Griffiths 1

Holland, Kimberly E. (2011). Learning from students, learning from music: Cognitive development in early childhood reflected through musical-perceptual tasks. Visions of Research in Music Education, 17, 1938-2065.

An Article Critique By Allison Griffiths Westminster Choir College of Rider University

Griffiths 2

In the Information Age, where R and D is becoming a more common phrase than R and R, it is no surprise that teachers are now facing increased pressure to become investigators, assessors, and researchers in the classroom. Whether it be uncovering a childs ability to race to the top or assessing the commonality of the Common Core, Data is king. In her article, Learning from students, learning from music: Cognitive development in early childhood reflected through musical-perceptual tasks, Kimberly Holland assumes this role of lab technician-teacher in an attempt to link musical ability with overall cognitive growth. Holland, a music teacher at a Montessori school in Wisconsin, constructs her thesis and subsequent experimental procedure (involving a melodic construction task, in which students are asked to replicate a sung melody with bells and then instruct another child in the task) on the work of Jeanne Bamberger and Jean Piaget (Holland, 2011, Abstract); however, in her attempt to replicate and build upon the findings of these and other cognitive theorists, Holland fails to create a cohesive study with any sort of broader implications for the field of education. This critique will examine the validity and pitfalls of Hollands study on cognitive development in terms of the Baconian Method, Bernice McCarthys Learning Styles Theory, and the tenants of Paulo Freires Critical Pedagogy. In its essence, Hollands article holds a great deal of intrigue for those interested in the role developmental theory in music education; solely in terms of Hollands thesis, the article is pure gold. Her assertions and the design of the melodic construction task that forms the crux of her experiment are well-founded in the theories of Jeanne Bamberger and Jean Piaget, as well as other stage theorists such as Lev Vygotsky (Holland, 2011, Abstract). Additionally, the initial description of her supposedly multisensory approach to developmental research leads one to

Griffiths 3

believe that she may actually be on to something. Between, this well-formed and esteemed battery of references and seemingly universal approach to experimentation and learning in general, Hollands article gets started off on solid ground. However, in spite of these few instances of light, murkiness envelopes much of Hollands thesis and experimental procedure. The first pitfall appears blatantly in the abstract and plagues the reader throughout the entirety of the article. Right off the bat, Holland notes that her research follows that of Bamberger (Holland, 2011, Abstract). As is mentioned in the above paragraph, normally it would be admirable to have a well-researched and expert list of references supporting ones experiment; however, Holland takes the idea of following to a whole new level. The design of Hollands procedure is nearly identical to that of Bambergers experiment with Montessori bells, which essentially examined the same hypothesis that Holland tests here (Holland, 2011, Abstract). While replication of a study is certainly a common enough occurrence and is necessary for determining the validity of its results, Hollands haphazard near-replication of Bambergers experiment does a disservice to both Holland and Bamberger. It insults Bambergs work in that it is a poor facsimile and a misinterpretation of her findings; and it degrades Hollands own work by creating a bias from the get-go that plays a large part in the ultimate failure of the experimenthow can a supposedly original study that is actually a sloppy adaptation of a previous experiment possibly have any real worth? Beneath Hollands copy-cat approach, lay even greater fundamental issues. Holland, either out of spite or ignorance, manages to create an experiment that tosses the centuries-old and vastly-accepted Baconian [Scientific] Method out the window (Baconian method, 2013). This method that has guided scientists and researchers for eons is apparently of no use or importance to Holland as her experiment is fundamentally muddled and therefore doomed to fail. Solely in

