Weaving It All Together

By Heather Nelson Shouldice

Children are capable of remarkably sophisticated musical skills and understandings, and for decades music teachers have been using Edwin E. Gordon's groundbreaking method to successfully develop independent music makers and thinkers in their classrooms.In Weaving It All Together, author Heather Shouldice draws from her two decades of experience with Music Learning Theory (MLT) to present practical activities, ideas, and strategies to help elementary general music teachers thoughtfully and purposefully weave together the many instructional threads of MLT.The book is divided into three parts. Part I (“The Big Picture”) presents the core concepts and tenets of MLT, including a summary of Gordon's foundational Skill Learning Sequence.In Part II (“Navigating Skill Learning Sequence”), Shouldice dedicates a chapter to each of the eight levels in the Skill Learning Sequence, with suggestions for learning activities and teaching strategies for each.Part III (“Weaving the Threads”) takes a broad view of how students' audiation and musical skill development can be guided throughout the elementary years, with chapters devoted to informal music guidance, harmonic skill development, instrumental applications, facilitating and documenting individual student growth, implementing Learning Sequence Activities (LSAs), and planning and sequencing instruction.Equally suited for veteran and novice teachers alike, Weaving It All Together provides a detailed yet flexible roadmap for music instruction and bridges the gap between Gordon's theoretical ideas and their practical implementation in the general music classroom.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Independent Publishers Group
• Release date: Jul 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9781622776801

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

BEGINNING THE JOURNEY

Welcome! If you are reading this book, I’m guessing you have discovered and are interested in Music Learning Theory (MLT). Maybe you’ve been using MLT in your teaching for years and are looking for a way to expand your knowledge of MLT and how you implement it in your classroom. Maybe you’ve recently encountered MLT for the first time and are intrigued to learn what it’s all about. Either way, this book is for you, and I’ve been in your shoes!

If you had asked me 20 years ago if I could have imagined myself ever teaching music to young children, rolling around the floor and chanting bah-bah-bah, I would have laughed in your face and answered, NO WAY! At that time, when I was beginning as an undergraduate music major, my dream was to one day make a living playing my clarinet. Music had always been a huge part of my life, and nothing compared to the sheer joy of making music on my instrument. However, I also wanted to be sure I could afford to eat so I decided to major in music education as a back-up plan. If my dreams of performing didn’t pan out or I needed to make some extra money on the side, I was willing to lower myself to teaching college or possibly high school band. Although I was completing music education coursework, clarinet continued to be my priority. I practiced 2–3 hours a day, joined every ensemble or chamber group available, and fully intended to go on to pursue graduate study in clarinet performance.

That all changed when I discovered MLT. As part of my music education degree program, I had to complete several elective courses in music education, so I chose to enroll in early childhood music methods and elementary general music methods after a friend told me they were fun. Little did I know those two courses would literally change my life! As luck would have it, they happened to be taught by none other than Dr. Cynthia Crump Taggart, a protégé of Dr. Edwin E. Gordon and someone who would become one of my dearest mentors. Learning about Dr. Gordon’s theories and research in Dr. Taggart’s courses opened my eyes to the musical potential in every individual and turned virtually all of my previously-held thoughts and beliefs about music education upside down!

What was it about MLT that was so compelling it led me to change what I wanted to do with my life? Without a doubt, it was seeing and hearing the evidence of the tremendous impact it can have on students’ musicianship! I encountered this evidence in my MLT-based methods courses and couldn’t believe what was possible: Infants who vocalize on the resting tone of a song they are hearing? Elementary students who understand the concepts of tonic and dominant and can hear and describe the difference between major and minor? Beginning band or recorder students who can play tunes and basslines by ear and even improvise over a given harmonic progression? Amazing! Not only did these possibilities completely shock me, as I had never imagined young children could be capable of such things, but I have to admit I was jealous. (Yes, jealous!) I was unspeakably envious that I never had the opportunity to develop these skills when I was a child. If I had, how much easier would aural skills classes (i.e., ear training) have been as a college music major?!? I wouldn’t have even needed those classes! These realizations opened my eyes to new possibilities for what music teaching and learning could look like and instilled in me a burning desire to provide these experiences for as many children as possible. I wanted them to have the opportunities that I so desperately wished I had had: to learn music through their ears, to develop a deep inner understanding of music, and to become as fluent at music-making as they were at speaking their native language. These things, at which I had to work so hard as a college music major, could come naturally to young children if they were guided in a developmentally appropriate, sequential way!

