CHAPTER 9 BECOMING A MUSIC LEARNER: TOWARD A THEORY OF ‘TRANSFORMATIVE MUSIC ENGAGEMENT SUSAN A. O'NEILL In this chapter, argue fora shift in thinking about what it means ‘tw bea musi learner and how we engage music learners inthe twenty-first century. Over the past 1 to 20 years, large body of literature, by a growing numberof music education scholars, has ‘emphasized the need for transformations in music eduatin, This work marks the begining of what I believe i a major paradigm shift i thinking by researchers, educators, and policy-makers. Agents of change drive paradigm shifts as “one conceptual world ew is replaced by another” (Kahn, 1970, p. 10). Shifts ae taking place in the way we think about what musi Tears do, should do, and can do, aswell as what music learners neod, what initiates and sustains musi learning, and what people get out of musie learning, Sociocultural theorists have shown. us that learners bring prior knowledge and thelr personal worlds with them to learning situations and they sequire knowledge, values, and ‘understandings through mesningfl interactions with others (Gee, 1992; Vygotshy, 1986, Wells, 1990). Researchers have demonstrated that the music eduetion profession has become ‘more diverse over the past several decades, changing, focusing. specinlisng” and this has further emphasized the need for coherence between theory, research, and practice (Colwell & ‘Webster, 2011). Practitioners in musi education have begun to explore new pedagogical and curriculum initiatives involving inquiry and reflective practice (Reynolds & Beller, 2007), transformational professional development (Upits, Smithrim, & Soren, 1999), and collaborative teaching and learning (Conkling. ‘2004; Lice, 2001; Mil, 2005)- We need to bulld on these shifts ‘in thinking and continue to expand our awareness of the lens ‘through which we view music learners in a digital age, examine ‘more deeply and collaboratively the meaning and purpose of ‘music Tearing, and develop muse learning opportunites that promote connectivity across diverse perspectives, conterts, and cultural ecologies ‘The American psychologist Carl Rogers (1961) asserted that @ person or leamer is nota state of Being but is alvays in theprocess of becoming. Rogers also described what Buber (1958) refers to a8 confirming the other, which means accepting the whole potentiality of the other—the person that she has been created to become, Whereas the idea of being @ music learner suggests a bounded and static entity, with a mature that is presribed, determined, or unchangeable, Becoming musle learner is infused with notions of unfolding, openness, and «dynamic potential (Fromm, 1976). Weare always in @ continuous process of becoming music learners, while our memories simultaneously connect us to our past “lived experiences” (Aldasser, 2008). There is & temporal and spatial dimension to ‘music learning and both neod tobe considered in ou efforts to understand and engage music learners. As Wells (2000) points out, “any activity is situated in place and time; although thee may ‘be common features across activites and stings each atvity is unique, since it involves the coming together of particular Individuals ina particular setting with particular artful, all of ‘which have thee own histories which, in tur, affect the way in which the atvty is actually played ou” (p59. Shifting our thinking about musle learners from Being to becoming provides a perspective transformation toward a theory of postive and meaningfl music learning that is more incusive, Aitforentiatng, permeable, citically refletve, and integrative of experience (Merrow, 1996), I eer to this theory a5, transformative music engagement and. suggest that this framework is capable of seting asa viele or eaalyst for change serosa broad and diverse group of muse lermers. believe this theory offers the possibilty for change that moves us beyond merely solving problems and providing adequate opportunites for learners to acquire the bale sls and knowledge necessary for music learning. Alternatively, it provides a feamework for engaging, music learners as active agents in their own musical evelopment, This involves empowerment (transformative means having the power to transform) that enables autonomous or self-directed learners (O'Neil, 2016) to construct their own form of “muse larning authenticity” (Groen, 2005)-t combines 1 sense of connectedness and emotional engagement (Furrer & ‘Skinner, 2003) with a capacity fr critical reflective or reflexive self-awareness (Ridley, 1991) and an impassioned spirit that continually seeks “visions of stil untapped possbiliy” (Greene, 1990; . 67) forall musi earners. ‘Transformative music engagement isa dynamic, transformational, nd multidimensional theory that operates on ‘many interdependent levels (persona, scioeultura, systemic). It Js a braiding of ‘psyehodevelopmental or lelong. laming perspectives on transformational learning theory (Taylor, 2007), ctitical and transformative pedagogy (Kncheloe, 2008; MeCaeb, 1997), and positive music engagement~a concept that focuses on‘motivation and meanings participation in a Tearning activity by Individuals with a well-informed understanding and valuing of the atvity, fom which they derive a sense of relevance, purpose, and flfllment (O'Neil, 2006). This notion of engagement “underpin learning and isthe glue that binds it together" (Bryson {& Hand, 2007, p. 60). Although the use ofthe term engagement has increased tremendously in recent years it remains arlatively underdeveloped and loosely defined construct. 