Griffiths 4

terms of logistics, the following errors appear in Hollands procedure: miniscule subject sampling (four children), narrow age range for subjects (ages 3 to 6), all subjects are female, all subjects come from the same background and thus are accustomed to the same cultural capital (Holland, 2011, Procedure). To top it all off, Holland designed a study that is not longitudinal, despite the fact that longitudinal developmental studies such as the Abecedarian Project typically yield the most telling and conclusive results. In her attempt to embody the role of teacherresearcher she forgot to teach herself how to actually conduct research. On a theoretical level, Hollands experiment exhibits a number of flaws as well. Just as Holland twists the work of Bamberger, she also befuddles the theories of Piaget, one of the most esteemed Stage Theorists of all time. In her Literature Review, Holland briefly summarizes some of the larger points of Piagetian theory, but then later goes on to contradict the essence of this theoryi.e. the creation of schema (Holland, 2011, Literature Review, para. 1). In her experiment, Holland seems to link the ability of a child to replicate a sung melody using Montessori bells and then to later be able to instruct another child in the same task, with the development or at least solidification of a childs cognitive schema. Whenever a new scheme is created, Piaget asserts that cognitive disequilibrium (or uncertainty) occurs (Holland, 2011, Literature Review, para. 1). Accordingly, the task that Holland constructs for her students does indeed cause disequilibrium; however, no scheme develops or solidifies within any of the children as a result of this task, nor can one logically expect one tohow could one obscure and essentially irrelevant encounter at the age of say 4 years, possibly create a scheme that will endure beyond early childhood? Thus, Holland creates disequilibrium for disequilibriums sake and thereby manages to form what Paulo Freire would call an oppressive learning environment (Freire, 1972). In her attempt to create a teacher-participant research situation, Holland

Griffiths 5

perverts the Freirian ideal of the teacher-student and unknowingly poses herself as an oppressive force, thereby marginalizing her students (Freire, 1972; Holland, 2011, Procedure, para. 3). The question now becomes: how can such a well-meaning teacher fail so completely to create a valid study within her own classroom, while at the same time alienating her students? The answer lies in Bernice McCarthys Learning Styles Theory. Based upon what she calls the Learning Cycle, Learning Styles Theory holds that learning envelopes all aspects of perception and processing and that for real growth we need to travel the entire Cycle (McCarthy, 2012, p. 17). Holland, apparently unaware of this theory, creates a one size fits all type of experiment, whose true intention is actually to examine a highly individualized hypothesis. This broad-brush approach completely disregards each childs individual learning needs and preferred modes of learningtwo key elements of McCarthys theory. By failing to acknowledge each childs unique needs, Holland seals the fate for her own experiment; no wonder she found most of the children in her study to be very hesitant (Holland, 2011, Childrens approaches to the melodic construction task, para. 4). Holland disregards McCarthys insights regarding the Learning Cycle in that she creates a high-level task that falls squarely within Quadrant Three, rather than creating a task that includes aspects of all four quadrants (McCarthy, 2012). McCarthy asserts, justly, that real learning does it all (McCarthy, 2012, p. 17); Hollands study, in its helter-skelter and oppressive way, does nothing. As a teacher, one should always be dedicated to learning more and increasing ones body of knowledge. To this end, teachers often conduct informal experiments within the classroom; in truth, how could one really adhere to Freire approach or McCarthys method without testing the waters and making observations? While Kimberly Hollands attempts to strengthen the link

Griffiths 6

between music education and cognitive development, the execution of her initially noble thesis falls short in its disregard for the theories of Bacon, Freire, and McCarthy. Had Holland created a more thorough and intricate procedure that addressed the individual needs and development of each of her students, the results may have actually been conclusive and valid. As a music education major, I take this study as a lesson in the ill-effects of faulty praxis and as a great opportunity that never came to fruition due to ignorance of theory. Reading something like this only inspires me to do better and to pick up the ball that Holland, and presumably others, have dropped in their attempts to connect music education to overall cognitive development.

Griffiths 7

References Baconian method. (2013). In Encyclopdia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48191/Baconian-method Freire, Paulo (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Holland, Kimberly E. (2011). Learning from students, learning from music: Cognitive development in early childhood reflected through musical-perceptual tasks. Visions of Research in Music Education, 17, 1938-2065. McCarthy, Bernice (2012). The learning cycle, the 21st century and millennial learners. Wauconda: About Learning, Inc.