap the right rhythms by listening to their peers’
clapping. In addition, when students sang songs in two groups, the students listened to other
group’s singing and corresponded to their pitches. Moreover, the students sang songs and
listened to other peers’ singing in canon. Before learning new repertoires, the music teacher
asked students if they wanted to hear their new songs, they would be learning for their spring
concert in the following month. The students gladly agreed to hear their new songs. The students
learned these songs by listening to the teacher’s singing or playing the piano. The students were
divided into two groups: soprano and alto, depending on their voice range. They needed to listen
carefully to the other part’s singing when they sang together.
103

During a 5
th
-grade general music class, which I observed and recorded on April 30
th
,
2019, the music teacher asked the students to learn two songs in two parts; soprano and alto. The
music teacher sang melody lines first, and the students copied and sang the teacher’s melody
lines: learning by rote instruction. The music teacher sometimes played melody parts on the
piano when the students sang out of tune. The music teacher asked the students to learn the song
in solfege first and put lyrics later to the music later. The students knew what they were
supposed to learn and why they needed to learn their tasks during the class.
From these examples, I could also see some aspects of constructivist approaches because
students learned from their own musical experiences by singing songs, clapping rhythms, and
listening to others. However, these approaches could be a part of the Kodaly method primarily
and that the music teacher had been doing for many years and had not been influenced by new
constructivist ideas resulting from the school’s new policy.
Scaffolding, guided participation.
There was evidence that the band teacher provided scaffolding time and space for
students’ musical thinking. It was observed that when students struggled with parts, mostly
rhythmic problems, the band teacher focused on the students to fix the problems by letting them
play alone or in pairs. After fixing those problems, the band teacher let the students play songs
together when the teacher conducted in front of the students. The students took over tasks and
became aware of class goals and of their progress. Here is an example from an advanced band
rehearsal:
The band teacher used the method book for the band for their warm-up practice. Students
practiced scales together. There were four students; two flutes, one clarinet, and one
trumpet. Students practiced music for their spring concert.
Teacher: “Let’s practice the last three measures of the music.”
Students tried to play together, but they could not play on the same beats.
Teacher: “Ok. Can I have just a trumpet and a clarinet? Last three measures of the beat.”
104

Clarinet and trumpet students played together two times.
Teacher: “Let’s do it again, the last three measures of the music.”
Students tried to play together, and it was better than before, but not quite together.
Teacher: “Our clarinetist is slower than the trumpet player. Can you play a little faster?
Let’s try from measure 18.”
Students played together, and their sounds got better than before, in terms of playing on
the same beats. When they had wrong rhythms, they became aware of their mistakes.
When they played on the right beats, they noticed their progress. (Observed and recorded
on April 8
th
, 2019)

The band teacher let the students play songs together while she conducted in front of the
students. Mostly, the band teacher focused on correcting the students’ rhythms and notes during
the class. When some students struggled with certain parts, mostly rhythmic problems, the band
teacher focused on the students to fix the problem by letting them play alone or in pairs. The
band teacher clapped the rhythms for those students to fix their rhythms when they practiced the
rhythmic parts. The band teacher used a scaffolding technique to build up students’ musical
abilities under her instructions first, then she just conducted in front of the students and let them
hear their sounds while playing together. Her way of scaffolding was her teaching technique
from her own teaching experiences. This scaffolding technique was not from the school’s new
policy or philosophy toward constructivist approaches.
Learning as a holistic process.
The general music teacher at James Madison demonstrated some evidence of connecting
experience to a problem they solved. Students clapped the rhythms of a song they sang during
class. The song had syncopated rhythms, and many students had problems with rushing when
they had experienced notes that were long in duration. When they clapped the syncopated
rhythms, they were asked to say the Kodaly rhythmic syllables they had learned in the past. The
teacher designed experiences that enabled individual students with different levels of expertise to
succeed.
105

During this lesson, the music teacher asked the students to sit down on the floor in a
circle. The students gladly moved then to the floor and sat down. They took off one side of their
shoes and started passing it to the next student while singing the ‘shoe song’ they just learned.
They passed the shoe on certain beats of the song to the person who sat next to them and made a
sound by putting the shoe on the ground. During this game activity, all students were actively
participated in the music activity and improved their rhythmic sense by passing the shoe on the
right beats. The students understood and used what they already had learned and became aware
of the connection between their new musical ideas and what they already learned.
In another activity, the students knew that they needed to get ready for the spring concert,
‘Night of the Arts.’ The students used their Kodaly hand signs they learned in the past while
singing to solve problems of finding the right pitches. The students made connections that lead
to their further musical inquiry and new musical understanding.
Here are some details from a similar activity:
The music teacher asked students to sing songs that they have learned in the past classes.
Students were divided into groups and sang those songs in canon. When students had
problems with finding the right pitches while singing, students used their hands for
Kodaly hand signs and solfege. The music teacher chose rhythmic patterns that most
students had problems with their singing, and he made students practice tapping those
rhythms. The music teacher asked students to use rhythmic syllables, including ‘ta-di’
and ‘ta’ while clapping. The teacher used the smartboard and showed students the new
music, Coffee song, ‘C-O-F-F-E-E, Coffee is not for me’, on the board. The teacher sang
the melody lines first, and students copied the teacher’s melody lines. The music teacher
showed his hand motions in front of students while students were singing. (Observed and
recorded on March 5, 2019)

In the above activity, the students sang songs and listened to other peers’ singing in
canon. Again, this was an example of the music teacher connecting the music learning to the
students’ musical experiences in their past classes as a kind of holistic process. All these musical
activities were connected to the Kodaly method, and these can be seen as constructivist
106

approaches but not necessarily coming under the influence of the beginning emphasis of the
change of school policy at James Madison.
Table 4.4 displays a summary of the selected evidence of constructive pedagogy from
direct observation noted in Mount Haven and James Madison across subthemes.

Table 4.4

Evidence of constructive pedagogy in two schools

Evidence of
Constructive
Pedagogy
Mount Haven James Madison
Socially
Constructed
Knowledge

The teacher used students to teach one
another.
Students had group music learning and group
discussion, and they worked together to solve
problems.
The teacher asked open-ended questions to
students and welcome students’ questions.
Students gave feedback to other students’
ideas.
The teacher used students’ questions to
learn more about students’ perspectives
and levels of understanding.
Students had ample opportunities to
interact with teachers and peers.

Students asked questions to the
teacher, and the teacher
welcomed the students’
questions. Students learned from
their peers’ questions and
answers.

Learning is
Experiential

The teacher honored the experiences and
encouraged students to express constructed
knowledge of music.
Students explored different kinds of
musical instruments.
Students learned through listening,
performing, creating (improvising or
composing) music, and
analyzing/interpreting musical ideas,
games, or musical projects.

Students learned through their
musical activities, including
listening and performing music
during classes.

Student-
Centered

The teacher, not center stage and students’
own ideas central.
The teacher validated students’ own ideas
and understanding and made efforts to

107

Table 4.4

Teaching and
Learning
Environments

(continued).

understand and connect with students’
perspectives.
The teacher used language in different
ways to mediate student musical
understanding using their own words.
The teacher’s role as a ‘facilitator’ and the
teacher gave choices to students to choose
to reconcile constructed knowledge that
emerged from students.

Scaffolding,
Guided
Participation

Students accepted responsibility for their
own learning.
The teacher provided scaffolding time and
space for students’ own musical thinking
and process.
The teacher recognized and supported
ideas and invited students to take the lead.
Students took over tasks and became aware
of class goals and of their own progress.
Students knew what they were supposed to
learn, why they needed to learn, and how
to proceed with their own learning.
Students worked in groups without teacher
direction to evaluate their own work and
their peers’ work.

The teacher provided
scaffolding time and space for
students’ own musical thinking
and process.
Students took over tasks and
became aware of class goals
and of their own progress.
Students knew what they were
supposed to learn and why
they needed to learn.

Learning
as a Holistic
Process

The teacher connected today’s experience
to the problem they solved and monitored
students’ understanding and progress.
The teacher designed curriculum which
enable individual students with different
levels of expertise.
Students understood and reflected on what
they already learned and aware of the
connection between their new musical
ideas and what they already learned.
Students made connections that lead to
their further musical inquiry and new
musical understanding.
The teacher connected
experience to the problem
students solved and monitored
understanding and progress.
The teacher designed
curriculum which enabled
individual students with
different levels of expertise.
Students understood and
reflected on what they already
learned and were aware of the
connection between their new
musical ideas and what they
already learned.
Students made connections
that lead to their further
musical inquiry and new
musical understanding.
108

Theme 7: Differences Between the Two Schools that had Different History of Endorsement
of Constructivist Pedagogy
Differences between Mount Haven and James Madison could be seen consistently from
the data, which is likely related to the different history of endorsement of constructivist
pedagogy. Differences were found in four themes, and these are summarized below:
• Ways of endorsing the constructivist approach
• Engagement of constructivist pedagogy
• Teachers’ plans to re-tool or re-construct constructivist pedagogy
• Evidence of constructive pedagogy
I did not find any specific differences in teacher evaluation on constructivist teaching and
future works planned by school leaders to support teachers in both schools.
Ways of Endorsement of Constructivist Approach
Mount Haven had a concrete and historic endorsement of constructivism as the main
philosophy in their school policy, including the language of support in their charter school
petition to the Los Angeles Unified School District charter school’s division and in the school
handbook. The school explains details of the constructivist and inquiry-based curriculum that
inspires independent thinking, imagination, and a passion for learning. In official documents,
there are endorsements of school performance, including how to embed the constructivist
approach into their curriculum and how constructivist teaching and learning occurs as the
educational strategy to achieve the mission of the school.
In contrast, James Madison has a more indirect and more recent endorsement of
constructivism as the main philosophy for their school policy, which is included in the head of
the school’s welcome note to parents and philosophy statement on the school website.
109