1 usually refers to «form of involvement or participation in an activity that has both a pychological component (¢g, values, meaningflnes, identity, sense of belonging) and behavioral component (eg, effort, Intensity, focused concentration). Italo has a dynamie nature that is moderated by individual differences and is context dependent within interrelated personal, social, and systemic ecologies (Rose-Krasnor, 2005), In working toward a theory of transformative musle engagement, I have selected several lements or features to highlight in this chapter. Ibaiee they offer a particular challenge fo extension to some of our curent theoretical coneeptualizatons, research approaches, and educational practices. They are emergent and repetitive themes from the research have undertaken with colleagues and graduate students lover the past 20 years involving interviews and surveys with thousands of music learners in the United Kingdom (arrson & Nell, 2000; Mills & O'Neil, 2003; North, Hargreaves, & OFM, poor: OMIT, aasm, sual sone, ape Seapsiva & One! United States (eces, Oeil e Wigheld, 2005), and Canada (O'Neil, 20:12, 0115, 201). Senyshyn & O'Neil, My colleagues and I have listened to children and adolescents tll hele stores about what they doin thelr musie classrooms and instrumental musi lessons, haw they fe about themselves and others as music learners, what they value about ‘music learning, what they find mest relevant or useful and purposeful about music learning in their everyday lve, the challenges they encounter as music learners, how they overcome obstacles and barriers, what initiates and sustains their musie learning, the support they recive from parents, teachers, and peers, the benefits they derive from music learning, the musician role models that they admire and why they admire them, and thelr dreams and aspirations forthe future. Recently, with my colleague Gary MePherson, we have analyzed survey data that explored the musical belifs and values of over 22,000 elementary and secondary school students fom Bra, Chis, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mico, and the United States (Person & (ONell, 2010). globalized notion of music learning is emerging that is embedded in value systems replete with tensions and negotiations sround interelated. messages and. assumptions about music, such as tradition and innovation, reprodtion andcreation, eredentalism and understanding, commodiistion, esthetic and cultural capital, and personal expression (Cook, 1958) have attempted to bring together some ofthe key messages {hat Ihave leone from this research and some ofthe theoretical frameworks that Ihave used to make sense of these messages and the assumptions that construc ther meaning in particular ways. 1 hope that readers might make their own connections betwoen interrelated dimensions. Findings from my previous studies ‘emphasize the importance of viewing music learners as part of intricate sorocaltural web involving particular structures and practices tht empower some and prevent others fom purposeful and postive music engagement. To understand what Becoming @ ‘music learner means in the twenty-first century, we must fst expand the Tens through which we view their musical words When we attempt to identify and explore distinct elements or features, it usually requires us to disentangle them, at least temporarily, fom their complex interclatonships. And yet, in doing so, we must not all into the tap of reductionism and base cour understanding solely on the intieation and measurement of discrete variables (Wrigley, 2004). Nor should we econtestualie music learners from their everyday life cexperionces and cultural contexts (Mittinen & Westerlund, 2001). As DeNora (2000) reminds us, “musie's eet! come fom ‘he ways in which individ onlent tot, how they interpret it and how they plac it within thee personal musieal maps, within the semiotic web of musi and extry-musieal associations” (. 61). "hope that this chapter wil provide both an introduction and @ catalyst for dialogue and future research in response to how we ‘might better understand what becoming a music Tearner means in the twenty-first century and how we might provide educational experiences that’ encourage postive, meaningful, and ‘transformative muse engagement. ‘SinrriNe THE PARADIGM TOWARD TRANSFORMATIVE, “Music ENGAGEMENT ‘Transformative music engagement bepins with & paradigmatic shit in ove we think about music learners In particular, i bout shifting the fous from viewing music learners from within deficit versus talent/exprtis framework It focuses instead on the idea that all music lerners in all contexts of development Jhave musical strengths and competences. Transformative music engagement is about identifing and developing. these competencies, reflecting on their meaning and how they are experienced and shared, as well as hamessing emergent and expansive leaning opportunities in ways tht empower learnersto build on these competencies for further growth and change. It 1s also about skiing the focus fom merely instructing and supporting lermers to fostering the resiliency necessary for sustaining music engagement and overcoming negative constraints on Teaming (O'Neill, 201i; Wang, Herel, & Walberg, 1997). From the perspective of transformative music engagement, musical skills and knowledge are no longer viewed 1s the domain ofa relatively fw tented individuals. Instead, the focus shifts to participatory cultures that work toward common endeavors while crating highly supportive and generative learning environments (Gee, 2005; Jenkins, 2009) Adopting the perspective of transformative music engagement ako makes other important shifts in thinking possible. For example, we might begin to consider alternatives to the “community of practice” model (Lave & Wenger, 1991) Uhat as permeated much of ou thinking in music education forthe past 20 years. Although this framework has been a rch rsouree for both research and practic, particulary in relation tothe notion of fostering a sense of “belongingness” among music learners who occupy a shared space, t has also become entwined with an inclusiveness agenda that emphasizes common or shared ‘experiences and memberships, However, muse learners do not necessarily share the same meanings after engaging in simlar experiences. Nor do they always share a sense of membership or ties that bond them together when they are part of a particular learning community. Further, lening communites do_not necessarily acknowledge and mediate « sense of difference or Jeamer autonomy. The notion of communities of practice has Deen used primarily as a mechanism for the purpose of ‘Meatication and categorization between groups or forms of ‘music learning. In many eases, this has obscured thee fonction as «social practice. Our social affiliations are not merely important for music learning because they provide support and like-minded peers they are a crucial component in ou ability to compare and contrast dflerences that ata a vehicle and catalyst for growth and change, identity constructions, creative processes and artiste expressions. Social aliations are used to inform, challenge, broaden, and transform our conceptliatons and representations of what musi Tearing means in our everyday lives. They are a fluid, changeable, and dynamic feature of ‘nansformative muse engagement. ‘Shifting the paradigm toward transformative music engagement asks us