Gordon music learning theory
Gordon music-learning theory is a model for music education based on Edwin Gordon's research on musical aptitude and achievement in the greater field of music learning theory.[1][2] The theory is an explanation of music learning, based on audiation (see below) and students' individual musical differences. The theory takes into account the concepts of discrimination and inference learning in terms of tonal, rhythmic, and harmonic patterns.[3][4]
Jump Right In[edit]
Jump Right In is an instrumental methods book with accompanying teacher editions that applies Gordon's music learning theory, co-written by Eastman School of Music music education faculty Richard F. Grunow and Christopher D Azzara alongside Gordon. The series of Winds and Percussion was first published in 1989–90, three years after the recorder edition.[22] The collection also includes a strings methods edition.
Gordon music learning theory and music aptitude[edit]
Gordon's music learning theory is based on his research on music aptitude in line with cognitive theories regarding the organization of incoming stimuli.[23] Gordon's research suggests that music aptitude is normally distributed in the general population similar to intellectual aptitude.[24] His research also suggests that music aptitude that a child is born with can only be maintained with repeated positive exposure to musical experiences soon after (or even before) birth, up until approximately age 9 where a child reaches "stabilized" music aptitude.[25]
The 1920s and 1930s heralded the creation of aptitude and achievement tests by Carl Seashore, E. Thayer Gaston, H.D. Wing, Arnold Bentley, and Edwin Gordon in an effort to identify students who were most likely to benefit from private instruction.[26] Gordon created a number of tests to determine music aptitude for various age groups; he developed his first music aptitude test, the Musical Aptitude Profile, in 1965 for children in 4th to 12th grade. Later tests include Primary Measures of Music Audiation, published in 1979 for children ages 5 to 8, Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation for children ages 6 to 9,[27] and Audie[28] for children ages 3 to 4.[29] Gordon describes that these tests of musical aptitude are meant to allow teachers to adapt their instruction to individual students' needs and to target students with high musical aptitude who may not otherwise be receiving advanced musical instruction.[30]
Criticism of the theory[edit]
Criticisms of music learning theory include Paul Woodford's concerns that the theory itself is a misnomer, and rather than a learning theory it is a "taxonomy of musical preconditions for critical thinking",[31] and that "rather than overwhelming younger students in the beginning stages of instruction by focusing only on the complexities of music, teachers should use approaches such as Gordon's along with Kodaly, Orff, and other methodologies, to help students master basic musical skills and knowledge that are prerequisites to more independent kinds of thinking."[32] Gordon responded to these claims, arguing that Woodford misunderstood elements of Gordon's methodology, erroneously associating Gordon with "clapping of rhythms", as well as misunderstanding the difference between chronological and musical age, the difference explaining why tonal and rhythm patterns should be taught independently in order to create a foundation for "complex cognition and independent musical thinking that relates to larger musical forms".[32] Gordon also agrees with Woodford's comment that Gordon's approach should be taught alongside other methodologies, also asserting that he agrees with Woodford's suggestion that "students should be introduced to the full range of real-life kinds of musical thinking including less conventional, and even atypical, musical practices."[32]
Similar criticisms include accusations that Gordon's skills-based programs of applying Music Learning Theory are "probably too narrow and limited in scope to provide students access to the diversity of musical belief systems, practices, and groups that exist", a concern of writer Paul G. Woodford and music education theorist Bennett Reimer.[33] Woodford credits Gordon for his highly developed system about the nature of music teaching and learning, but cautions that Gordon's system is too prescriptive and proscriptive to students and teachers, and that music educators should also be aware of the diversity of practices and strive to not exert pressure on students to conform to conventional musical thought and behavior.[31] Gordon's 1997 response responds to this indirectly, arguing that his methodology leaves room for other methodologies to be taught alongside it.[32]