It was through discovering children were capable of these sophisticated musical skills and understandings that my views of teaching elementary general music changed. Prior to this discovery, I would have never imagined myself teaching elementary music because my schema for what it meant to teach elementary music was based on my own experiences in music class as a child: playing games, singing songs with cute lyrics (or maybe shouting would be more accurate?), playing (squeaking?) Hot Cross Buns on the recorder (over and over), and generally having fun with kids in order to help them love music—none of which seemed like a worthwhile use of my time, talents, or intelligence. Besides, elementary general music wasn’t where the real music-making happened. Real music-making only began once students were older and were able to play complicated repertoire, like the Holst suites for band, right? In time, however, MLT helped me realize that, while students in a band might be able to push the correct buttons on their instruments and follow the instructions of their director enough to make their performance of the piece sound good, this doesn’t mean they have any aural understanding of the sounds they are making or could create their OWN musical sounds in an intentional, cohesive way.

MLT is invaluable because it can aid us in equipping our students with tangible musical skills and understanding through which they can develop into independent music makers and musical thinkers. In doing so, it is hoped our students will continue on to a lifetime of musical engagement—not just as passive consumers or audience members, but as musicians themselves. Although they may not go on to pursue a professional career in music, every student can become a competent music maker with the ability to create and express their own musical thoughts throughout their daily life. What an inspiring mission for our work as music educators!

The catch-22, however, is that much of what makes MLT so inspiring and fulfilling to teach is also what makes it incredibly challenging to teach! MLT requires a tremendous amount of musicianship from the teacher. This includes the ability to sing and chant in a variety of tonalities and meters, fluency with tonal and rhythm solfege, and proficiency in tonal and rhythmic improvisation (without relying on an instrument). Furthermore, MLT is an incredibly sophisticated theory, with many layers and details to process and wrap one’s brain around. Twenty years after discovering MLT, I am still continuing to deepen my own understanding, and Dr. Gordon himself used to say that even he didn’t know everything there was to know about MLT because it is always evolving. However, the tremendous level of musicianship and understanding required to implement MLT in a truly masterful and artful way are exactly why I have found it so compelling. In 22 years of teaching using MLT, I have rarely been bored. (Well, maybe in staff meetings, but that doesn’t count.) I have been continually challenged and fully engaged in teaching with MLT because my own musicianship is constantly stretching, and I am always intellectually stimulated by the endeavor to create more thoughtful, purposeful, and sequential learning experiences for students. While this can feel incredibly inspiring, it can also feel incredibly overwhelming!

In many ways, teaching with MLT is like weaving a tapestry. There are a multitude of threads that must be thoughtfully and strategically woven together to create the intended piece. While a beginner might jump in and begin experimenting with weaving, a more seasoned weaver first envisions and sketches out the overall design. Then they choose their raw materials. What color palette and thread textures will they use in order to bring their intended vision to life? Once the materials are prepared, the artist carefully begins weaving the threads together and, over time, skillfully creates a work of art. Just as a tapestry artist begins by envisioning their intended design, one begins with a vision when teaching with MLT: to help students develop into independent music makers and musical thinkers. We then begin sketching out a plan for how we will make that vision a reality. How will we help our students progress in their musical development from day to day, week to week, and year to year? We also must thoughtfully choose our raw materials. What musical repertoire and what types of activities might we use to provide meaningful, high-quality music learning experiences for our students? Then we begin weaving together a variety of instructional strands—including tonal skills, rhythm skills, harmonic understanding, and playing instruments, just to name a few—and we must continue to make thoughtful and strategic decisions about how we weave these threads together over time in order to reach our vision of helping students to become fluent and independent musicians.

The purpose of this book is to help elementary general music teachers weave together the instructional threads of MLT in a thoughtful and purposeful way. My intent is to help bridge the theoretical ideas and writings of Dr. Gordon, namely those in his seminal work Learning Sequences in Music, with the types of practical activities illustrated in Jump Right In: The Music Curriculum for general music. This book is by no means intended to serve as a definitive method for implementing MLT in the elementary general music setting. Rather, in sharing what I have learned and found helpful in my 22 years of applying MLT, I hope it will provide useful strategies to help you more thoughtfully and effectively navigate MLT in ways that will be most meaningful and relevant for you and your students.

I have divided this book into three distinct sections. In Part I, I start with the big picture. I begin by presenting the core tenets of MLT in Chapter 2. Next, I discuss musical context and content, providing an overview of tonalities and meters as well as the basics of pattern instruction in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I summarize Gordon’s Skill Learning Sequence, which provides the theoretical framework for guiding sequential skill development in music. In Part II of this book (Navigating Skill Learning Sequence), I devote a chapter to each level in the Skill Learning Sequence, including a description of the specific skills encompassed at each level along with suggestions for learning activities and teaching strategies to help students develop those musical skills. Finally, in Part III (Weaving the Threads) we take a broad view of how students’ audiation and musical skill development can be guided across the elementary years with chapters devoted specifically to informal music guidance, harmonic skill development, instrumental applications, facilitating and documenting individual student growth, implementing Learning Sequence Activities (LSAs), and planning and sequencing instruction.