Engagement of Constructivist Pedagogy
From the class observation analysis of Mount Haven, I found that music teachers fully
understood the concept of constructivist pedagogy in practice and applied their knowledge to
their curriculum design and content. From the class video analysis, I found students had socially
constructed knowledge, experiential learning, student-centered teaching and learning
environment, scaffolding, guided participation, and leaning as a holistic process throughout
music classes at Mount Haven.
In James Madison’s class observation analysis, I could not find direct evidence of
socially constructed knowledge, experiential learning, student-centered teaching and learning
environment and other indicators of constructivist approaches that could be linked to emerging
school policy mainly because the new policy from the head of school had yet to be clearly
presented to the music teachers. Because the general music teacher preferred to focus on Kodaly
techniques, which have some relationship to constructivist thinking, some evidence was found.
The band teacher also demonstrated some constructivist teaching but not as a function of stated
school policy. Music teachers from James Madison expressed some concern for the feasibility of
the group project approach in the classroom. Composing and improvising activities were not
seen as essential for their respective curricula.
Teacher Plans to Re-tool or Re-construct Constructivist Pedagogy in Two Schools
Mount Haven music teachers have re-tooled their curriculum to support more group
learning and peer learning environments. They also have tried to have interdisciplinary learning
projects by combining music with other subjects. Students had group songwriting projects with
lyrics based on what they learned in their social studies or science classes, including issues of
environment, homelessness, or anti-bullying. Both the general music and the band teachers asked
110

students to choose what they wanted to learn during classes. They all considered their role as
facilitators. Both teachers frequently used technologies in their classrooms.
Music teachers from James Madison recognized diversity as their school’s core value, so
they succeeded in re-tooling their curriculum toward multi-cultural curricula. However, they
have not tried to re-construct their curriculum toward the constructivist curriculum. They
thought group project work might be hard for their school’s environment.
Evidence of Constructive Pedagogy in Observations
From the analysis of class observations, I found a large amount of evidence of
constructivist pedagogy in student work at Mount Haven. All constructivist teaching and
learning components in the analysis form were positively in action during music classes. I
marked all ‘Yes’ to all 49 questions in the analysis form for Mount Haven.
I found some evidence of constructivist pedagogy accomplished by Mount Haven music
teachers, but not as a function of policy.
Chapter Summary
This chapter included a presentation of the major themes and subthemes that emerged as
part of my study of data sets driven by the three research questions. Chapter 5 will present a
more focused interpretation of these findings considering the data and past research.
Implications for further research and practice will also be discussed.

111

Chapter 5

Discussion, Conclusion, and Implications

In this final chapter, I discuss findings from this study according to each research
question and connect them, as much as possible, to the related literature and conceptual base. I
also suggest what kinds of further studies might be considered. In conclusion, I summarize my
findings with an eye toward implications for practice.
Discussion

Research Question 1:

Considering the role of school leaders as policymakers, in what ways have leaders endorsed,
communicated, and supported constructivist teaching with teachers in two selected schools with
different periods of endorsement of such practices?
Different approaches to endorsement.
From data on the endorsement of constructivist approaches in school’s policy artifacts,
such as school’s policy statements on constructivism and any documents related to the music
curriculum, I found that Mount Haven’s constructivist approaches as part of policy were
systematically detailed ranging from both the explanation of constructivist terms to their plans
concerning constructivist teaching and learning on their school handbook as notes in the Charter
School Petition to the Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division.
I found that James Madison’s constructivist approaches related to the school’s policy
were indirectly endorsed, as found from the head of the school’s welcome statements, and the
school’s philosophy statements. As noted in writing, the head of the school’s philosophy is
based on John Dewey’s constructivist teaching and learning approach, and he clearly has shared
his education philosophies with parents through book clubs and other outreach communications.
112

The extent to which this information had been systematically shared and discussed with faculty,
particularly the music faculty who were subjects in this study, was not clear.
Polin (2006) recommended that it was important to strengthen music education policies
and seek adequate resources to allow excellent music education for young children. She also
recommended to strengthen music education policies and seek adequate resources to provide
access to excellent music education for all children and youth. Reimer (2003) also stated a need
for policies to be sufficiently bold and imaginative to transform ideas into practices. Clearly,
Mount Haven had a stronger endorsement of constructivist approaches in its policy than James
Madison likely due to their long history of endorsement of constructivist practices. This was an
expected finding, but perhaps not as dramatically different as expected.
Differences in communication between school leaders and music teachers.
Figueiredo (2017) believed that policy gives freedom and autonomy to educational
systems; however, there might be challenges of how to include this work in all of the educational
contexts. In the case of Mount Haven, the endorsement of constructivist approaches in its
school’s policy seemed to give freedom and anatomy to both administrators and music teachers
to modify the music curriculum toward constructivist approaches, as evidenced by interviews
with teachers.
This was not the case with James Madison. Teachers seemed to be somewhat aware of
the head of the school’s vision but had not internalized what that might mean for their subject
area. James Madison teachers felt challenged to modify their curriculum toward constructivist
approaches while Mount Haven teachers were comfortable with using constructivist approaches
in their work. A clear understanding of the leadership’s expectation for a constructivist-related
policy is vital for success, as noted in much of the literature (Frierson-Campbell, 2007). Mount
113

Haven teachers actively communicated with administrators to connect their vision and
philosophy of music education to a school administrator’s vision and philosophy. However,
James Madison teachers had yet to have enough opportunities to communicate with
administrators regarding visions. Webster (2011) suggested ways for music teachers to work
with administrators by presenting the process and product of constructivist techniques. The
strategies for communicating between teachers and administrators should be central to the art
education curriculum (Scott, 2011).
Differences in professional development.
From the interviews with teachers and principals, I found evidence that all four music
teachers from both schools were evaluated in terms of constructivist approaches during
professional development days at their school. The teachers also had personal appointments with
the head of the school or teaching and learning specialists for their evaluation. The teachers
appear to have been given support from the school, including time, resources, and autonomy to
continually develop their pedagogical skills in a professional learning community; create,
evaluate and refine curricula; and make sure that all students have every chance to achieve. This
was more evident at Mount Haven than at James Madison. This might be a function of less
aggressive professional development devoted to these approaches. Even though both schools
provided music teachers with professional development, the level of endorsement and
communication were not the same.
Both school leaders had plans to have or continue professional development with outside
professional organizations that specialize in this, although the nature and content of offerings of
these organizations were not reported. In addition, for James Madison, its curriculum will be
114

restructured based on constructivist approaches; the principal planned to establish a curriculum
committee to develop a great sense of scope and sequence in pre-K to 6
th
grade.
Research Question 2:
In what ways have constructivist approaches been endorsed conceptually by music teachers in
the two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such practices?
Differences in understanding the concepts of constructivist approaches.
Teachers from Mount Haven understood the school’s constructivist philosophy and its
related policies for the use of constructivism in the instruction of students. This was endorsed by
many writers in the literature (Webster, 2011, p. 69). Data from observations and interviews
with Mount Haven teachers demonstrated evidence of clear social interactions among peers from
group work, students’ active learning, music composition or improvisation, and project-based
learning. Each teacher mentioned his or her role as a facilitator during music classes. Mount
Haven teachers naturally utilized constructivist approaches in their curriculum since they fully
understood what constructivism means. They tried to integrate arts with academic subjects by
engaging in group songwriting projects. Both teachers at Mount Haven were routinely focused
on project-based learning and small group learning during their classes. All these applications
were influenced by the strong endorsement of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy.
Teachers from James Madison understood the school’s earlier philosophy regarding the
importance and incorporation of cultural diversity in their instruction; however, they did not
recognize or take in the changes to constructivist approaches with that came with arrival of the
new head of school and the expectations that the new leader might have for their curriculum.
They did not feel they needed to change their own teaching philosophies based on the school’s
policies. Both music teachers had a somewhat misguided understanding of constructivist
115

thinking as a methodology as opposed to a theory of learning, something that is strongly
endorsed in the literature (Webster, 2011; Wiggins, 2009). For example, the general music
teacher at James Madison felt that Kodaly might be the best approach for supporting group
learning since station rotation learning, project-based learning, and group songwriting could be
difficult to implement in the music classrooms because of space limitation and ruining benefits
of whole group learning and ear-training. The band teacher felt that the use of constructivist
work could be difficult in the setting of group teaching and learning environments and therefore
challenged the idea of establishing project-based learning in his classes. They were more
supportive of cultural diversity implications, which were endorsed in their school’s policy before
as their school’s core value, electing to choose multi-cultural repertoires for their curriculum.
They felt that they were not yet comfortable implementing constructivist pedagogy in their
practice yet. The idea that constructivist ideas are not a methodology or can be integrated into
preferred teacher-centered practices was not clearly understood.
Differences in music teachers’ plans to re-construct the music curriculum.
The music teachers’ plans to re-tool or re-construct the music curriculum with
constructivist pedagogy, as noted during professional development days, appear to indicate that
the teachers understood a need to adopt the new constructivist teaching approach. Both school
leaderships communicated with teachers the need to develop their lesson plans, which could be
adopted into national standards and the school’s policy, including mission statement and
philosophy. The teachers at Mount Haven worked on re-designing and re-constructing their
curriculum with constructivist pedagogy and had plans to re-tool or re-construct their curriculum
to enhance social learning environments and group composition or improvisation. Moreover,
Mount Haven teachers considered themselves as ‘facilitators’ in keeping with constructivist
116

teaching. In contrast, James Madison teachers understood the school’s new policy, and
attempted to adjust their curriculum to match the school’s policy, but the observation data
suggest that the transition to a constructivist approach was still a work in progress.
Differences in evidence for constructivist pedagogy.
From observations of both music and band classes, I found an abundance of evidence for
constructive pedagogy at Mount Haven and from the learning environments of the music classes.
Both students and teachers at Mount Haven sought "why" and "how" of behaviors, which are
perhaps more important than the behaviors themselves during music classes (Morford, 2007). In
contrast, I could find only modest evidence of constructive pedagogy in music teaching and
learning during my class observations at James Madison. What constructivist techniques that
were identified seemed to be more related to standard music practices and not explicitly related
to the school’s visions of constructivist pedagogy.
Research Question 3:
What evidence is there that constructive pedagogy is practically embedded in pedagogy in the
two selected schools with different periods of endorsement of such practices?
Differences in evidence of constructivist pedagogy in practice.
From the analysis of class observation, I obtained a vast amount of evidence of
constructivist pedagogy at Mount Haven. All constructivist teaching and learning components in
the analysis form were very much evident during music classes. Richardson (2003) noted
several characteristics of the constructivist pedagogies, including student-centered teaching and
learning and respecting students’ backgrounds, beliefs, and understandings. Mount Haven
students engaged in group dialogue to build shared understandings. Students’ ideas were
introduced through group discussion and participation in situations where questions emerged.
117