to adopt a critical, questioning approach to ‘understanding or expectations of what music lamers know and are capable of, Too often, the exchange of diferent forms of, Iowledge or know-how i neither encouraged nor valued in formal music education settings. This an create an authoritarian and/or prejudiced approach to knowledge that is deemedAfferent from one's own. And in order for certain forms of Knowledge to remain privileged, they must e actively plied. “This is achieved through intolerant practices tat ignore, thwart, ‘or suppress other knowledge, potential, and posites (Oeil, 2009; Senyshyn, 1999) This inhibits emerging and expansive rmusle Tearing opportunities. And yet these types of larg opportunities in particular are capable of fostering the refletion necessary for critical sense of the value of any knowledge, including knowledge that will form part of our evolving future sical worl ADOPTING A CRITICAL APPROACH TO OUR BELIEFS Nb EXPECTATIONS Adopting a ert, questioning approach is a necessary precursor for optimizing the learaing experiences ofall music leaers. However, our common sense assumptions about what constitutes «music leamer ean become so ingrained in ou thinking that they may begin to escape our notice, let alone our eitcalseutiny. Our assumptions become active prescriptions that shape how we experience, talk, and think about musi learners. We become bounded by these expectations, and this can limit eur ability to explore other possibilities (Dignault, 1991). Overcoming these ‘bounded expectations requires a ete approach that recognizes the ways particular epistemologies have become Aeologies of power that indoctrinate us into the bell, values, and images that construct and perpetuate our sense of music learners in articular ways (O'Neil & Senyshyn, 2011). Sinee at Teast the 19608, disciplinary knowledge in developmental and educational psychology in parteuar has been ‘used to inform musi educator’ understanding of music learners in terms of their musial development, learning strategies, achievement, and performance. Embedded within this Aisiplinary Knowledge or positivist epistemology is an assumption thatthe seintifc study of musi loaner (in tems of learning models, proesees, and behavioral outcome) ie capable of revealing knowledge about the nature of music learners that ‘an elp educators figure ot the best way to teach them, ‘The idea that developmental or educational psychology an provide the necessary Knowledge for understanding, musie learners has informed much of our curent thinking in music education, In Hargreaves's (1986) book on developmental pvchology of musie he stated that explanations of musical evelopment “should form the natural foundation for musie education” (p. 24g) and that “the specification of objectives for ‘muse education involves breaking down musical skis into their copnitive, affective, and psychomotor components, and theeraluation of these objectives draws heavily on peychologcal assessment procedures” (p. 226). This was of course common assumption at the time, especially in relation to theories in developmental and educational psychology that attempted to classify Tearers, such as Gagné’s (1965) eight types of laring {om his infuential ook The Condition of Learning and Bloom's (4956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Such approaches have actually increased the focus on performance achievement ‘outcomes as indicators of earning and perpetuated the simplistic notion that if we discover the optimal conditions of learning rough rigorous, systematic research, we will become beter ‘music earners o by implication, better teachers, Rooted in empiticism, rationalism, and scentiie method, peostvsti researchers seek to study music learning inthe same way that scientists study phenomena such as global warming ‘based on presuppositions about its nature and existence at a discrete phenomenon. The aim i to discover a set of immutable and generalizable laws through observation, prediction, and control. Some of the most influential ideas, concepts, belifs, ‘ales, and practioes that have come to represent (and in some «cass limit) as well as shape our understanding of music Hammers se found in postvst discourses associated with behaviorsim and its preoecupation with skill acquisition or raining (Ozomon & Craver, 1992), Linear, hierarchical, and stage approaches to learning ae all manifestations of postvit education, Behaviorist teaching methods rely on consistent repetition inorder to provide the necesary effective reinforcement of response patterns. The fommonly used. maxim that “practice makes perfect” is an example of this focus on repetition and reinforcement. Other ‘methods include question (stimulus) and answer (cesponse) frameworks in which questions gradually increase in dificult, guided practice regular reviews of material, and rewards in the form of grades and awards Positvst educational reforms, suchas No Child Left Behind in the United States, and reductionist pedagogical practices, such as “sill and drill” exercises in instrumental “band” method books, are all examples of the ‘unrclnting grip that postvim exerts on music perormance- ‘based education pratices in North America and many other parts (of the world that adopt formal “lassieal conservatoire” approaches to musi learning, "The problem with positivist assumptions isnot so much the esite to create an ordered understanding of music lames; rather, it s the way that musi earners are decontesuaized and removed ftom thelr everyday life earning situations. It confines four understanding of music learners to linear, cause-and-ffet explanations based on observations in controlled environments and laboratory-like conditions. According to Kincheloe (2008), “the rationalstic and reductionist quest for order refuses in itsarrogance to listen to &eaeophony of lived experience and the enexstence of diverse meanings and interpretations (p. 29). The assumptions embedded ina particular learning theory or overarching perspective creates or sete up certain expectations toward musie leamers. These expectations orientate us toward favoring. of legtimating particular teaching. approaches ot practices, even if they might not be efetve forthe way people learn today or the most effective approaches to use inal learning situations. This approach postions music educators as “information deliverers, not knowledge-poducing professionals ‘oc empowered cultural workers" (p. 29) If our goal is to make daliberate curriculum or