This book is an amalgamation of the many ideas and strategies I have gathered over my 22 years of working with MLT. Some were gained through coursework—both university and GIML professional development levels—while others came from workshops, conference sessions, and professional learning communities of teachers with whom I have had the privilege of interacting over the years. I gradually assimilated all of these ideas, and they became a part of the fabric of who I am as a teacher. Because I had never dreamed I would be writing this book one day, I didn’t keep track of the persons from whom I gathered these ideas as I was absorbing them into my teaching. Therefore, I do not take credit for everything in this book. When memory permitted, I have cited individuals from whom I gathered particular ideas; however, I cannot possibly remember from whom I accumulated each and every idea, so it would be impossible for me to give credit to them all. Instead, I dedicate this book to all the educators with whom I have had the privilege of learning.

Like mastering an art such as weaving, learning about and using MLT has continued to provide me with new and inspiring challenges throughout my 20+ year journey. With so many various layers and strands to MLT, there is always something to discover, understand more deeply, or implement in new ways. I remember hearing Dr. Gordon say that even he was never done learning about MLT because it should always continue to evolve. Whether you are just beginning to dabble in the art of MLT or are a seasoned practitioner looking to expand your palette, I hope MLT brings you and your students much joy and that this book helps you weave it all together!

PART I:

THE BIG PICTURE

In this section of the book, I introduce the main concepts of MLT and lay the foundation for incorporating MLT into your teaching practice. First, I outline the core tenets of MLT in Chapter 2. Next, I discuss musical context and content in Chapter 3, including an overview of tonalities and meters as well as the basics of pattern instruction. Then, I give an overview of Gordon’s Skill Learning Sequence in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 2

MLT 101: BASIC TENETS OF MUSIC LEARNING THEORY

What is Music Learning Theory (MLT)? Simply put, MLT is a theory that aims to explain how we learn when we learn music. It was developed by Edwin E. Gordon (1927–2015), informed by his experiences as a professional bass player and decades of teaching, research, and observation of young children and students in schools. ¹ You may have heard some persons refer to MLT as the Gordon method, but this is a misnomer. MLT is not a method! A method is a series of sequential objectives that tells a teacher what to teach and in what order. MLT does not specifically prescribe what should be taught and when it should be taught because its focus is on how we learn music. This insight into how music is learned offers guidance and direction for development of appropriate method (Gordon, 2012, p. 28). Several published methods based on MLT already exist, three of which are Jump Right In: The Music Curriculum (Taggart, et al., 2000), Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series (Grunow et al., 1999), and Music Moves for Piano (Lowe, 2005). However, these are only three possibilities. The concepts and framework of MLT can give rise to an infinite number of teaching methods! I firmly believe each MLT practitioner should feel empowered to create their own unique method based on MLT, and I hope this book will help you do so.

If MLT is not a method, then what is it? MLT is a collection of ideas that attempts to explain music learning and musical development. At its core, music learning theory comprises and combines knowledge of audiation, sequential learning, and music aptitude (Gordon, 2012, p. 27). The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of each of these three core tenets of MLT.

Audiation

The primary focus of MLT is developing audiation. Audiation is a word created by Gordon to mean thinking in music. Gordon based it on the word ideate, meaning to have an idea or to think (Gerhardstein, 2001). Gordon added the prefix aud (relating to sound, from the Latin for to hear), coming up with the word audiate. So if ideation pertains to thinking, audiation means thinking in musical sounds. Gordon (2012) often used the analogy audiation is to music what thought is to language (p. ix). In fact, the journal published by the Gordon Institute for Music Learning (Audea: A Journal for Research and Applications of Music Learning Theory) gets its name from a variant of the word audiation: if an idea is a thought based in language, then an audea is a musical thought.

Gordon (2007) defined audiation as when we hear and comprehend music for which sound is not physically present (p. 3). Some persons mistakenly use the word audiation as a synonym for inner hearing—silently singing a song in your head. However, there is more to audiation than mere inner hearing:

Just as you can learn to say nonsense syllables … or repeat a sentence in a foreign language and not give meaning to what you are saying, children can learn to sing a song by rote without giving it musical meaning; that is, without understanding context or content of the song. Those children are, of course, imitating but not audiating (Gordon, 2012, p. 9).

Similarly, it is possible to inner hear both language and music sounds without giving them meaning.