Students were prompted to engage in tasks that offer opportunities to question, change, or
expand their beliefs. Students developed meta-awareness of their own learning and processes of
understanding over time.
Regarding the analysis form for classes displayed in Appendix L, I marked ‘Yes’ to all 49
questions in the analysis form for Mount Haven, which is consistent with the evidence of
constructivist pedagogy in student evaluations at Mount Haven. In comparison, I answered ‘Yes’
to 19 of 49 questions in the analysis form for James Madison. I did not find any evidence in my
analysis questions for student-centered teaching and learning environments for James Madison.
Music teachers at James Madison shared their criticism of the constructivist curriculum
during their interviews. A music teacher stated that it might be hard for him to have group
improvisation and group composition in a limited space. Many authors had the same criticism of
the constructivist curriculum as the Mount Haven music teacher. Matthews (2003) noted that
there was an absence of empirical evidence of constructivist effectiveness and academic
achievements resulting from student-centered teaching and learning. Horn (2009) expressed
skepticism at the idea of student-centered education, which could not translate constructivist
ideas into reality. Garnett (2013) brought up criticisms of the constructivist curriculum. Thus, to
avoid potential gaps between constructivist theory and constructivist practice, Cleaver &
Ballantyne (2014) concluded that the theory and practice should be more closely evaluated.
Webster (2011) asserted that music teachers must need more knowledge about individual
assessment in the face of social construction.
Results from different periods of endorsement of practices.
Mount Haven has concretely endorsed constructivism as the main philosophy in their
school’s policy, as noted in artifacts studied. School documents outline all aspects of a
118

constructivist and inquiry-based curriculum that inspires independent thinking, imagination, and
a passion for learning. Based on the class observation analyses of Mount Haven, I found that
teachers fully understood the concept of constructivist pedagogy in practice and applied their
knowledge to their curriculum design and contents. From the class video analysis, I found that
students acquired socially constructed knowledge, experiential learning, student-centered
teaching and learning environment, scaffolding, guided participation, and leaning as a holistic
process throughout music classes at Mount Haven. Mount Haven music teachers re-tooled their
curriculum to enhance group learning and peer learning environments. They also experimented
with interdisciplinary learning projects combined with music and other subjects. Students had
group songwriting projects with lyrics based on what they learned in their social study or science
classes, including issues of environment, homelessness, or anti-bullying. Both teachers I
interviewed asked students to choose what they wanted to learn during classes. They viewed
their role as that of a facilitator. Both teachers frequently used technologies in their classrooms.
In contrast, as noted earlier, James Madison had an indirect endorsement of
constructivism as the main philosophy in their school policy, including the head of the school’s
welcome note and philosophy statement on the school’s website. In the analysis of James
Madison’s class observation, I could not find much evidence of socially constructed knowledge,
experiential learning, student-centered teaching, and learning environment because teachers
preferred to focus on Kodaly’s approach to teach songs were in rhythmic and melodic
connections. James Madison music teachers felt distracted if students worked together in group
in the classroom. In the Kodaly’s philosophy, composing and improvising might be the last step
to represent the total mastery of music, so the music teacher did not think group composition and
119

group improvisation were essential for their curriculum. Again, this demonstrated a
misunderstanding about constructivist pedagogy.
I found that different periods of endorsement of such practices resulted in the engagement
of constructivist pedagogy in practice, plans to re-tool or re-construct constructivist pedagogy,
and evidence of constructive pedagogy in different ways. The school with the longer history of
constructivist work showed more engagement of constructivist pedagogy in practice and more
evidence of constructive pedagogy in student-evaluation than the one that is just adopting the
teaching approach. Moreover, teachers at the school with longer history of constructivist work
showed clear and strong plans to re-tool or re-construct constructivist pedagogy than the teachers
from the school that recently began adopting constructivism.
Shively (2015) believed that constructivism influenced discussions about music
education reform. To successfully embed constructivism into music education, he insisted that
there needs to be a re-examination of these discussions in conjunction with consideration of how
we define constructivism, which provides the basis for making decisions about future directions
of music education.
Suggestions for Future Research

Further research on constructivist philosophy and policy implementation for music
teaching and learning is clearly warranted. When searching the literature on constructivism in
music teaching and learning and its relation to policy, I found literature on constructivism in
music teaching and learning and literature on music education policy separately. I identified a
few studies that contained both constructivism in music teaching and learning and its relation to
policy. Throughout my data collection from interviews with music teachers and senior
administrators and class observations in this study, I became confident that there is a relationship
120

between the endorsement of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy and constructivist
practices in the music curriculum. After analyzing and writing about the different findings
resulting from different periods of endorsement of such practices, I became confident that
schools with long history of endorsing constructivist learning differed from ones that are only
recently starting in this direction. My finding— that music teachers at schools with long history
of endorsing constructivist learning more actively plan for and execute constructivist teaching
than music teachers at schools that only recently starting adopting constructivism—might be
helpful for other music educators who want to know the importance of policy implementation for
music teaching and learning. Moreover, this study could prove helpful for music educators who
want to assert the importance of endorsement of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy
for constructivist practices in their music curriculum. A clear implication of the work is that
extensive professional development, especially for music teachers with a strong dedication to
traditional practices, is necessary for success in applying more constructivist pedagogy.
More research on the benefits of constructivist approaches in music teaching and learning
are clearly needed. Future research could well validate that there are benefits of embedding a
constructivist curriculum in music teaching. If there are further case studies of benefits of active
project-based, experience-based, and interdisciplinary music teaching and learning curriculum
resulting from the endorsement of constructivist approaches in the schools’ policy, more school
policymakers might offer a stronger endorsement of constructivist approaches in their schools’
policy, and music teachers could then successfully provide project-based, experience-based, and
interdisciplinary music teaching and learning curriculum with students with the schools’ support
for their constructivist curriculum.

121

Conclusion and Implications for Future Practice

I was attracted to constructivist approaches in music teaching and learning and felt that
endorsement of constructivist approaches within the schools’ policy is important for promoting
the practice of constructivism. ‘Constructivism’ and ‘policy’ are the two main keywords for this
study, and I started this study by making connections between these two keywords. I found that
schools with a long history of endorsing constructivist teaching in the school’s policy appear to
be more effective at constructivist teaching. These systemic endorsements of constructivist
approaches in school’s policy resulted in strong evidence of constructive pedagogy, including
socially constructed knowledge, experiential learning, student-centered teaching and learning
environment, scaffolding, guided participation, and leaning as a holistic process throughout
music classes. As Shively (2015) believed that constructivism had influenced discussions about
music education reform, the findings in this body of work can be helpful for school leaders as
policymakers to actively endorse, communicate, and support constructivist teaching and learning
by music teachers.
Music teachers who are interested in constructivism can assert the importance of
embedding constructivist philosophy as their school’s main philosophy and endorsing these
constructivist approaches on school’s policy to school leaders as policymakers for constructivist
teaching and learning environments. Hopefully, in the future, constructivism will be more
frequently embedded in schools’ policy, and constructivism will be more actively practiced in
music classes.

122

References
Abbs, P. (Ed.) (1987). Living powers: The arts in education. Basingstoke: The Falmer Press.
Abeles, H. (2012). Politics, Policy, and Music Education. In The Oxford Handbook of Music
Education, Volume 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928019.013.0039
Acat, M. B., Anilhan, H., & Anagun, S. S. (2010). The problems encountered in designing
constructivist learning environments in science education and practical suggestions.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2) Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1288355549?accountid=14749
Aguilar, C. (2011). The development and application of a conceptual model for the analysis of
policy recommendations for music education in the United States. (Publication No.
3456436) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Alvesson, M. (2011). Interpreting interviews. London: SAGE Publications Ltd doi:
10.4135/9781446268353
Bae, S. (2010). Designing constructivist piano instruction: Collaborative action research with
teachers in Korea (Publication No. 756462065) [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Barrett, M. S. (2017). Policy and the lives of school age children. In Schmidt, P. K., & Colwell,
R. (Ed.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 175-210). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Bartram, K. (2001). The development and implementation of a comprehensive Introduction to
Music Technology course for a secondary school based on published instructional
material (Publication No. 304794357) [Doctoral dissertation, Shenandoah University].
123

ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Becker, N. (2011). Constructing constructivism in a choral ensemble (Publication No.
903259018) [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.
Bledsoe, R. (2015). Music Education for All? General Music Today, 28(2), 18–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371314549888
Buchanan, I. (2010). A dictionary of critical theory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.
Buehrer, T. (2000). An alternative pedagogical paradigm for aural skills: An examination of
constructivist learning theory and its potential for implementation into aural skills
curricula (Publication No. 304597755) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University].
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Carr, D. (2014). Understanding education theory: reflections on the work of Robin Barrow and
John Darling. In J. Gingell (Ed), Education and the common good: Essays in honor of
Robin Barrow (pp. 50 – 63). New York: Routledge.
Choate, R. (1968). What Is Tanglewood? Music Educators Journal, 55(1), 39–39.
Chong, S. (2017). Researching school literacies through two ethnographic case studies of reading
and writing practices in and outside of classrooms in Singapore. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Cleaver, D., & Ballantyne, J. (2014). Teachers’ views of constructivist theory: A qualitative
study illuminating relationships between epistemological understanding and music
teaching practice. International Journal of Music Education, 32(2), 228–241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413508066
124