pedagogical choices based on our explicit knowledge and understanding of susie learners, and we know thatthe way muse students learn is always transforming in relation to their changing contexts, we right be better off conceptualizing learners’ musieal words as 2ones of complesity (Kinchloe, 2008) and engaging in more critical and reflective explorations of specific contexts and relationships, We might slo encourage musi lamers to engage In the sme rita reflections as part of Tearing proces almed at bringing bout postive and meaningful transformative change. LEARNING ConTEXTS AND ZONES OF COMPLEXTTY ‘There is no shortage of dkeusion in musi education today about Dhow dramatically different young people's music learning experiences are compared to even a generation ago (Slobods, 2001) Music learners in the twenty-first century hve undergone 4 transformation jn how they Tearn and in their learning relationships. Living in the curent information era means that @ ‘vast number of muse learners experience increasingly fast-paced and high-tech lives. They have intantancous access to varied ‘music resources and an immeasurable amount of musi choices ‘Technology has eeated an unprecedented amount of atonomy in ‘heir musical live, and it has exploded the boundaries of what ‘music learners ar capable of achieving Green and Bigum (1993) argued that because young people today have grown up in a computer-connected world, whieh has altered their body of knowlege or know-how to such an extent, it {slike having “allens inthe elasroom.” It might also be argued that in the curren information er, teachers and researchers can so fel like aliens inthe music classroom (ONell, 2010). This ‘an occ on many levels, and ts not always easy to unravel the Tayers of complexity that result from the Interconnetivity of technology, personal experiences, media and popular culture and other cultural understandings (O'Neil, 2014). There is an Ineeasing sense that our knowiodge and values difer between generations and between cultural groups and this ean alienatestudents teachers, and resarehers from one another. And yet, as Stetsenko (2009) points out inher arguments that draw heavy on the ideas of Vyztsy (1997), "persons are agetive beings who develop through embeddedness in sociocultural contexts and within elation to others (p.)- Becoming a musi earner inthe twenty-first century is inextricably linked to the tensions and negotiations that tke place between the different positions that people take up and occupy in relation to one anther. Rather than seek a consensus or unified poston thors great potential and possibility in the spaces between diferent positions. The elusive sol of unity becomes les important than the proces of listening to and learning rom the ideas of others. Dewy (916) provided some of the fist influntia insights into the importance of context and contextual dyin tnderstanding. eames. Rather than view learners. as self contained, Dewey argued that learners could never be separated {om ther interconnectd relationship and eommon experiences. In recent years, Kincheloe and Steinberg (1999) have articulated the need for researchers and educators to do more in terms of attending tothe setting or context in which learning seis take place. They argue forthe importance of uncovering various levels of connections between mind and ecosystems—revealing larger patterns of if forces” (p. 510) According tothe eritial theorist Paulo Frere (1998), “our relationship with the learners demands ‘that we respect them and demands equally that we be aware ofthe concrete conditions of thelr world, the conditions that shape ‘thom. To ty to know the realty that ou students lve is a task ‘thatthe educational practice imposes onus: Without this, we have ‘access tothe way they think, 0 only with great dificalty ean we perceive what and how they know (p. 58). ‘One of the most influential deseptions of the complesty Jnvlved in individual and interdependent systems of, relationships or ecologies is Bronfenbrenner’s Bioeolopieal Theory of Human Development (Bronfebrenner, 19795 Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) Thi theory takes into account the complex layers and interactions between a learners family/school/eommunity immediate environment, the society and wider culture in which i is situated, and the learners own ‘maturation, Changes or confit in any one layer send a ripple feet throughout the other layers. This underscores the {nterconnectednes of multiple learing contests and the dynamic and unpredictable nature of music lesing, Bronfenbrenner (4979) emphasized the instability and unpredictability of learning contests and our need to prepare learners with knowledge and strategies to deal with a complex world. ronfenbrenner argued that we should foster societal attitudes that value the contributions to learning that are made on all levels: parent, teachers, community workers, policy-makers, musicians, and soA ew years ago I was involved in research at large seoondary school in Canada where the musie teacher was having problems recruiting and retaining students. although many music ‘siuators sare this concer it had become an alarming sve at {his particular schol. To pu it bluntly, the students were aad to go tothe muse room for thee lasses. The music room was located atthe hack ofthe schoo, atthe end of long covior that contained mostly unoceupied rooms. This location made good practical sense to the school administrators because any sounds coming from the msi room were unlikely to disturb other classes. However, the same fsolated and deserted corridor provided a great place for « gang of troublesome students to rather without supervision. They would cceupy this space before and afterschool, and at various other times during the day Members of this gang would bly and intimidate the students who atempted to walk past them to got to the musie room. The ‘ang also threatened to beat up any student who told a teacher about what they were doing, and the gang. was very good at avoiding detection by the teachers and staf atthe schoo. Music students starting dropping out of music asses, and it became increasingly dificult to recruit students to playin the schools ‘music ensembles, The music teacher eomplaind repeatedly tothe school authorities about the situation, and the gang. would get ‘moved on from the corridor fora week oF two, but these efforts ‘were not sustained, and the gang would resume the ocupation ofthe coridor. For those music students