Those who conflate the terms audiation and inner hearing are missing a key part of the definition of audiation that distinguishes the two terms: audiation is the hearing and comprehension of music in the mind. Comprehension does not mean one needs to have the ability to label musical concepts or explain them in theoretical terms. Rather, it refers to a sense of tonal and rhythm syntax and context. Like language, music has syntax—an orderly arrangement of sounds—and this arrangement of musical sounds happens within a tonal or rhythm context (Gordon, 2012, p. 5). In Western tonal music, our sense of tonal context depends on our ability to discern a tonal center, and our sense of rhythmic context depends on our ability to feel the macrobeat. This basic sense of tonal center and macrobeat enables a person to organize music into patterns that make musical sense (Gordon, 2012, p. 19). Once we are able to discern the macrobeat, we can start to feel smaller and larger levels of beat, which gives rise to our sense of meter. Similarly, once we are able to discern tonal center, we can start to make sense of how other pitches relate to the tonal center, which gives rise to our sense of tonality.²

It is important to note again that audiation of context does not require the ability to describe or label phenomena such as meter or tonality. Similar to the way a young child can speak with proper syntax without knowing what a noun or verb is, we can audiate even if we do not have formal words to explain what we are comprehending (Gordon, 2012, p. 11). A person who is audiating tonally could hear the simple chord progression I-IV-V in major and sense that it sounds unfinished. If this person could sense that the music wanted to go back to the tonic chord, they would be demonstrating some degree of tonal audiation—even if they had never studied music theory or learned labels like tonic and dominant. This is because, like language syntax, we do not develop a sense of musical syntax through explanation and labeling but through exposure. Just as we develop a sense of language syntax by being exposed to a great deal of language and experimenting with speech sounds, we develop audiation of musical context by hearing and interacting with a great deal of music and experimenting with musical sounds.

This brings us to another key feature of audiation: it enables one to make musical predictions. Let’s start with a language example. As you’re reading this page, you’re recognizing and processing the words, thinking about what they’re communicating, relating this to your prior knowledge and experiences, and if you’re truly understanding, you should be able to predict what this is about to ______.³ You were probably able to fill in the blank with a word or phrase that made sense, right? That’s because your comprehension allowed you to make a prediction. The same thing happens musically when we’re audiating. When you listen to a piece of music, you process the musical sounds you’re hearing, make sense of them through the lens of all your prior musical experiences, and if you’re audiating, you should be able to make a prediction about where the music might go next. You may not be consciously and explicitly thinking about it in terms of tonality, meter, or chord progression, but your audiation would allow you to subconsciously process those things and come up with a prediction that would make musical sense (Gordon, 2012, p 5).

When we discuss audiation and skill development through an MLT lens, we typically focus on audiation of tonality/keyality, tonal patterns, tempo/meter, and rhythm patterns. Thus, tonal and rhythm skills will be the focus throughout most of the remainder of this book. However, other dimensions that can be audiated are tone quality, chord progressions, form, style, expression, and instrumentation/timbre (Gordon, 2012, p. 12). While these dimensions may not receive equal attention in this book, they are all important for a well-rounded music education.

Gordon has written extensively about audiation, including theorizing about various types and stages through which it occurs. The types of audiation (shown in Table 2.1) are different ways in which a person can engage their audiation when interacting with music. The stages of audiation describe the sequential process through which we audiate music (shown in Table 2.2). For a more detailed explanation of the types and stages of audiation, see Chapter 1 of Gordon’s (2012) Learning Sequences in Music (specifically, pp. 13–24).

Table 2.1 Types of Audiation (Non-sequential)

Table 2.2 Stages of Audiation (Sequential)

So why does audiation matter? There is more to music than merely perceiving sound. Sound itself is not music. Sound becomes music through audiation when, as with language, we translate sounds in our mind and give them meaning (Gordon, 2012, p. 3). Because it allows us to create musical meaning, audiation gives us the power to make sense of music in any and every kind of musical interaction, including listening, performing, creating, and reading/writing notation. Instead of merely performing or recognizing music, audiation allows us to truly understand music and enables the possibility of speaking music (e.g., singing, chanting, moving, playing an instrument) as fluently as we speak our native language. Audiation allows us to not just reproduce the music of others but to have and express our own musical thoughts:

Suppose all you are able to do is recognize familiar sentences and recognize familiar music. Would you be at a disadvantage? Of course you would…. The better you audiate, the more you can understand and make generalizations…. Music becomes your property (Gordon, 2012, p. 12).

Imitating and/or memorizing one specific melody (or other musical part) allows a person to engage in the one musical experience of performing that specific piece. Audiation, however, enables a lifetime of musical experiences.

Aptitude

Gordon often said, "We learn what something is by learning what it’s not." Therefore, in order to understand the concept of music aptitude, it is important to differentiate it from music achievement. Music achievement is what a person knows and can do musically. Examples of music achievement include singing ability, proficiency at playing an instrument, improvisation skill, capability to read or write music notation, and knowledge of labels one could apply to the music they are hearing, such as tonality or meter. Music achievement is something we can see and/or hear and therefore can be described or measured through observation. In contrast, we cannot see or hear music aptitude because it refers to one’s musical potential. According to Gordon (2012), music aptitude is a measure of one’s potential to learn music, whereas music achievement is a measure of what has been learned in music (p. 44).