Cox, A. (1998). Facilitating learning from a constructivist perspective: A case study of
elementary science teachers. Los Angeles, California [Place of publication (of the
original version)].
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cuban, L. (2008). Hugging the middle. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cutietta, R. A. (2017). K-16 Music education in a democratic society. In Schmidt, P. K., &
Colwell, R. (Ed.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 253-266). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DEEWR (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations for the Council of Australian Governments), (2009). Belonging, being and
becoming: the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Australian
Government.
Dewey, J. (1934). Arts as Experience. New York: Perigee Books.
Dewey, J. (2010). The Need for a Philosophy of Education (1934) *. Schools: Studies in
Education, 7(2), 244–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/656072
Dewey, J. (2016). Excerpts from Democracy and Education (1916) *. Schools, 13(1), 127–139.
https://doi.org/10.1086/685806
Egan, K. (2002). Getting it wrong from the beginning: Our progressivist inheritance from
Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Elpus, K. (2013). Music in U.S. Federal Education Policy: Estimating the Effect of “Core Status”
for Music. Arts Education Policy Review, 114(1), 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2013.744242
125

Fautley, M. (2017). Policy and the Question of Assessment. In Policy and the Political Life of
Music Education. In Schmidt, P., & Colwell, R. (Eds.), Policy and the political life of
music education (pp. 86-104). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190246143.003.0006
Figueiredo, S. (2017). Policy and Governmental Action in Brazil. In Policy and the Political Life
of Music Education. In Schmidt, P., & Colwell, R. (Eds.), Policy and the political life of
music education (pp. 125-140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190246143.003.0008
Finney, J. (2011). Music education in England, 1950 – 2010: The child-centred progressive
tradition. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Preface. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and
practice (2nd Ed.) (pp. 9-12). New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
Frierson-Campbell, C. (2007). Connections with the schooling enterprise: Implications for music
education policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(6), 33-38.
doi:10.3200/AEPR.108.6.33-38
Garnett, J. (2013). Beyond a Constructivist Curriculum: A Critique of Competing Paradigms in
Music Education. British Journal of Music Education, 30(2), 161–175.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000575
Goals 2000: Educate America Act: conference report (to accompany H.R. 1804). (1994).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O.
Gustafson-Hinds, M. (2010). The effectiveness of a unit study -technology approach within the
high school band rehearsal setting (Publication No. 748178560) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri St. Louis]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
126

Hammersley, M., Gomm, R. & Foster, P. (2009). Case study and theory. In Gomm, R.,
Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 234-258). London: SAGE
Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9780857024367
Haynor, M. (2018). Applying a constructivist approach to the assessment of compositions in a
secondary technology-based music classroom (Publication No. 2025496960) [Doctoral
dissertation, Boston University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Henderson, R. N. (2018). Female leaders in middle- and upper-management in the nonprofit
sector: A case study (Publication No. 2172949356) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Phoenix]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Holsberg, P. (2009). Constructivism and band: New approaches for instrumental music
(Publication No. 304870731) [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Horn, I. (2009). Learner centredness: An analytical critique. South African Journal of Education,
29, 511–525. Retrieved from http://ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/viewFile/47745/34118
Horsley, S. (2017). State-Level Music Curriculum Creation and Reform. In Schmidt, P. K., &
Colwell, R. (Ed.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 155-174). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hunter, L. (2011). School-University Partnerships: A Means for the Inclusion of Policy Studies
in Music Teacher Education. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 137–143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2011.566086
Johnson, D., Marie Stanley, A., Ellie Falter, H., Greene, J., Moore, H., Paparone, S., Smith, J., &
Snell II, A. (2019). Reflections on music teacher professional development: Teacher-
generated policies and practices. Arts Education Policy Review, 120(4), 208–220.
127

https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1468839
Jones, C. (2018). Making meaning: using constructivism to understand students’ relationship to
engineering. (Publication No. 2174299583) [Master’s thesis, University of Southern
California]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Jones, P. (2009). Hard and Soft Policies in Music Education: Building the Capacity of Teachers
to Understand, Study, and Influence Them. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 27–32.
https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.110.4.27-32
Kaplan, A. (2013). Reconstructing Progressive Education. Schools: Studies in Education, 10(1),
122-131. doi:10.1086/670004
Keast, D. (2009). A Constructivist Application for Online Learning in Music. Research and
Issues in Music Education, 7(1), 8.
Levine, W. A. (2013). Selling constructivism: Chinese parents' perceptions of western teaching
methodology (Publication No. 1348689322) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University].
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Márquez, A. (2012). Examining parent involvement activities in two immigrant-impacted
schools: a comparative case study. (Publication No. 1289071040) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Mark, M. (1986). Contemporary Music Education. New York: Schirmer Books.

Mark, M., & Gary, C. (1992). A history of American music education. New York: Schirmer
Books.
Matthews, M. (2000). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. In C. Phillips (Ed.),
Constructivism in education: Ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part 1 (pp. 159-192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
128

Matthews, W. (2003). Constructivism in the Classroom: Epistemology, History, and Empirical
Evidence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 51–64.
Mishra, R. K. (2015). Teaching-learning in a constructivist social science classroom. Journal of
Educational Sciences and Psychology, (lxvii)(2) Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1795539385?accountid=14749
Moon, K., & Humphreys, J. (2010). The Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program: 1966–
1970. Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, 31(2), 75–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/153660061003100202
Morford, J. (2007). Constructivism: Implications for Postsecondary Music Education and
Beyond. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(2), 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837070160020108
Myers, D. (2017). Policy and the Work of the Musician/Teacher in the Community. In Policy
and the Political Life of Music Education. In Schmidt, P., & Colwell, R. (Eds.), Policy
and the political life of music education (pp. 192-210). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190246143.003.0012
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Report
commissioned by Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1PSC, 107h Cong. (2001c).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1ENR, 107h Cong. (2001e).
129

Olson, G., Barresi, A., & Nelson, D. (1992). Music Teacher Education: Practice to Policy.
Design for Arts in Education, 93(4), 36–45. doi:10.1080/07320973.1992.9936685
Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Developing learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Polin, J. (2006). International Music Education Policy Symposium: Executive Summary. The
Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 36(1), 66–80.
doi:10.3200/JAML.36.1.66-80
Progressive education. (2019). In Britannica Online Academic Edition. Retrieved from
http://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/61504
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: advancing the vision (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record 105 (9): 1623–40.
Schmidt, P. K., & Colwell, R. (2017). (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scott, S. (2011). Contemplating a constructivist stance for active learning within music
education. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(4), 191-198.
doi:10.1080/10632913.2011.592469
Selley, N. (1999). The art of constructivist teaching in the primary school: A guide for students
and teachers. London, UK: Fulton.
Shively, J. (1995). A framework for the development and implementation of constructivist
learning environments for beginning band classes (Publication No. 304187983)
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
130

Shively, J. (2015). Constructivism in music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 116(3),
128-136. doi:10.1080/10632913.2015.1011815
Spears, A. (2014). Constructivism in the Band Room: Facilitating High School Band Students’
Playing by Ear through Informal (Publication No. 1609717821) [Doctoral dissertation,
Arizona State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Svoboda, D. (2014). An Intrinsic Case Study of a Domestic Violence Organization’s Promotion
of Economic Justice for Survivors (Publication No. 1023406852) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Tanner, D & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.)
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of
definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521
Thomas, R. (1970). MMCP Synthesis; A structure for music education. Bardonia, N.Y.: Media
Materials, Inc.
Thompson, C. M. (2015). Constructivism in the art classroom: Praxis and policy. Arts Education
Policy Review, 116(3), 118-127. doi:10.1080/10632913.2015.1015759
Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded theory for qualitative research: a practical guide. Los Angeles &
London: SAGE.
Webster, P. R. (2011). Construction on music learning. In Colwell, R., Webster, P. R. (Ed.),
MENC handbook of research on music learning (pp. 35-83). New York: Oxford
University Press.
131

Webster, P. R. (2014). 2014 senior researcher award acceptance address: Cautious optimism for the
future of research in music teaching and learning, Journal of Research in Music Education,
62(3), 203-214. doi: 10.1177/0022429414542834
Wiggins, J. (1996). On music teacher education at the turn of the century: The road ahead.
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 6(1), 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105708379600600105
Wiggins, J. (2004). Letting go-Moving forward. Mountain Lake Reader, 3, 81-91
Wiggins, J. (2009). Teaching for musical understanding (2nd ed.). Rochester, MI: Oakland
University.
Wiggins, J. (2015). Constructivism, policy, and arts education: Synthesis and discussion. Arts
Education Policy Review, 116(3), 155-159. doi:10.1080/10632913.2015.1038674
Xydas, S. D. (2014). Choosing when, where, and how to be a musician: A longitudinal study of
student composing in a secondary band ensemble class (Publication No. 1880559576)
[Doctoral dissertation, Oakland University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Zimiles, H. (2008). A Bittersweet Appraisal of Progressive Education. Society, 45(2), 164–169.
doi:10.1007/s12115-008-9068-6

132

Appendix A
Interview Questions for Music Teachers
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. I wanted to remind you that your identity
and the identity of the school is not revealed in my study.

As you know, I am studying your school’s approach to music education, particularly the
relationships between policy and practice. I have chosen your school because of its high
reputation in the community and the quality of your music program here.

I am looking forward to observing many of your classes over the next few weeks. I hope to
be able to interview you again after I observe you in order to learn more about my topic.

I am audio taping our interviews for the purposes of transcription and I will show you the
transcripts so that you can correct anything that I did not accurately transcribe. The audio
tapes will be kept only for the time needed for transcription and they will be destroyed.

I also would like to arrange to video tape your class sessions so that I can study what you
do with your students. These tapes are for my study only and will not be shown to others.
They will remain confidential and I plan to destroy them after my work is completed.