who remsined in the muse program, morale was at an al-tme lo. This was not only ‘because ofthe gang of students who bullied them but also Because ‘no one seemed to notes, of they did notice they didnot seem to care enough odo something to change the situation, ‘This incident reminds us that just because we may have an adequate space (physical and geographical) and amount of time (ength and duration) for music education, we also need a place ‘hat fers opportunities for mesningfl partcpstory musie engagement. We are scfocating creatures by nature, both ‘iteraly and metaphorialy. Consider how important location and place i by how often we wsethe preposition “in,” for example: “in band” “in 8 ehoin” Tost in the musi," “in the middle of learning new sng,” “Ia the schoo! muses. “in second place in the competition.” The American philosopher Edward Casey (1996), who is known for his important work on indigenous approaches to place, reminds us that to ive is to live locally, and to know i isto alto know the place one sin" (p. 18) We must first understand where we are in order to adapt tothe various ‘obstacles and advantages that we might encounter as we navigate toward our destination. Helping music lamers acquire « new power of navigation can make al the difference by opening uppossibilities for imagining new destinations and for negotiating ‘he various pathaysthat they might eneounter onthe way Although systems theory offers an insight into the complexity and multidimensonalityof music learners, there is a danger of reducing the music leaner to an objectification of «system proces (Le, to focus attention on the quality and context ofthe rusic learners environment tothe detriment of the subjective experince ofthe individual lames) To overcome this tendency, Kincheloe (2008) argues that we should view the contexts and relationships tht connect learner, culture, teaching, knowledge prodvetion, and curiculam at zones of complexity ‘Understanding earning within a zone of complet is viewed asa necessary part of becoming a fitical educator (Rafer, 2006). According to Kincheoe, “rtcl edvetors place peat emphasis ‘on the notion of contest andthe ae of contextalzation in every spt of their work, When problems arise, they stand ready to connect the dificult toa wide frame of reference with a wide array of posible causes” (2008, p. 9) Critical mosic educators and researchers understand the Importance of galning multiple perspectives and the need to problematize oF think eriealy about established forms of Knowledge and seek a “proliferation of keologles and methodologies,” rather than “uniformity or conformity” (Gates, 1999, p26), Since no two learners are alike and there sno such thing as a right way to Team something, exch music leer experiences musl-mahing through hee own particular historical and cultural len of frame of conscious awarenes.Iblive that before we engage in farther research and critical pedagogical explorations, we must deepen our understanding of musie learners in terms of who they are and what constitutes thle curren musical and eutural ecologies. PARTICIPATORY CULTURES AND LEARNING Retavionsies, ‘To gain a sense of the transformations that ate already taking place inthe lives of music lamers, we need look no further than popular television shows such as Pop Idol, which curently has versions in over 40 teritores around the world, and the musical rama television series Gee. What do these shows have to offer ‘music leamers, and how do they impact on ther expectations for ‘music learning? In terms of actual music engagement, we need to consider the rapidly expanding. music “participatory cultures” (Genki, 2009) that take place on YouTube and the internet. For example, Evie Whitaee’s Virtual Choir involved over 2,000 ‘people from around the world who supportd each other through 1 network of online social meds to learn and record their choralpossibilities for imagining new destinations and for negotiating ‘he various pathaysthat they might eneounter onthe way Although systems theory offers an insight into the complexity and multidimensonalityof music learners, there is a danger of reducing the music leaner to an objectification of «system proces (Le, to focus attention on the quality and context ofthe rusic learners environment tothe detriment of the subjective experince ofthe individual lames) To overcome this tendency, Kincheloe (2008) argues that we should view the contexts and relationships tht connect learner, culture, teaching, knowledge prodvetion, and curiculam at zones of complexity ‘Understanding earning within a zone of complet is viewed asa necessary part of becoming a fitical educator (Rafer, 2006). According to Kincheoe, “rtcl edvetors place peat emphasis ‘on the notion of contest andthe ae of contextalzation in every spt of their work, When problems arise, they stand ready to connect the dificult toa wide frame of reference with a wide array of posible causes” (2008, p. 9) Critical mosic educators and researchers understand the Importance of galning multiple perspectives and the need to problematize oF think eriealy about established forms of Knowledge and seek a “proliferation of keologles and methodologies,” rather than “uniformity or conformity” (Gates, 1999, p26), Since no two learners are alike and there sno such thing as a right way to Team something, exch music leer experiences musl-mahing through hee own particular historical and cultural len of frame of conscious awarenes.Iblive that before we engage in farther research and critical pedagogical explorations, we must deepen our understanding of musie learners in terms of who they are and what constitutes thle curren musical and eutural ecologies. PARTICIPATORY CULTURES AND LEARNING Retavionsies, ‘To gain a sense of the transformations that ate already taking place inthe lives of music lamers, we need look no further than popular television shows such as Pop Idol, which curently has versions in over 40 teritores around the world, and the musical rama television series Gee. What do these shows have to offer ‘music leamers, and how do they impact on ther expectations for ‘music learning? In terms of actual music engagement, we need to consider the rapidly expanding. music “participatory cultures” (Genki, 2009) that take place on YouTube and the internet. For example, Evie Whitaee’s Virtual Choir involved over 2,000 ‘people from around the world who supportd each other through 1 network of online social meds to learn and record their choralparts. Apple's