Music aptitude is another core tenet of MLT, specifically that everyone has musical potential. Unlike the traditional myth of musical ability as an inborn talent that some persons possess and others do not, music aptitude is believed to be present in every human being. Just as no person is void of at least some intelligence, no person is void of at least some music aptitude. To that extent everyone is musical (Gordon, 2012, p. 44). Ethnomusicological studies of cultures in which there is no concept of inborn, selective musical talent support this supposition. Researchers who have studied such cultures have found that, because it is believed that every individual has the capacity to become musically competent, virtually everyone does (Blacking, 1971, 1973; Koops, 2010; Messenger, 1958).

Gordon (1998) theorized that music aptitude is normally distributed among the population. According to this normal distribution, approximately 60% of any group of persons will have average aptitude (or slightly above-or below-average aptitude), 20% will have low aptitude, and 20% will have high aptitude. Additionally, music aptitude is multidimensional; we don’t just have a single, holistic music aptitude but various levels of aptitude in each of the specific dimensions of music. In fact, Gordon (1998) found evidence of more than 20 music aptitudes. Each student has different degrees of various music aptitudes…. [and] it is rare for a student to have the same level for several dimensions of music aptitudes (Gordon, 1999, p. 44).

According to Gordon’s theory, music aptitude is not believed to be hereditary—meaning it is not passed down genetically from parent to child. There is no evidence to suggest that [music aptitude] is inherited (Gordon, 1999, p. 44). Guerrini (2005) compared the aptitude test scores of parents with those of their biological children and found no correlation between the two. For example, parents with low music aptitude were no more likely to have children with low music aptitude than with medium or high music aptitude. The (incorrect) assumption that musical ability is hereditary may be due to the common occurrence that parents who seem more musical often have children who also seem more musical. However, it is probable that parents who are more musically skilled and passionate about music are likely to provide positive musical experiences for their children, leading them to become more musically skilled and passionate as well.

The power of a high-quality musical environment is a key aspect of Gordon’s theory of two stages of music aptitude, in which music aptitude is a product of both innate potential and early environmental experiences (Gordon, 1998, p. 9). According to Gordon, we are born with music aptitude that is developmental. In the developmental music aptitude stage, aptitude fluctuates depending on the quality of our musical environment. Regardless of the level of music aptitude with which children are born, they must have early formal and informal experiences in music in order to maintain that level of potential (Gordon, 1999, p. 44). The tendency for developmental music aptitude to fluctuate depending on environmental experiences is due to the rapid and powerful brain development that occurs early in our lives:

Unless cells are used to make neurological connections and synapses related to each of the senses at the appropriate times, the cells will atrophy or direct themselves to enhancing other senses, and the sense that is neglected will be limited throughout life. (Gordon, 1998, p. 9)

Therefore, for music aptitude to flourish in a positive manner, children need to be nurtured in a rich musical environment (Gordon, 2012, p. 47). Though birth through five years of age is the most crucial due to critical periods of brain development during this time, Gordon (2012) theorized that developmental aptitude continues to fluctuate through approximately age nine, making the elementary school years a powerful time for helping maximize students’ musical potential.⁴

The stabilization of music aptitude around the age of nine is likely related to the myelination that takes place in the brain at around the same time, a process in which a fatty sheath develops around the neural axons and allows neural networks to operate in a more efficient manner (Patterson, 2008, p. 259). At this point, music aptitude, now known as stabilized music aptitude, will stay fairly constant for the remainder of one’s life. However, that should not be interpreted to mean that after age nine a person cannot successfully be taught music (Gordon, 1999, p. 44). We can always increase our music achievement at any age, but the amount of time, effort, and guidance it will take for us to do so will likely be affected by our level of stabilized aptitude.

So why does music aptitude matter? First, it acknowledges that everyone has musical potential, which can be turned into music achievement. No person is void of at least some music aptitude…. [Therefore] no one is incapable of learning to listen to and perform music with some degree of success (Gordon, 2012, p. 44). Second, what we see and hear is not always an accurate indicator of what is possible for a student. This is because, unless they have rich and developmentally appropriate musical experiences that challenge and motivate them, students may not be making the most of their potential! Although it is difficult to cite a firm statistic, Gordon often suggested a large percentage of students with high music aptitude do not participate in school music, typically because those students go unnoticed by teachers (Gordon, 2007, p. 37). Although it is true that a student who shows high music achievement likely also has fairly high music aptitude, it cannot be assumed that a student who has shown low music achievement also has low music aptitude; it is possible that the student has high but latent music aptitude. Thus, we cannot know a person’s musical potential without the assistance of a valid music aptitude test. A music aptitude test hears what a teacher cannot see (Gordon, 2012, p. 51).