First, I have a few questions about your educational background and music experience:

1. How long have you been teaching?
2. How long have you been teaching at this school?
3. What were your majors in college and what degrees do you hold?
4. Are you certified in any special methodology like Orff or Kodaly?
5. Do you participate in any music organizations outside of your school like church choirs
or community bands?
6. Do you actively compose or arrange music?
7. Do you continue to practice musical instruments regularly?
8. Besides your music teaching, is there any other musically related activities you do that
you have note mentioned?
133

Next, I am wondering about your personal educational philosophy and its
relationship to policies you know about from your school

9. In general terms, what is your main teaching philosophy?
10. In thinking about your formal training as a teacher and your teaching experiences, how
has this work influenced your teaching philosophy?
11. Has your current teaching philosophy been influenced by writings of others and if so,
what are some of the memorable writings?
12. Have conference presentations influenced you in this regard or possibly discussions with
other colleagues?
13. Are you aware of the school’s overall philosophy and related policies for instruction? If
so, can you briefly explain them?
14. How have you come aware of the school’s overall philosophy and related policies for
instruction? Give examples.
15. Has your personal teaching philosophy been influenced at all by policies at your current
school? If so, how?
16. What are your thoughts on your school’s philosophy and its relation to policy?
17. Are there any difficulties for you as a teacher to apply school’s philosophy and core
values in your music classes?
18. How does your school’s main philosophy/policy relate to your own philosophical beliefs
as a music teacher?
19. Other sources of influence for your philosophy of instruction that I have not mentioned?

Now a few questions about the relationship between policy and actual curriculum design at
your school

134

20. How does both your personal philosophy and your school’s philosophy/policies effect
your curriculum design? Can you give some examples?
21. In what ways does your school’s administration work with you to make links between
school policy and your curriculum designs?
22. How does this play into the way you are evaluated for development and advancement?
23. Are you aware of any published local, state, or national music standards which may relate
to school policy and the actual curriculum you teach?
Some general questions about your teaching
24. What are some effective ways that you get students involved in your music classes?
25. Do you find that your students learn from social interactions with their peers during
classes?
26. How do you feel about group work? Does it work for you?
27. Do you give student choice in the music that is played or listened too?
28. During music classes, what do you feel your role is?
29. Do special projects or year-long themes of instruction play a role in your curriculum?
30. What are some of your favorite strategies to get students actively engaged in learning
music? Give some examples?
31. Have you considered music composition or improvisation in your classes? If so, what
have you done?
32. How do you manage your students who don’t have interest in music?
33. What role does technology play in your curriculum design?
34. Do you ask your students to write about music? How?
35. How do you deal with assessing your students’ learning? Give some examples.
135

36. How do you deal with students in classes that have wide ranges of music skills?
37. What are the most often used words in your classroom?
38. Overall, what are your strengths in your music curriculum and your teaching methods?
39. What is your ultimate goal for your students as they participate in your music classes?
40. Are there any suggestions for school for better education circumstances?
41. Are you satisfied with your life as a music teacher?
Finally, some questions about the future.
1. What do you want to improve yourself as a music teacher?
2. Are there suggestions that seem critical for you in curriculum design in the future?
3. Do you feel optimistic about the future of your school?
4. Are you satisfied with your life as a music teacher?
5. Are there comments you have about these topics that you would like to add?
Thank you so much for your time.

In addition to my interviews and observations, I am also hoping to collect any written
documentation and other artifacts that might help me understand the school, its policies,
and its philosophy. Is there anything that you or your colleagues might share with me?

Again, thank you so much.

136

Appendix B
Interview Questions for Administrators
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. I wanted to remind you that your identity
and the identity of the school is not revealed in my study.

As you know, I am studying your school’s approach to music education, particularly the
relationships between policy and practice. I have chosen your school because of its high
reputation in the community and because of the school’s endorsement of constructivist
approaches.

I am audio taping our interview for the purposes of transcription and I will show you the
transcripts so that you can correct anything that I did not accurately transcribe. The audio
tapes will be kept only for the time needed for transcription and they will be destroyed.

First, I have a few questions about your educational background:

1. How would you describe your current position at your school?
2. How long have you been working at this particular school?
3. Can you describe your work experience in education leading up to this position?
4. Where did you receive your higher education training?
5. Would you say your current interest in constructivist approaches and your endorsement
of such approaches here at this school can be traced to higher education training or other
work in education settings or perhaps both?
6. Has your current thinking about constructivism been influenced by writings of others and
if so, what are some of the memorable writings.
7. Have conference presentations influenced you in this regard or possibly discussions with
other colleagues?
8. Other sources of influence that I have not mentioned?
Next, I am wondering about your personal educational philosophy and its
relationship to policies you support for your school

9. How would you describe your personal educational philosophy?
137

10. If you have not already explained this, explain how constructivism as you understanding
it fits into your personal philosophy?
11. How does the shaping of public policy at your school relate to your philosophy and your
views of constructivism?
12. Any other comments for me about philosophy and its relation to policy in general or in
particular for your school?

Now a few questions about the relationship between policy and actual curriculum
design at your school, as well as work with professional staff.

13. In overall terms, how do you see a policy influenced by constructivist views manifesting
itself in the design of curriculum at your school?
14. Can you give some examples across several disciplines?
15. Can you explain some of the ways you work with the professional staff at your school to
help bring policy to bear on curriculum?
16. How often is such work done with your professional staff?
17. Do you make use of in-service time or outside speakers for these purposes or do you
devote meeting time with teachers regarding this? If so, can you offer examples?
18. Have you experienced difficulties in implementing policies that endorse constructivist
views with teachers? If so, what are these difficulties and how do you deal with them.
19. Do you find that veteran teachers that do not generally work with policies and curricula
that endorse constructivist approaches find it difficult to adapt?
20. Does this topic enter into your consideration when hiring new teachers and if so, how do
you approach this?
21. How do you manage teachers who are not interested in constructivist approaches?
138

22. How do you manage teachers who don’t have skills to apply constructivist approaches to
their classrooms?
23. In general terms, how is teacher evaluation and promotion handled and how does policy
and curriculum figure into staff assessment?
24. Are there other ways that you promote constructivist approaches as they relate to
curriculum?
As you know, I am interested in observing music education at your school. Here are a few
questions about that discipline.

25. Do you see constructivist approaches taken by your music staff? Explain.
26. Have you done any special work with your staff concerning the music curriculum,
especially as it might relate to constructivist approaches? Can you give some examples?
27. Does the music staff seem receptive to the policies of the school? In what ways?
28. Are you aware of any published local, state, or national music standards which may relate
to school policy and the actual curriculum you see taught by your music teachers?

Now, a few questions about parents and the students themselves.
29. How do you explain policies and curriculum design related to constructivist teaching and
learning to parents? Can you offer examples of how this is done?
30. In your experiences either at this school or in other settings, do you believe most parents
fully understand policies and concepts of constructivist teaching? If not, why do you
think this is so?
31. Are parents generally accepting of this approach? If not, why do you imagine this is so?
32. In role as an administrator, do you have occasion to discuss your school’s policies with
the students? How does this occur?
139

Finally, some questions about the future.
33. Are there significant challenges ahead for your school related to policy and curriculum?
Is so, explain.
34. Assuming that there is still work to be done with policies and curriculum, what are some
future plans you have as an administrator?
35. Do you feel optimistic about the future of your school?
36. Are there comments you have about these topics that you would like to add?
Thank you so much for your time.

In addition to my interviews and observations, I am also hoping to collect any written
documentation and other artifacts that might help me understand the school, its policies,
and its philosophy. Is there anything that you or your staff might share with me?

Again thank you so much.

140

Appendix C
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
Flora L. Thornton School of Music
Music Education Department
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0851

A Case Study of Constructivist Philosophy and Policy Implementation in Music
Teaching and Learning in Selected Elementary Schools in Los Angeles

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ji Hae Lim, under the direction of
faculty advisor, Dr. Peter Webster at the University of Southern California.

Your participation is voluntary. Please read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this
form and you will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of my study is to understand more clearly the following three questions:

(1) How do policy makers (or school leaderships) think of constructivist teaching in music
settings and how they actively support such approaches?

(2) How do music teachers at these schools actively plan for and execute such teaching?

(3) How does this evidence demonstrate itself in a school with a tradition of this kind of work
as opposed to one that is just beginning this direction?

STUDY PROCEDURES
As a participant in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview that will be
scheduled at your convenience at the school or outside of school. Each of these semi-
structured interviews will take approximately 45 minutes (to be scheduled during spring
semester, 2019).

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
141

I will audio-record and take detailed notes during the interview. I will do under your
permission.

Your classroom will also be observed during spring semester, 2019 for a maximum of
three observations. These visits will be scheduled at times that are convenient to you, and
that will cause minimal disruption of student learning.

During the class sessions, I will take detailed notes. The sessions might be audio/video-
recorded. I will record audio/video only with your permission for research analysis
purpose.

At any time in the study, you may decide to withdraw from the study. If you withdraw,
no more information will be collected from you. When you indicate you wish to
withdraw, the investigator will ask if the materials already collected in the study can be
used.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Your participation does not involve any risks other than what you would encounter in
daily life. You may withdraw from the study at any time.
This interview is anonymous. No one will be able to identify you, nor will anyone be able
to determine which school you work for. No one will know whether you participated in
this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefits to you from participation in this study may include opportunities to
reflect on your constructive teaching philosophies, practice, and the learning and engagement
of your students through the interviews. You may also receive professional recognition for
your work as the creator and teacher. The study has the potential to influence other music
teachers who want to use constructive music curriculum and to contribute to deepen our
knowledge of constructive music teaching and learning.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law.
However, if we are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information
about you. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California's
Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data/information from the audio/video-tape will be transcribed by the researcher.
Transcripts and measures will be stored on a password protected computer and/or in a
locked office. All identifiable data will be stored separately from identifiable data. The
data will be destroyed three years after the study has been completed.