GarageBand provides access to over 100 virtual Instruments, multitrack audio recording, online collaborations With other musicians, and prerecorded music lessons tha include lessons by the famous musicians and songwriters who composed the songs being taught ‘These partspatory cultures encourage the sharing. of, Aistibuted Knowledge and emphasize the importance of ‘mediators that connector network people so that they can acess ‘more knowledge and expertise than they could within exiting structures and praties (Gee, 2005). Gee (2004, 2005) refers to “ality spaces” as places where individuals from a variety of bockgrounds and with diferent kinds of knowledge (eg, tacit, Intensive, extensive) come together to pursue a common endear; one that offers various pathways to participation, {informal mentorship, anda shared sense of status in supporting ach other’ growth, artistry, and eretivity. They become places to share expertise and knowledge without the barriers of age, clas, race, gender, and education. Further, distinctions betwoen formal an informal learning become less important as the lines Detween these practices are burred andthe use of old and new media converge (Jenkins, 2006) within emerging laring practices, such as blended learning (Bonk f Graham, 2006) and crowed:soureed learning (Juhasz, 2011). This is in contrast to traditional formal or hierarchies) lessning. environments that favor hegemonie forms of knowledge and provide relatively few ‘opportunities fr individual ereative expression or autonomous earning, ‘The notion of “participatory” involvement has is origins in srassoots advocacy as an approach (rather than a method) that acknowledges young people as etve agents with the capac to make valued and valuable contributions, This broad vision i an Increasing part of the participtory culture that youth experience ‘through digital media, the interne, and online socal networking sites, but it can also be applied to many musieal learning communities. According to sJexkins (2000), a patcipatory calture is "a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and cvie engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one's creations, and some type of informal mentorship ‘wherehy what is known hy the most experienced is passed long to novices. A patepatory ealture is also one in which members believe their contributions matte, and feel some degre of sci connection with one another (atthe lest they care what other people think about what they have created) (p- 3). Participatory learning involves the conselous attempt to create ‘more equitable and collaborative opportunities for exchanging Snowledge and understanding on topics that matter and make @ Aiference tothe Hives of those personally affected, In participatory music engagement, there isa demystifeation of what constitutesan “expert” music "knower” Young. people are encouraged to support etch other inthe creation and sharing of the own autistic expressions and multimodal representations of music ‘There is a qualitative diferece between music lering that cultivates a participatory eutare and one that maintains a “singular vision” or fixed agenda. For musi learng to be fully prtiipatory, is necessary for particpants to own” the process by being involve in key music learning decisions from the outset. By involving music students in learning to ask questions and think about what questions are the most important to ask, they Degin to find themselves at the center of the laming pres. Initives that provide for greater autonomy or student voice are recognized by a growing number of researchers and practitioners jn muse education who embrace transformative pedagogical practices that “reside in notions of respect, reciprocity, engagement, autonomy, empowerment, community, democracy and dialogue” (Mutter, 2010)-A wellknown example isthe work by Lucy Green (2001, 2008) onthe informal learning component of the Muses] «== Futures project (ip /w.musiaaturesongul/). Ina recent study, we added youth-ed participatory inquiry and critical reflection to the practice of ellaborative, informal musi leaning end found that this approach not only fostered transformative music engagement, iterated a ripple effect that influenced thinking about music learning by music teachers, parents and the wider school community (Nell & Bespug, 2012 Music learners in the twenty-first century have undergone a transformation not only in how they leam but also in their Jearning, relationships. Schookfamily-ommunity learning relationships have Tong been recognized as ofeing protective factors that foster educational resiliency in young people (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Waxman, Gry, & Padron, 2003) Protective factors are associated with caring and supportive adult relationships and opportunites for meaningful student engagement in schools and communities (Benard, 1998, 1995: ‘Wang ot al, 1997). For example, Herbert (1999) conduct @ study with 18 culturally diverse, high-achieving students in an ‘urban high school. The results indicated that several factors have 8 postive influence on students’ resiliency, Among these factors were supportive adults at home, at school, and in the community; extracurricular afterschool, Saturday, and summer enyichment programs; challenging educational experiences; @ network of achieving peers; and a strong sense of self These findings are not surprising and correspond with many studies that have demonstrated the importance of social support in. musical performance achievement (Creech & Hallam, 2009; Moore, ‘Burland, & Davidson, 2010), However, school-family-community relationships offer more than just support for an individual'ssusie learning, they lso provide catalyst for both shaping and transforming a musi learner’ landscape. In addition, they ean foster the protective factors and reslleney that’ mediate ‘motivational and other leaning constraints (O'Neil, 20114) As such they are capable of assisting music learners along. various pathways to meaningfl transformative music engagement. ‘VALUES, MorIvaTi0N, AND CONSTRAINTS ON Music LEARNING 1m today’s technological and. globalized word, many musle learners experience uncertainties and contradictions over what constitutes valued and valuable forms of music-making, Music learners are not passive ecpints but ative constructors not only of knowledge, meanings and identities but al the values that lve within and among the musical communities they inhabit ‘Values have an odd life eee, one