Finally, knowing our students’ music aptitudes can help us individualize instruction by adapting difficulty to meet each student’s unique musical strengths and weaknesses (Gordon, 1999). Many music teachers tend to teach to the middle and treat all students as if they have average music aptitude. This often results in high-aptitude students growing bored and low-aptitude students becoming frustrated. If, however, we can tailor the difficulty level of the content we are teaching to meet the individual needs of each student, we will help them all to be appropriately challenged and experience musical growth and success!⁵

Sequential Learning

The third core tenet of MLT pertains to sequential learning. Music learning theory outlines a process for learning music by explaining what students need to know at a particular level of learning to proceed sequentially … to more advanced levels (Gordon, 2012, p. 25). In its most basic sense, MLT is built on the premise that the process through which music is learned parallels the process through which language is learned. As Gordon (1999) describes, we begin learning our native language through listening. We are immersed in the language environment around us and gradually become acculturated to the sounds of our native language, developing our listening vocabulary for language. Once we have heard a sufficient amount of language and are developmentally ready, we begin to experiment with and imitate the sounds of language through babble, and we eventually discover how to speak words we have heard others speak and then to string them together to form phrases and sentences. In this part of the process, we are developing our speaking vocabulary. As we develop our listening and speaking vocabularies, we begin to think in language and interact with others through conversation, during which we are able to understand the words and thoughts of others and spontaneously respond with thoughts and words of our own. After ample time developing our listening, speaking, and thinking/conversing vocabularies, we develop our reading and writing vocabularies by learning how to understand and manipulate the symbols that represent the language sounds we already understand. Finally, after we have developed sufficient reading and writing vocabularies, we begin to learn the theoretical explanations for our language system, such as labeling the parts of speech or studying the etymology of words.

MLT assumes a parallel process for the learning of music (Gordon, 1999). First, we begin to learn music by being immersed in and becoming acculturated to the sounds of the native music of our culture, which form our musical listening vocabulary. Then we begin to experiment with and imitate the musical sounds we have heard and eventually discover how to accurately recreate meaningful segments of those sounds, thus beginning to form our musical speaking vocabulary (i.e., singing/chanting/moving/playing instruments by ear). As we develop our musical listening and speaking vocabularies, we develop our audiating and improvising vocabularies as we begin to think in musical sound and express our own spontaneous musical thoughts. After sufficient time developing our music listening, music making, and audiating/improvising vocabularies, we develop music reading and writing vocabularies through exposure to notation and develop fluency in reading and writing notation by learning how to decipher and manipulate the notation that represents the musical sounds we can already audiate. Finally, after we have developed sufficient music reading and writing vocabularies, we begin to learn the theoretical explanations for our musical system. Throughout this learning process, one [acquires] new levels of understanding, one built upon the other (Gordon, 1999, p. 41).

Due to the developmental nature of the learning process, students should first have an opportunity to experience and begin learning music through informal guidance (Gordon, 2013a). During informal music guidance, the child is exposed to music and encouraged to absorb and respond to it but is not required to do so in specific ways. Primarily, there is no requirement or expectation for children to demonstrate a correct musical response when engaged in informal music guidance. Instead, the teacher provides a rich musical environment that allows children the freedom to experiment and play with musical sounds in a developmentally appropriate way. Doing so provides the necessary readiness for formal instruction, in which students are expected to learn intended information and skills through experiences planned by the teacher to accomplish instructional goals.⁶

Another similarity between language and music learning is that both language and music involve the processing of units of meaning. Language meaning is constructed through the processing and comprehension of words. Thus, words act as a basic unit of meaning in language. Although words are made up of individual letters, we typically don’t consciously focus on each letter of the words we are hearing, speaking, or reading because a letter by itself has no meaning. Similarly, individual pitches or durations by themselves have no musical meaning. Instead, musical meaning is constructed through the audiation of tonal patterns and rhythm patterns. According to Gordon (2012), pitch-letter names and time-value names of notes are the alphabet of music (p. 36) while tonal patterns and rhythm patterns are the basic units of meaning in music. Just as language fluency is developed by building a vocabulary of words, musical fluency is developed by building a vocabulary of tonal patterns and rhythm patterns. Thus, MLT utilizes a whole-part-whole learning process, in which our holistic understanding of music is enhanced through the development of a functional vocabulary of tonal patterns and rhythm patterns.⁷

Once students are ready to begin formal instruction in music (which includes focus on tonal patterns and rhythm patterns), the teacher must make decisions about how to appropriately sequence both the content and the skills students are expected to learn. MLT provides multiple frameworks for guiding such decisions. These include Gordon’s (2012) Skill Learning Sequence, Tonal Content Learning Sequence, and Rhythm Content Learning Sequence.