142

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or
remedies because of your participation in the research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
You have the alternative to choose not to participate in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
Principal Investigator: Ji Hae Lim, (917) 549-3006, jihaelim@usc.edu or the Faculty
Advisor: Dr. Peter Webster, (213) 740-6251, peterweb@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park
Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree that I may participate in this study.
I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant who will participate: ____________________________

Signature of Participant Date

143

Appendix D
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
Flora L. Thornton School of Music
Music Education Department
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0851

A Case Study of Constructivist Philosophy and Policy Implementation in Music
Teaching and Learning in Selected Elementary Schools in Los Angeles

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ji Hae Lim, under the direction of
faculty advisor, Dr. Peter Webster at the University of Southern California.

Your participation is voluntary. Please read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this
form and you will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of my study is to understand more clearly the following three questions:

(1) How do policy makers (or school leaderships) think of constructivist teaching in music
settings and how they actively support such approaches?

(2) How do music teachers at these schools actively plan for and execute such teaching?

(3) How does this evidence demonstrate itself in a school with a tradition of this kind of work
as opposed to one that is just beginning this direction?

STUDY PROCEDURES
You will be audio-taped during your interview time. Your interview will take place in
any place at your convenience. I will audio record during the interview only with your
permission. If you do not wish to be recorded, you may ask that the recording be turned
off at any point during the interview.

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
144

At any time in the study, you may decide to withdraw from the study. If you withdraw,
no more information will be collected from you. At the time this request for withdrawal is
made, I will ask if the materials already collected in the study can be used.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Your participation does not involve any risks other than what you would encounter in
daily life. You may withdraw from the study at any time.
This interview is anonymous. No one will be able to identify you, nor will anyone be able
to determine which school you work for. No one will know whether you participated in
this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefits to you may be an increased awareness of the relationship between
your constructive philosophies and curriculum in your school. The study has the potential
to influence the ways that music educators approach teaching music in schools as well as
the types of offerings they provide students with in school music programs. It may also
contribute in general to our knowledge of music teaching and learning.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law.
However, if we are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information
about you. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California's
Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data/information from the audio/video-tape will be transcribed by the researcher.
Transcripts and measures will be stored on a password protected computer and/or in a
locked office. All identifiable data will be stored separately from identifiable data. The
data will be destroyed three years after the study has been completed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or
remedies because of your participation in the research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
145

You have the alternative to choose not to participate in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
Principal Investigator: Ji Hae Lim, (917) 549-3006, jihaelim@usc.edu or the Faculty
Advisor: Dr. Peter Webster, (213) 740-6251, peterweb@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park
Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree that I may participate in this study.
I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant who will participate: ____________________________

Signature of Participant Date

146

Appendix E
Constructive Teaching and Learning in Dissertation Data Analysis Form
Segment Teaching Intent
(Goals)
Description (What
teacher and students
are doing)
Analysis

How is musical meaning constructed?
• Socially Constructed Knowledge
- Does a teacher use student to teach one another?
- Do students have group music learning environments?
- Do students have group discussion time during music classes?
- Do students work together to solve problems?
- Do students share ideas throughout their collaborative learning process?
- Do students give feedbacks to other students’ ideas?
- Do students ask questions to the teacher?
- Does the teacher welcome student’ questions?
- Does the teacher use students’ questions to learn more about students’ perspectives
and level of understanding?
147

- Does the teacher ask students open-ended questions that promote students’ musical
thinking?
- Do students have negotiations throughout their collaborative learning process?
- Do students have ample opportunity to interact with teacher and peers during music
classes?
• Learning is Experiential
- Does the teacher honor the experiences that students themselves bring into the
classroom?
- Does the teacher encourage students to express their own musical ideas?
- Are students active to construct knowledge during music classes?
- Are students listening to music?
- Are students exploring different kinds of musical instruments?
- Are students performing music?
- Are students creating (improvising or composing) music?
- Are students analyzing and interpreting musical ideas?
- Do students have music activities through games?
- Do students learn though their musical projects?
• Student-Centered teaching and learning environments
- Does the teacher have his/her thinking process of not being center stage as the central
focus of teaching and learning?
- Are students’ own ideas central to teaching and learning progress?
- Does the teacher validate students’ own ideas and understanding in the beginning
of the class?
148

- Does the teacher make efforts to understand and connect with students’
perspectives?
- Does the teacher use language in different ways to mediate learning in musical
environment?
- Do students express their musical understanding using their own words other than
standard musical terms?
- Is a role of teacher ‘facilitator’ in music classroom?
- Does the teacher give choices to students to choose their repertoires to feature multiple
styles of music?
- Does the teacher reconcile constructed knowledge that emerges from students that
seem to be at variance with accepted aspects of music knowledge?
• Scaffolding, Guided participation
- Does the teacher trust students to accept responsibility for their own learning?
- Does the teacher try to provide scaffolding where his/her help is needed and stepping
back when it is not?
- Does the teacher provide time and space for students’ own musical thinking and
process?
- Does the teacher recognize and support ideas of students?
- Does the teacher invite students to take the lead during music classes?
- Do students gradually take over tasks they are able to do on their own?
- Are students aware of class goals and of their own progress toward class goals?
- Do students know what they are supposed to learn during each class?
- Do students know why they need to learn their tasks?
149

- Do students know how to proceed their own learning?
- Do students work in groups without teacher direction at the end of the class?
- Do students evaluate their own work and their peers’ work?
• Learning as Holistic Process
- Does the teacher connect today’s experience to the problem they solved in the last
class?
- Does the teacher monitor students’ understanding and progress on an ongoing
basis?
- Does the teacher design curriculum which enable individual students with different
levels of expertise to participate in the same experience?
- Do students understand and reflect what they already learned in their past classes?
- Are students aware of the connection between their new musical ideas and what
they already learned in past classes?
- Do students make connections lead to their further musical inquiry and new
musical understanding?

150

Appendix F
Written school policies that show constructivism is teaching and learning philosophy

Mount Haven
The 2015 -2020 Charter School Petition Submitted to the Los Angeles Unified School District
Charter Schools Division
Success of Innovative Features of the Educational Program (p. 13).
Challenging, constructivist, and inquiry-based curriculum that inspires independent
thinking, imagination, and a passion for learning: Our unique approach to translating
constructivist theory into practice is our signature innovation. The Mount Haven curriculum is
progressive, interdisciplinary, and experience-based, and rooted in social justice and the
humanities. Students build and deepen concepts through the use of concrete manipulatives and
experiential learning, and our curricula draw on the work of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Reggio
Emilia, Jerome Bruner, and Lev Vygotsky. Mount Haven students receive differentiated
instruction in response to their varied interests and strengths, and teachers are provided time,
resources, support, and autonomy to continually develop their pedagogical skills in a
professional learning community; create, evaluate and refine curricula; and ensure that all
students have every opportunity to achieve. Our record of high achievement, described above,
confirms that our approach has been successful. For example, in the last school year, elementary
and middle teachers’ lessons clearly integrated three or more academic areas, including English
Language Arts, math, science, social studies, music, art, world languages, physical education,
and/or the visual and performing arts into lessons throughout the year. High school students’
2014 CAHSEE passing rates soared at 98% in ELA and 96% in Math. This integration of
151

rigorous educational expectations with a research-based constructivist curriculum has enabled
our students to meet their full potential during the last charter term.
Instructional Model Based on Constructivism and Interdisciplinary Connections (p. 16).
We attribute our students’ growth and achievement to our constructivist and integrated
instructional strategies, practices, and organizational structures. Our print-and language-rich
environment, focus on spoken word and oral expression, infusion of world languages, as well as
clustering grade level structures and looping in the elementary grades build continuous
opportunities for student learning across the curriculum. In social studies, high school students,
for example, examine eras in world history through an inquiry-based and interdisciplinary
approach to understand the development of events and interactions among the world’s people
and cultures today.
How Learning Best Occurs (p. 27-28).
Mount Haven is dedicated to constructivism as the educational strategy to achieve our
mission. Based primarily on the work of Jean Piaget (1983), but influenced by many educators
and researchers, Constructivism is a theory of thinking and learning. Its name is derived, of
course, from the word “construction” because its fundamental concept is that students learn
through the process of constructing their own personal understanding of new information and
ideas. This process of constructing understanding is slightly different for all students. There are
two significant variables that educators consider when they develop a constructivist, inquiry-
based learning environment. The first variable is how the student’s mind processes information.
All learners take in new information through a variety of processes –we learn what we
see, we learn what we hear, we learn by touching and exploring, we learn by doing actively with
our body, we learn by discussing with others. Each of us uses each method to some extent. But
152

most learners have a predominant method that is our strongest or preferred learning process
(Dunn et al., 2010). Some children also have a distinctive weakness in one area or a heavy
dependence on another. Every brain has a unique balance of strategies. Thus, in a classroom of
23 learners, it is important that information is presented through many different methods. This
way, students, no matter their strongest learning process, will encounter information in a way
that is well suited. In addition, as each child takes part in learning activities of different styles –
visual, tactile, auditory, and oral–they begin to recognize their own strengths and preferences.
Children begin to think about how they think, which is referred to as metacognition (Flavell,
1976). Developing metacognition from a young age helps students identify effective strategies
for themselves as learners and to understand and support other students in their learning as well.
The second variable that influences educators as they create a constructivist learning
environment is the student’s life experience. Each student enters school, even at the young age
of five, with a unique set of life experiences that have worked along with the student’s own
development to form a cognitive “schema” in the student’s brain (Piaget, 1983). This schema is
the set of ideas and connections that the student has made because of the day-to-day learning that
has gone on and the unique combination of life experiences that has influenced the student. It
can be described as a framework for representing the world or a mental structure of ideas
(DeHart, Sroufe, & Cooper, 2000). Some of these lessons might be very concrete – “I know how
to find the surface area of a cylinder” or “I know how to create a mixed media work of art.”
Others are more abstract – “People are usually very nice to me” or “It is best to be a little
cautious when meeting a new person.” Some are very specific to academic subjects – “I can
distinguish between a primary and secondary source” and others are more life-based –“I always
make my bed when I get up in the morning.” Frequently, this knowledge that students bring
153