that tansconds the dichotomy between the individual and the socal. Values can only thrive (or fail to develop) within relationships between individuals. They contribute tothe way that knowledge is constructed, used, andl exchanged in the present and the future. Only through etal reflection and dialogue can educators and learners create the conditions and cicumstance in which they can search together callaboratively for more comprehensible, authentic, and morally appropriate ways of valuing and engaging in musical practices. ‘his requires pedagogical approaches that can act as catalyst, rather than constraints, for expanding equitable leaming ‘opportunities that are reflective, dlalogial, collaborative, partlpator; Interactive, ntgeative, value-dven, and stength- Ibsed. The values that music Tearers develop wil serve a pints for orientation for key decisions that they make about music learning in the fture: decisions such as whether of not they continue music learning, whether or not they attend concerts or ‘what kind of concerts they attend, whether or not hey want thie wn children to learn music, whether or not they support musie ‘ducation inthe schools and communities in which they ive, ‘recent study of learners fom eight ifferent countries found that Tearers generally hold lower expectations for becoming competent in musk and value musi less than other aubjets at school (McPherson & O'Nell, 2010). The meaning of musi, the central role it plays inthe emotional lives of music learners, and informal earning strategies ar often at os with many formal or school masie education agendas (Green, 200%). In a elimate of Dubie accountability and demands for improved standards of performance, “tis all oo easy fr the ‘person of the learner and the processes and relationships of learning to be eclipsed by @ “high stakes’ focus on learning outcomes” (Deakin Ceck & Wilson,2005p: 6). Ina systematic review of research from around the world on the impact of summative assessment on students ‘motivation for learning, researchers found that this “overfocas” on performance outcomes has a negative impact on what learners {hink and feel about themscives as leaemers, how they pereive thelr capacity to earn, and thelr energy for luring (Haren & Deakin Crick, 2003). In terms of motivation, values are assocated with interest, ‘importance, and usefulness, and they tend to prodit the choice of activites that learners pursue and their longterm involvement in music aetivtie (Reces, Nell, Wigfield, 2005). Derk (2006) provides compelling evidence that a growth mindst isa crucial component of chioving positive motivation and sucessful performance outcomes. A growth mindset is characterized by a passion for laring, the active seckng of challenges, a valuing of fffort, and the resileney necessary to persist In the face of obstacles oF adversity. I have found consistent evidence to indicate thatthe postive valuing of music participation is one of the most important reasons why young people choose to continue with music Fearning, The most common responses are: “Music ives my Ife mesning and parpose,” “Music helps me express rnyself” and "Music connects me to others” (O"Nel, 20:8). And yet, a5 Ihave pointed out previously, esearch and practice inthe area of postive youth development or “postive youth musical engagement (O'Neil, 2006) suggests that iti al to easy to view muse leamers within an achlevement-riented focus that ‘considers high levels of muse performance achievement tobe an indicator of healthy and effective music learners. This lens oF framework for viewing music earners may have merit and has Deen a focus for much ofthe psychology of music research on ‘music Herning inthe past, but i is not suficent omits own. As soon as we apply this model to the multiplicity of factors associated with individual learners, our expectations and the strategies we might use become limited to thse that might “fis” lor solve performancelated problems oaly. No matter how good ur intentions, thor is something fundamentally limiting about viewing music learners in terms of their musical performance problems (or lack thereof instead oftheir potential For many young music Tearers, the construction of the artist/musiclan in society is Inextelcaly linked to famous people ‘in dhe media and entertainment industry (Gila, 2007) Ina study of 981 adolescents in the United Kingdom, Iva and O'Neill (2008) found that the most valued role models in music were famous musicians from popular culture. Musical aspects (64, Whether or not she played an instrument) were of ile Importance in the reasons young people gave for beng inspired by their role model (Ivaldi & O'Neil, 2009). Tt was the role ‘mode's dedication, image, and resiliency in the face of adoersitythat was valued most (vali & ONell, 2010). In individualistic sccietls, we prefer to place the responsibilty for adjusting to fullenging and often allenating environments on the shoulders of indviduals—it i up to music learners to keep up with the times and try to adjust. This resonates with many young music learners (ONelll & Peluso, 2010) a8 well a¢ those who have experienced a sense of alienation during formal music asses or instrumental music lesson that they found “dificult to relate to" (Green, 2001.48) tis useful to explore the various conditions and contents that promote, sustain, and enlace music engagement, particularly a relation to specfcobstaces or hairs that musi learners might encounter, Both shor- and long-term influences on motivation need tobe identified, as well a the diferent pathway, factors, and strategies that foster adaptive se-theories and resiliency ‘There is a tendeney to view musi! ability, slPidentiy, and character as separate or dstnet aspects of music Jeamers. However, growing evidence suggests that thee is @ common underlying influence that can shape these atributs, particulary when they relate to purposeful and transformative music engagement. If we accept the premise put forward by Good and DDweck (2006) for achieving success in nonmusical domains, mse educators would do welt focus thee efforts on fostering the reasoning sil that contribute to the development of musical sil, the resiliency that construct identity im & particular way, ‘the responsibilty that helps to define the character and lifelong engagement of music leamers, and the leaning relationships that bring about postive transformative change DiaLocicaL. INQuiRY AND TRANSFORMATIVE PEpacocy ‘Learning transformations occur when