What is the difference between skills and content? Musical skills are what we do—or the ways in which we engage—with music. Thus, musical skills are verbs. Examples of musical skills include singing, chanting, moving, labeling, improvising, reading, and so on. Musical content encompasses aspects of the musical material itself. Thus, pieces of musical content are typically nouns. Examples of musical content include specific functions of tonal patterns (e.g., tonic, dominant) and rhythm patterns (e.g., macrobeat/microbeat, division/elongation) as well as the context in which they are occurring (i.e., tonality/meter). When learning music, skill and content must be combined. It is impossible to engage in a musical skill without also engaging with musical content, and vice versa. For example, if you are engaging in the skill of singing, what are you singing? You might be singing major tonic/dominant patterns (or a melody consisting of these functions/patterns). Conversely, if you are engaging with rhythm patterns in duple meter, what are you doing with them? You might be reading them, improvising them, or labeling their function, among other possibilities. Gordon’s Content Learning Sequences and Skill Learning Sequence will be the focus of the next two chapters.

The appropriate sequencing of both skills and content helps to maximize learning while minimizing frustration. When we engage students in sequential music learning experiences, everything students are learning builds logically from what they have already learned. As a result, students find what they are learning makes sense (Gordon, 2012, p. viii). Thus, developing musical skills and knowledge requires minimal effort because students have been given the sequential readiness for each step in the learning process.

Conclusion

These three core tenets—audiation, aptitude, and sequential learning—lie at the heart of MLT. Like a loom provides the structure for weaving, these three central ideas provide a foundation for instructional decisions. In regard to anything we may choose to do in the classroom, we might ask the following types of questions based on the core tenets of MLT:

Will this enhance students’ audiation? Will it enable students to utilize their audiation, through music-making and/or musical thinking?

Am I acknowledging the musical potential in each and every student? Am I providing opportunities for differentiated instruction so that each individual is appropriately challenged and growing musically?

Is this learning experience sequentially appropriate for where students currently are? What readinesses are necessary in order for students to be successful? How might the skill/content be broken down into a series of logical and sequential steps? Have I allowed students to experience, practice, and create with this skill/content aurally before adding notation and before theoretical explanations?

By keeping these three core tenets at the forefront of what goes on in our classroom, we can work toward the ultimate goal of Music Learning Theory: to provide students with sequential music learning experiences, tailored to each individual’s unique needs (i.e., aptitude), so that all can develop audiation and musical independence to the greatest extent possible.

1For more information on Gordon’s life and his work in developing Music Learning Theory and related tests, see Gerhardstein’s (2001) biography and Gordon’s (2014) autobiography.

2If you are unfamiliar with the terms macrobeat or tonality, they are discussed further in Chapter 3 on Context/Content.

3Credit to Azzara (2011) for this example, which he shared in his TEDx talk on improvisation.

4See Ch. 13 on Informal Music Guidance for more on providing a rich musical environment for young children.

5See Ch. 16 for information on specific tests of music aptitude, administering these tests, using results to differentiate instruction, and assessing music achievement.

6Chapters 4 through 12 will pertain to formal instruction. See Chapter 13 for further discussion of ways to provide informal guidance before beginning formal instruction.

7See Chapter 3 on Context/Content for a more in-depth discussion of whole-part-whole learning and pattern instruction.

CHAPTER 3

CONTEXT AND CONTENT

Central to MLT is the three-stage process of whole-part-whole learning. In the whole-part-whole learning process, whole refers to musical context while part refers to musical content. As discussed in the previous chapter, a crucial component of audiation is the ability to sense tonal and rhythmic context because this allows us to bring more meaning to the musical content we are hearing or performing. Thus, in whole-part-whole learning, students (1) are exposed to and begin learning repertoire within a specific musical context, (2) develop skills in conjunction with specific pieces of musical content, and (3) apply skills (related to content within the given context) to the repertoire, resulting in greater musical understanding.

In MLT, context refers to tonality and meter, while content refers to tonal patterns and rhythm patterns (Gordon, 2013b, p. 7). Another way of interpreting the whole-part-whole learning process, then, is the following:

Whole: Experiencing tonality/meter through repertoire (i.e., songs, chants, recordings)

Part: Developing skills in conjunction with tonal patterns/rhythm patterns in the given tonality/meter

Whole: Applying skills/patterns to repertoire in the given tonality/meter

Thus, exposure to a variety of musical contexts and the development of musical skills through pattern instruction are both key components to the learning process in MLT. This chapter will provide an overview of tonal context (tonality), rhythm context (meter), content (tonal/rhythm patterns), and pattern instruction.