with them into the classroom is unknown even to the child, until activities and discussions help
them reflect and draw upon that knowledge in a useful and organized fashion. By drawing on
the knowledge within a student’s schemata, we can create learning situations that require less
effortful processing, freeing up valuable cognitive and affective capacity for tackling new
learning. As students mature and content becomes increasingly complex, secondary level
teachers continue to utilize students’ prior knowledge as a driver for establishing course themes,
using students’ experiences to make decisions about where to focus the curriculum, what
activities should take place, and how material should be delivered. In this respect, the
curriculum is both rigorous and meets the individual needs of students. To create a constructivist
educational experience, teachers must find ways to present new information and ideas through a
varied set of experiences to capture the many unique methods that the brain uses to process
information. Then they must create opportunities for students to connect their new learning to
their pre-formed schemata –or to make meaningful connections between the new information
and the way of understanding that their life experience has provided. Through this constructivist
process, learning becomes a natural and exciting process for students. At Mount Haven,
cognitive constructivism is present across the curriculum, from K-12, through project and
inquiry-based instruction, service-learning experiences, an integrated curriculum, small group
and partner learning experiences, and longer blocks of study (70 minutes in 4th-8thgrades; 90
minutes in 9th-12thgrades). Mount Haven School believes that the social learning environment
is also a critical component to ensuring student success. As noted, psychologist Lev Vygotsky
described in Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (1978), the
key to a learning experience within a student’s “zone of proximal development” is “problem-
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” Toward this end,
154

mixed-age grouping is a key component to the K-8 educational setting at Mount Haven. In the
primary grades (TK-3), individual development of language arts skills is very broad and creates a
wide range of abilities and levels at each grade level. In these grades, Mount Haven implements
a mixed-age group model for reading and language arts instruction. K-1
st
students and 2nd-3
rd

students spend a portion of the day in small group, mixed-age group instruction. By the
4thgrade, individual development results in different patterns of growth and changes in learning
style. At these older age’s students demonstrate, for example, greater variation in their pacing
and style of mathematical-logical thinking, or the thinking processes most necessary for
mathematics and science concepts. Thus, Mount Haven shifts its focus on mixed-age grouping
to allow for an accelerated mathematics path in the 4th-8thgrade. Students from two consecutive
grade levels work in mixed-age groupings during math, science, and enrichment classes to allow
for the social benefits to cognition while maintaining students in the “zone of proximal
development” necessary for their academic success. Mount Haven draws further upon
Vygotsky’s social constructivism and Albert Bandura’s social learning theory by recognizing the
critical role that personal relationships play in the educational setting. Vygotsky (1978) states:
“Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and
later, on the individual level; first, between people...and then inside the child.... This applies
equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the
higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals.” (p.57). In order to
support relationships that result in higher cognitive functioning in students, primary grade
students in TK-3rdgrade participate in a loop in which students have the same teacher and
classroom of peers for two consecutive years. This looping allows for a more in-depth and
personal relationship development between teacher and student, as well as student and peers.
155

Middle grades students are all assigned a homeroom teacher for the first period of the day that
supports processes around Advisory, study skills, organization, school communications, and
student life. This practice results in a strong focus on building relationships and strengthening
social problem-solving skills. Further, small school size and class sizes develop a more intimate
social learning environment and support positive academic outcomes through positive social
relationships. In 9th-12
th
grades, students loop with the same Dean for two years (9th-10thand
11th-12th), participate in ongoing academic and college counseling processes, and meet
regularly in student-led/faculty sponsored clubs. We are in the planning stages of implementing
Advisory at the high school grades where grade-level Advisors “follow” students across their
high school trajectory. These academic and social structures provide the opportunity for students
to partner with administrators, counselors and faculty members in long-term relationships. For
example, the Instructional Deans are assigned to move with those students –and their families–
across two years of high school, gaining in-depth understanding of students’ social, academic,
and emotional needs and strengths.
Constructivism in Action (p. 41-42).
At Mount Haven, the curriculum is driven forward by the California academic content
and performance standards and CA CCSS and structured through our constructivist approach.
Signature Projects at the K-8 level and project-based learning and the Junior/Senior Research
Seminar hallmark projects at the high school level embody our inquiry-based approach. The K-8
Signature Project sets the theme for the year through the principles of eco-literacy and social
justice to provide a meaningful structure through which to learn the standards in social studies,
science, English language arts, mathematics, world languages, physical education, and the
visual/performing arts. Signature Projects consist of multiple smaller units and lessons,
156

connected through their thematic consistency and focus, and includes two approaches to teaching
and learning: 1.Content and skill-based lessons are provided in which students develop a
knowledge base and refine the academic skills to utilize that knowledge, and 2. Action-based
lessons are provided in which students become active agents in life-based activities in order to
learn how to put their knowledge to work. Signature Projects are continually assessed and
revitalized. Faculty and staff take part annually in a process of self-assessment in which the
content, design, and implementation of the K-8 Signature Project at each grade level is examined
and improved. With our Signature Project Rubric, Mount Haven faculty and administration
validate that the Signature Project is:
• Academically integrated
• CA CCSS-based and grade level appropriate
• Based upon the concepts and theories of eco-literacy
• Action-oriented
• Using a constructivist approach to learning
Meaningful, Engaged Learning (p. 69).
Decades of research illustrate the benefits of inquiry-based and cooperative learning to
help students develop the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in a rapidly changing
world. (Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2008). Further, project-based learning has been
demonstrated to be superior for supporting long-term retention, skill development and
satisfaction among students and teachers, as measured by standardized exams (Strobel, J. & van
Barnesveld, A., 2009). Mount Haven’s interpretation of the theory of constructivism into
opportunities for meaningful, engaged learning translates into increased mental and physical
engagement in learning for students from TK-12. In the elementary years, we see increased use
157

of manipulatives in mathematics, hands-on experimentation in science, and use of the arts (visual
and performing) for demonstrations of learning in the humanities. Each strategy increases
engagement by allowing individual learners to connect to learning through varied senses, relate
learning to real-world scenarios, and engage in exploration and experimentation to learn through
personal experiences. In middle and high school years, extensive use of the Socratic Seminar
supplements these strategies, and learning units are structured around Essential Questions.
Socratic Seminars value the power of asking questions and prize inquiry over information and
discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and
align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Because of
the meaningful and relevant nature of the Mount Haven’s learning environment, students’ natural
curiosity is peaked, and students are inspired to answer questions about the world around them,
reality, self-awareness and more. Time for Engagement across grade levels, Mount Haven
employs various interpretations of block scheduling. In addition to serving as a more efficient
way to utilize valuable school resources, block schedules have been shown to have advantages
for teachers and students by allowing time for greater focus of instruction, time to develop and
build stronger relationships, increased flexibility for creative approaches such as co-teaching,
interdisciplinary strategies, and small group learning structures (Irmsher, 1996; LAB at Brown
University, 1998). In the elementary years, “project” time is built in to scheduling, in which
teachers engage students in active learning through multi-subject integrated projects with
particular focus on the sciences, social sciences, and the arts. These blocks of time tend to range
from 45-90 minutes.

158

Professional Development (p. 86-87).
Mount Haven uses multiple strategies to attract and retain a community of professionals
who are dedicated to providing the best educational practices to all students. Regardless of their
role in the school, every person hired by Mount Haven actively promotes the mission and
philosophy, through curriculum development, instructional strategies and development of a
dynamic school program. The Heads of School (K-8 or 9-12) are responsible for hiring all
instructional faculty. Applicants complete and submit documents including required credential
documentation so as to allow the team to conduct an in-depth screening of the match between the
school’s needs and the candidates’ professional capabilities as well as qualifications (see
Element 5: Employee Qualifications). With the help of an ad hoc hiring committee, comprised
of faculty and parents appropriate to the position, the Head of School selects and reviews
candidates through a process of phone and in-person interviews, demonstration lessons, and
submission of writing and lesson plan samples. Consideration is given to teaching experience,
the ability to demonstrate curriculum development, creative interpretation and application of the
theory of constructivism, implementation of effective classroom strategies, knowledge of
effective assessment tools and strategies, and respectful interactions, tone and style with peers
and students. Reference checks are used to confirm impressions or further inform decision
making on areas beyond those addressed in the interview process. Mount Haven’s development
team spreads the word among its extensive network of California-certified teachers to publicize
positions, including the school website, EdJoin, California Charter Schools Association job
listings, and educator networking groups such as graduate school of education alumni groups
(i.e. UCLA, USC and Loyola Marymount University). Hiring committee members also recruit
teachers at local and national job fairs to increase the number of quality candidates in the pool.
159

Mount Haven aims to attract highly talented teachers by offering a compensation and
benefits package, involving teachers in decision-making, and by providing opportunities to
collaborate with colleagues and receive meaningful professional development. Mount Haven
verifies all teaching credentials of candidates with the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, ensuring that each teacher possesses credential subject authorization that meet
state and NCLB requirements to teach the subject that he/she is being hired to teach. Ongoing
Professional Development Mount Haven is committed to supporting its teachers, leaders and
staff by providing frequent opportunities for professional growth and development. We foster a
collaborative school environment in which teachers are given a chance to work with and learn
from one another as well as develop leadership and facilitation skills. Professional development
sessions throughout the year are tailored to the needs of faculty and designed to promote student
learning. Driven by principles of constructivism for adult learners (Groves, 2008, Wilson &
Lowry, 2000, Lax et al, 2004), Mount Haven provides teachers with opportunities for:
• Discussion and planning with peers;
• Guidance and self-reflection around individual needs for growth and learning;
• Active participation in the experimental, investigatory, and reflective practice;
• Data-analysis, leading to critical thinking skills specific to the field of education; and
• Building on prior knowledge and adapting best practices through structured support.
Professional development is woven through teacher experiences in both team and
individual approaches. Gathering in small groups, Mount Haven teachers take part in weekly
shared planning sessions with grade level teams; rotating monthly professional development
meetings focused on 1) learning and instruction, 2) sharing best practices, and 3) analyzing data
and developing effective assessment strategies; “whole child” assessment meetings each
160