individuals change their frames of reference by reflecting eitilly on ther assumptions and beliefs and conslously making and implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their worlds (Mezirow, 1997; Merirow & Associates, 2000). Dislogue-directed reflection is central to this process, encouraging listeners to test their own perspectives about unfamiliar personal paradigms that ean accommodate diferent points of view (Seiow, 1990; McNamee 1 Shotter, 2004)- According to Mesirow (1992), changing our meaning schemes (specie belts, attitudes, and emotional reactions) “make(s) possible more inclusive, discriminating, and negating perspective” (p. 167). In other words, perspective tnansformations occur when individuals change thelr frames of ‘ference by becoming aware of, and reflecting critically on, their assumptions and beliefs, and consciously making andimplementing plans that bring about new ways of defining thelr understanding (Brookfield, 2000; Goldbat, 2006) Dialogical inquiry (Wells, 2000) and transformative pedagogy (@eCale, 1997) both focus on developing the sls and qualities necessary for learners to become efective communicators and ative clizens in today’s globliaed world. It requres& larg vironment that builds trust and facilitates the development of caring relationships. Hermans (2001) draws on the work of Bakbin and emphasizes narrative as “juxtaposition” in order to acknowledge that voces engage in dialogue, including those that occur between people involved in learning relationships, are “neither identical nor unified but eather heterogeneous and even opposed” (p. 249). These oppositional spaces provide what Hermans refers to as contact zones, which offer meeting point here “meanings and practices of the contacting partners change ss) a result of communication, understandings and misunderstandings" (p. 27g) Contemporary crtcal educators talk about the necessity of erating “zones of interaction” or contact zones “where new ways of seeing, researching, understanding, and acing in the world can be mutually developed” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 149). Contact zones are replete ‘with multifaceted opportunities for transformative engagement, self-organizatio, and creative innovation (Larson, 2000). They leo offer the potential for meaningful dialogue betwen learners ‘rom diferent musial interests, backgrounds, and perspestives, ‘Another key feature of transformative musie engagement Jnvolves the creation of expansive learning opportunites that are facilitated through transformative pedagogy. According to -MCaleb (1997), transformative pedagogy’ “attempts to facilitate a crital capacity within the classtoom while promoting the Integation of students, fails, communities, and the wos (p. », Similary, transformative music engagement involves students {in a cial exploration oftheir own knowledge of musi through representations that involve exiting artistic, media, and ealtural coogi. Transformative pedagogy i nota method of teaching but rather a sot of principles that guide teaching and learning interactions. These principles vary betwoen diferent cpistemologies and perspectives; however, several key elements are common to most approaches, as follows + Teaching begins with student knowledge. Opportunites for “expansive learning are provided that enable learners to ‘manipulate or intrae within thelr own artistic and eutural ‘ecologies in away that helps them make meaningful + Skil, knowledge, an voices develop from engagement in the activity. Learners ae asked to create, expres, o display ‘ther own representations of particular issue, vent, oF ‘Phonomenon.+ Teaching and learning are both individual and collaborative processes. The ole ofthe instructor is one of ‘acitatr, organizer, leader and souree of knowledge onthe topic ut not the primary source of learning, + Teaching and learning are transformative processes Learners share their erative representations with others and engage in a proces of dilogue, shared meaning ‘making. and sociocultural and sociopolitical asocatons ‘There are obvious and not so obvious opportunities and constraints that enable some learners of limit the potential of others (Gavel, 2008), Increasing our understanding of music learners is not only about knowing who they are bat also about ‘owing what enables or prevents them from being considered as or from considering themlves tobe, music learners. For this, we need to adopt a relatonal-developmental perspective (Overton, 1998) so that becoming, @ muse leaner is understood as “an volving, continuously renewed st of relations (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 50). We erate possibilities for more expansive learning opportunities through Knowledge and eitical understandings of the contests and complesty that construct and shape learners ‘musical words in ways that are both verse and particular. We deepen our understanding of what it means to bea music learner through a feus on personhood (Cskszentnihaly & Rathunde, 1998), which isthe entire situated person in relation to her music Jearning, We empower music learners by nurturing their reflexive capacity to reflet inwardly about connections between the self, ‘music, and ther sociocultural understandings, “Music lamers use language and stories as away of expressing wn they ae and representing their musical word to others, An Intersting feature of stories is that the nareative unfolds secording to crucial events rather than through a strict adherence to time sequences. Ricoeur (i984) refers to this as “humanly relevant time" becouse crucial events are used to preserve the significance and meaning of the experience being tld. We use stories to onder and structure ou ves; they elp us make sense of four fragmented and sometimes confusing experiences by arranging them into caberent messages thet offer a sense of ‘meaning, unity, and purpose. Increasingly, music education researchers are atempting to understand the personal knowledge associated with music learning through the study of narative accounts of lived experience (eg, Barzett & Staufer, 2009; YYounker & Hickey, 2007; Wingstedt, 2005). This approach has reat potential for identifying crucial components of, ‘ransformative music engagement through an interrelated, relational, and critically reflective methodology. It helps us adress the question: How do we define music learning and what prevents people, processes, and performances from enacting positive and meaning transformative change?