Tonal Context (Tonality)

Audiation of tonality is the basis of tonal context (Gordon, 2012, p. 714). In Western tonal music, tonal context is structured around a tonal center.⁸ In traditional music theory classes, this is typically discussed in terms of the construction and notation of musical scales. For example, I originally learned that the key signature of one sharp would mean the notated music was in the key of G Major. Later I learned the key signature of one sharp could also mean the notated music was in the key E Minor. Additionally, I now know that a key signature of one sharp also could be associated with a melody in D Mixolydian, B Phrygian, or a number of other possibilities. So how do we know which applies to a given musical example? As a crutch, one might look at the final pitch of a notated melody. In many instances, this crutch works, but what if the music doesn’t end on the first scale degree? Something crucial is missing from this strategy: audiation! In actuality, the only thing a key signature tells us is where DO is located on the staff. We must use our audiation of tonal context to determine where the tonal center is.

When we talk about key in a traditional sense, we are actually talking about two distinct things: keyality and tonality. Keyality refers to the letter name of the absolute pitch that coincides with the tonal center, while tonality refers to our audiation of pitches in relation to the tonal center. For example, if a given melody is said to be in the key of G Major, the keyality is G and the tonality is Major. Similarly, music audiated in Minor tonality and notated in the keyality of E would be labeled as being in the key of E Minor. However, keyality should not be confused with key signature because keyality is audiated whereas a key signature is seen (Gordon, 2012, p. xiii). Gordon (2013b) created the term keyality because:

it is necessary to consider and treat tonality and keyality apart from each other as well as apart from a key signature. Although most music is in both a tonality and keyality, it is sense of tonality, not keyality, that provides a primary basis for audiating context in music. Keyality is emphasized in music education, particularly in instrumental music, primarily for the purpose of teaching reading of music notation. (p. 15)

Tonality is similar to what we traditionally call mode, but Gordon (2013b) preferred the term tonality because many persons assume if music is said to be in a mode, it must be modal. They forget major and minor are also modes (p. 15).

It is important to reiterate that, although it is possible to describe a tonality in terms of the whole-and half-steps between its various pitches, being able to spell a scale in a particular tonality does not necessarily mean one is able to audiate in that tonality! Conversely, a person might be able to audiate and improvise in a given tonality without theoretically understanding how the scale is constructed or even being aware that the music is in that tonality. My second-grade students could improvise vocally in Mixolydian and Dorian even though they didn’t formally learn to label those tonalities until third grade and wouldn’t learn the theoretical explanations for how to construct the scales until much later—if ever.

As you may recall from the previous chapter, being able to sense tonality (which occurs in stage 3 of audiation) is preceded by recognizing or identifying tonal center (which occurs in stage 2 of audiation). In other words, audiation of tonality involves first developing a sense of tonal center and then developing a sense for how all of the pitches in that tonal context relate to the tonal center as well as to each other. Gordon refers to a tonality’s tonal center as its resting tone. Once students begin learning to associate solfege to the musical sounds they are performing and audiating, a certain solfege syllable can be associated to the resting tone of a particular tonality, which provides a useful tool for learning to discriminate between different tonalities. For example, if you’re audiating DO as the resting tone, the music you are audiating can be labeled as being in Major tonality.⁹

To review this terminology, let’s consider another example. Say a person hears the traditional Irish melody Molly Bawn and audiates it as being in A Major. In this instance, the keyality is A, the tonality is Major, and the resting tone is DO (which coincides with the absolute pitch A). In notation (as shown in Figure 3.1), its key signature has three sharps. However, someone else might hear the same tune and instead audiate E as the tonal center of this melody. This person is audiating in E Mixolydian, in which the keyality is E, the tonality is Mixolydian, and the resting tone is SO (which coincides with the absolute pitch E). The notated melody would remain the same, and its key signature would still show three sharps. The only difference would be the tonal context in the two individuals’ audiation!

Figure 3.1 Molly Bawn Melody Excerpt

This brings us to the difference between objective and subjective tonality. If music has objective tonality, multiple persons would easily agree on the tonality and resting tone they are audiating. On the other hand, if music has subjective tonality, persons may audiate the music’s tonality and/or resting tone differently from one another. Melodies using a pentatonic scale often lack objective tonality due to the absence of half steps (Gordon, 2012, p. 163). In the case of Molly Bawn, if some persons were audiating the melody in A Major while others were audiating it in E Mixolydian, we might say that this music has subjective tonality. However, if more musical context was provided, this would increase the likelihood of reaching consensus and thus make the tonality more objective. For example, if the chords indicated in Figure 3.2 were heard accompanying the melody, this would encourage audiation of E Mixolydian while the chord progression in Figure 3.3 would encourage audiation of A Major.

Figure 3.2 Molly Bawn Excerpt with VII-I Chords