trimester (Grades TK-5); and 14 dedicated Professional Development days across the year
focused on vertical and horizontal articulation of curriculum, programming, and school culture,
safety, and processes. Staff development over our next charter term will be focused on these key
areas, in addition to other areas driven by student and faculty needs:
• Implementation of the CA CCSS and the Next Generation Science Standards and ELD
standards
• Build out of High School Hallmark Project courses and A-G curriculum into and
through 12thgrade
• Addition of new AP courses
• Rigorous, inquiry-based teaching and learning at the high school level
• Mathematics curriculum and instruction through the Everyday Math and College
Preparatory Math programs or other curricular programs; and the completion of our
Accelerated Math and Math Workshop programs
• Completion and implementation of the K-8 Signature Projects
• Definition, implementation, and reflective analysis on our internal assessment plans
• Review and refinement of reading and writing instruction and assessment across the
curriculum
• Ongoing review, improvement, and implementation of community building strategies
around student safety, satisfaction, and embodiment of the school ESLRs
In addition, faculty and staff are regularly trained on required topics such as: Mandated
Reporting and Child Abuse (in compliance with all laws including AB 1432/Ed. Code 44691),
Blood-borne Pathogens, CPR and Safety, FERPA, Special Education etc., by qualified staff,
161

attorneys, consultants, and via on-line tools (i.e. School Safe). Meeting the Needs of All
Students.
In addition to the constructivist approach to translating constructivist theory into practice
Mount Haven uses to support and challenge students, additional strategies target students who
may have additional needs –students performing far below or above grade level, students with
low socioeconomic status, English Learners, foster youth, and students in our Special Education
program. Our various subgroup populations receive instruction that focuses on their needs and
capitalizes on their strengths, ensuring that all students receive the most effective education
possible. The following structures assist in meeting students’ individual needs:
• Small class sizes (elementary) and block scheduling (middle and high school grades)
allows teachers to develop deep understanding of individual student strengths and needs;
• A minimum of 40 minutes of planning time each day provides time for teachers to
modify and lessons to meet the needs of individual students;
• Team teaching at the elementary level and frequent professional development time
allows teachers to learn from each other’s varying expertise in differentiating instruction;
• Integrating instruction and curriculum across academic disciplines, including
integration of service learning with real-life applications allows students to demonstrate their
proficiency in a variety of ways, promoting motivation and skill transference;
• Multiple and varied opportunities for communication between teachers and parents
supports the Mount Haven commitment to personalizing instruction; and
• Authentic and varied forms of assessment are used to identify differentiated
instructional techniques and scaffolding and identify students in need of interventions and
additional supports.
162

These school-wide structures are the first step in meeting the needs of students
performing below or above grade level, but additional supports are introduced for students who
are performing more than one level below or above his/her actual grade level, not meeting
standards in one or more core subjects, or has persistent challenges with the school’s academic or
behavioral expectations. The Mount Haven Student Success Team (SST) addresses plans for
students identified as in need of additional supports. The SST is a systematic, individual,
solution-oriented approach to assist students with factors that are interfering with academic
success.

163

Appendix G
Written school policies that show constructivism is teaching and learning philosophy
James Madison
Head of School’s Welcome (from school website).
Welcome to the James Madison. We are a school that cares deeply about the pairing of
academic success and engaged global citizenship. Philosophically, we fundamentally believe
that intellectual achievement and community mindedness are essential to one another.
I urge you to come and see the special work at James Madison. Our classrooms are
laboratories, in the best of what John Dewey envisioned for excellent schools over a century ago;
our students are filled with joy, and regularly I see alumni who have a lifelong love of learning –
which they credit with their early and formative years at James Madison.
The newly established Civil Society Institute will allow us the opportunity to engage in
conversations about building an inclusive and caring republic within the larger Los Angeles
community while continuing our second half-century as one of Los Angeles’ leading
independent elementary schools.
In closing, please reach out to me with questions. I want you to see how incredibly
unique James Madison is – and how integral it could be for your child’s growth as a scholar-
citizen.

All my best,

Head of School
James Madison School
164

Philosophy (from school website).
Paramount to our philosophy of teaching and learning is the belief that intelligence is
neither a fixed nor an unchanging commodity. James Madison intentionally expands each
child’s capacity for learning in a thoughtfully designed environment where children are not just
“taught;” they are encouraged to explore, investigate, work collaboratively, and probe the world
around them.
Though we are best known for our traditional educational approaches, we also believe
that children should have the opportunity to construct meaning as they assimilate knowledge.
Rather than merely providing rote learning in our classrooms, we encourage our teachers to
stretch the children’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate what they learn; to apply their
learning to new situations; and to present confidently and in a variety of formats what they have
learned.
Because our children will inherit a complex and unpredictable world, we believe that a
James Madison’s education should provide our students with the thinking strategies they will
need to solve problems and resolve conflicts. We acknowledge that our children must grow into
adulthood with equal measures of creativity and critical thinking skills, and we foster the ability
to seek and apply knowledge from a wide variety of sources. But above all, we at James
Madison’s pledge to inculcate in our students a commitment to ethical behavior and an abiding
appreciation for the differences that mark each human being as an individual of inestimable
worth and dignity.

165

Core Beliefs-Students and Teachers.
• Everything we teach and do is the curriculum.
• All our efforts aim to enhance each student’s confidence, curiosity, creativity, intellectual
integrity, competence, character, and ability to think critically.
• Learning is its own reward.
• Teachers motivate students through encouragement, inspiration, respect, and love.
• Teachers recognize each student’s individual gifts and inspire children to do their best.
• By accepting responsibility for their own learning and through diligent work, students
develop self-respect and intelligence.
• Along with our emphasis on strong intellectual preparation, we help our students become
empathetic, actively compassionate people who will use their talents in service to others.
• We learn to value different cultures by engaging with one another.
• We continually evaluate the curriculum for relevance, quality of intellectual content, and
intrinsic interest.
Employment.
James Madison is a diverse, joyful, and inclusive community of learners. With a focus
on academic excellence and attention to the needs of each child, we strive to instill in our
student’s intellectual curiosity, compassion for others, and respect for all of God’s creation.
James Madison is an independent school serving students in preschool through sixth
grade, with more than 70 full time faculty, James Madison is a diverse, joyful, inclusive
community of learners.
166

We take care of our employees in more ways than one. Not only are our employees
showered with one of the best benefits packages in Los Angeles, we also offer a strong sense of
community, and many opportunities for our employees to grow and enhance their skills,
encouraging our employees to attend conferences, seminars, webinars and network with
colleagues and other professional educators.
James Madison is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, disability, marital status, age, sexual
orientation, gender, medical condition, or any other characteristic protected under federal, state,
or local discrimination laws. If you have a strong sense of self, a good sense of humor and the
qualifications to match, submit your application.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research sought to compare constructivist music teaching in two school systems that are led by heads of school with similar beliefs in constructivism-inspired pedagogy as part of their schools’ policy and are leading programs with either a long-established history of constructivism or a recent adoption of the approach. Specific research questions related to: 1) ways that heads of school endorsed, communicated, and supported constructivist teaching with teachers, 2) how constructivist approaches were conceptually understood by music teachers, and 3) evidence that constructive pedagogy was employed by music teachers in their practice. Although not a dissertation about policy per se, a short overview of some policies that have supported progressive and constructivist-related pedagogy in the music education efforts in the United States schools was provided to help offer context. ❧ The study was structured as an intrinsic, ethnographic, and comparative case study of two schools in the Los Angeles, California area. Data sets for this dissertation included interviews from two music teachers in each school and the heads of each school, observations of selected music classes in general music and band performance at the 5th and 6th-grade levels, and artifacts such as any written policies that endorsed or described constructivist approaches. Included in the related literature was a review of related literature in music teaching and learning related to constructivist theories and research done that relates directly to this study. ❧ Among the many findings were that, as expected, the school with a longer history of constructivist approaches in the school’s policy showed strong evidence of constructive pedagogy, including socially constructed knowledge, experiential learning, student-centered teaching and learning environment, scaffolding, guided participation, and leaning as a holistic process throughout music classes. The school with less history showed appropriate planning and teacher development strategies but inconsistent communication with music faculty about the newer aspects of policy. Again, as expected, music teachers in the school with a longer history had carefully integrated constructivist approaches into their pedagogy

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploring the contributions of teacher authenticity in two high school band programs in Greater Los Angeles

PDF

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

PDF

A crafted intergenerational district band: A bounded case study of participant experiences

PDF

Recovery from task specific embouchure dystonia in brass players: a multiple case study

PDF

Forming relationships: investigating social capital in a low socio-economic school music program

PDF

Sibling musical interactions: exploring observational learning and deidentification in the family vehicle

PDF

Transformation of habitus and social trajectories: a retrospective study of a popular music program

PDF

Voices from within: perceptions of community youth orchestras and musical identities of child musicians

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation

PDF

Mindset and its role in first-year music teachers in differing cultures

PDF

Collegiate bands and hazing: a study of the perceived effect of anti-hazing policies

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Through their song: a case study in social perspective taking with a community college choir

PDF

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

PDF

The musical childhoods of Vietnamese and Vietnamese American elders raised in Vietnam between 1931-1975

PDF

A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices for elementary classroom teachers in third through fifth grade in Los Angeles County urban schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Lim, Ji Hae (author)

Core Title Case study of constructivist philosophy and policy implementation for music teaching and learning in two elementary schools in Los Angeles

School Thornton School of Music

Degree Doctor of Musical Arts

Degree Program Music Education

Publication Date 06/22/2020

Defense Date 12/13/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag constructivist pedagogy,constructivist philosophy,endorsement of the constructivist practice,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy history in American music education,policy implementation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Webster, Peter (committee chair), Helfter, Susan (committee member), Ilari, Beatriz (committee member), Lewis, Judy (committee member)

Creator Email jihaelim@usc.edu,jihaelimlee@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-321882

Unique identifier UC11663561

Identifier etd-LimJiHae-8610.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-321882 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LimJiHae-8610.pdf

Dmrecord 321882

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lim, Ji Hae

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA