BECOMING THE VOIDS: THE GENERIC CROSS-CULTURAL FRAMEWORK FOR AFRICAN MUSICAL ARTS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

It is safe to say that the world of music education is now intrinsically culturally diverse, and so are its challenges and potential (Schippers & Campbell, 2005: 3).The researcher is interested in contextualizing the assessment and evaluation possibilities of African musical arts (which include the disciplines of music, dance, drama, poetry and costume art), considering generic cross-cultural standards, to be evaluated to the satisfaction of indigenous African musicians (Tagg in Beard & Gloag, 2005:32) in Africa south of the Sahara. Contextualizing the assessment of African musical arts, in terms of progressive skill development, can arguably not only be for the benefit of African cultures but should also be implementable outside cultures of origin, such as Western and Eastern cultures, and made available throughout the global village in which world music functions.

Authenticity

Authenticity is a requirement for inscription upon the UNESCO World Heritage List. According to the Nara Document on Authenticity, it can be expressed through “form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions and techniques; location and setting; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors” (UNESCO, 2011:21).

Contemporary

The term ‘contemporary’ African musical arts, for the purpose of this study, can be categorized as: African music that has kept pace with the requirements of modern day life, and which is relevant to the present day, with its ‘roots’ in ‘traditional’ music of the rural areas, but which is now performed in re-contextualized settings. The following definitions, with reference to Schippers (2008), are formulated as clarification for the legion concepts regarding contact and interaction between cultures.

Cultural diversity: mono-culturalism, multi-culturalism, cross-culturalism, interculturalism and transculturalism

For cultural diversity as a whole, a useful framework is provided by distinguishing between monocultural approaches, in which the dominant culture is the only reference; multicultural approaches, where plurality is acknowledged but no contact or exchange is stimulated; intercultural approaches, which are characterized by loose contact between cultures and some effort towards mutual understanding, and transcultural approaches, which represent an in-depth exchange of ideas and values (Schippers, 2008). The concept of multi-culturalism implies no direct interaction between different cultural groups where exchange between cultures may take place. It refers only to “working from an acceptance of cultural differences and separation” (Schippers, 2008:41), as an acknowledgement of the other culture.

ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER 1 APPROACHING THE VOID: AIM, RATIONALE, METHODOLOGY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION
1.3 AIM OF STUDY
1.4 METHODOLOGY
1.5 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.6 DEFINITIONS
1.6.1 Authenticity
1.6.2 Contemporary
1.6.3 Cultural diversity
1.6.4 Enculturation
1.6.5 Multi-culturalism, cross-culturalism, inter-culturalism and trans-culturalism
1.6.6 The difference between educational measurement, assessment and evaluation
1.6.7 Globalization
1.7 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS
1.8 NOTES TO THE READER
CHAPTER 2 THINKING THE VOIDS: CRITICAL MUSICOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Methodology in the literature review
2.1.2 Dialogue or inter-textuality in the literature review: voices in theories
2.2 ESTABLISHING A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION
2.2.1 Emic-etic distinctions
2.2.2 Multidisciplinary research: constructing the field of research
2.2.3 Universalism: toward a universal philosophy
2.2.4 Similarities and dissimilarities in experience of arts
2.3 CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND CROSS-CULTURALISM
2.3.1 Locating cultural diversity through its terminology
2.3.2 World music
2.4 UNDERSTANDING MUSICAL UNDERSTANDING
2.4.1 Musical understanding and the mind: patterns in the voids
2.4.1.1 Pattern-construct construction
2.4.1.2 Performance of the music
2.4.2 Musical understanding and culture
2.4.3 The flexible component in musical understanding
2.4.4 Music as a form of communication: Comparing ‘speech language’ and ‘musical language’
2.4.5 Musical understanding and assessment
2.5 POST-COLONIAL THEORY: DESIRE ACROSS BOUNDARIES OR NEW BEGINNINGS?
2.5.1 Post-colonialism and its aftermath
2.5.2 Cultural identity
2.5.3 Post-colonialism relocated
2.6 DIFFERENCE, CHANGE AND ‘GENERIC NEWNESS’ AS AN AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCE
2.7 RECONTEXTUALIZATION: ENGAGING WITH DIFFERENCE
2.7.1 Re-contextualization and meaning
2.7.2 Translation out of context
2.8 ENGAGING WITH CULTURAL DIVERSITY: UNDERSTANDING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE
2.8.1 Competence and performance
2.8.2 Competence as process of change
2.8.3 Competence and learning outcomes
2.9 THE CONCEPT OF AESTHETICS IN A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY
2.9.1 Aesthetic and praxial philosophies in music education
2.9.2 The evaluation of art
2.9.3 Judging artistic excellence: A Western perspective
2.9.3.1 Criterion of intrinsic qualities: craftmanship/skill
2.9.3.2 Criterion of detecting sensitivity/expressive values and honesty
2.9.3.3 Criterion of identifying imagination and creativity through an enlivening experience
2.9.3.4 Criterion of recognizing authenticity and morality in art
2.9.4 The aesthetic conception of the world in African thought
2.10 AFRICAN ASSESSMENT STANDARDS REVISITED: PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS
2.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 JUSTIFYING THE VOIDS: ASSESSMENT PROCESSES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 ‘VOIDNESS’: CONTEMPLATING THE VOIDS
3.2.1 Implications
3.2.2 Learning theories
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGNS
3.3.1 Critical Theory
3.3.2 Cultural Studies
3.3.3 Ethnographic Research
3.3.4 Comparative analysis as evaluative research
3.3.5 Deconstruction Theory
3.4 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES
3.4.1 Research instruments
3.4.2 Musical understanding
3.4.3 Reconsidering philosophies: aesthetic experience in praxial music education
3.4.4 Holism, performance-based assessment and globalization
3.4.5 Assessment-driven education: holism through backward design
3.4.6 A holistic approach: encompassing the voids
3.5 INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT-DRIVEN EDUCATION: A DRIVING FORCE IN THE ASSESSMENT REFORM DEBATE
3.5.1 Formative and summative assessment
3.5.2 Assessment ‘of’ learning and assessment ‘for’ learning
3.6 PROCESSES IN EDUCATION: THE INTERRELATEDNESS BETWEEN INDIGENOUS NATURAL LEARNING PATHWAYS AND WESTERN LEARNING THEORIES
3.6.1 Genericism in learning pathways
3.6.2 Genericism in music communication as process-oriented learning pathway
3.7 INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE AS PROCESS
3.7.1 Measuring intercultural competence skills along a continuum
3.7.2 Intercultural process models revisited
3.7.2.1 Schippers’s Seven Continuum Transmission Model (SCTM) Learning Process
3.7.2.2 Mushira’s Embedded Pathway Approach Model (EPA)
3.7.2.3 Lindström’s Process Criteria with Rubrics Model
3.7.2.4 Kwami’s West African Music Classification Model
3.7.3 Re-contextualization
3.8 THE PLACING OF STANDARDS IN CROSS-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
3.8.1 Concluding remarks: standards and assessment
3.8.2 Clarifying standards through criteria and rubrics
3.9 ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS AS PROCESS-ORIENTED ASSESSMENT
3.9.1 Compatibility of types of assessments and their domains
3.9.2 Clarity, reliability and validity of ranking and achievement levels
3.9.3 Assessor training and Recognition of Prior Learning
3.10 PHILOSOPHY IN ACTION: INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT-DRIVEN EDUCATION 3-
3.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING THE VOIDS: INTEGRATION OF MUSIC-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT STANDARDS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 GLOBALIZATION, CROSS-CULTURALISM AND NEW THINKINGS
4.2.1 Holistic education: resolving the dilemma of the “parts” and the “whole”
4.2.2 Assessment-driven education as driving force of musical expectancy
4.2.3 Re-contextualization and re-contextualized authenticity: the Pastness of the Present and the Presence of the Past
4.3 CROSS-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ARTS AS OBJECTIVE, RELIABLE AND VALID EQUATIONS
4.3.1 Judgment of arts in re-contextualized settings: contested and uncontested
4.3.2 Quality assurance and assessor training in cross-cultural assessment
4.3.3 Learning, teaching, grading and assessment situations in different cultures
4.3.3.1 Institutional education: graded conservatory-style examinations and government based national qualification frameworks
4.3.3.2 African and SADC-sourced assessment approaches in (music) education
4.3.3.3 Euro-sourced assessment approaches in (music) education
4.3.3.4 Dojo in the Martial Arts
4.4 INTERNATIONAL CROSS-CULTURAL STANDARDS AND STANDARDS LEVELS IN MUSICAL ARTS ASSESSMENT
4.4.1 Cross-cultural assessment standards as colligation
4.4.2 Standards-levels, domains and cross-cultural competence
4.4.3 Philosophical bases for cross-cultural standards
4.4.3.1 A socio-cultural approach
4.4.3.2 An inter-cultural or cross-cultural capability approach
4.4.3.3 A process-oriented approach
4.4.4 Revisiting intercultural process-oriented models
4.4.4.1 Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)
4.4.4.2 Schippers’s Seven Continuum Transmission Model (SCTM)
4.4.4.3 Mushira’s Embedded Pathway Approach (EPA)
4.4.4.4 Lindström’s Process Criteria with Rubrics Model
4.4.4.5 Kwami’s West African Music Classification Model
4.4.4.6 Conclusion
4.4.5 Recognition of Prior learning (RPL) revisited
4.5 AFRICAN MUSICAL ARTS: THE INTERRELATEDNESS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CULTURES AND EDUCATIONS
4.5.1 Cross-cultural competence: an issue and ally
4.5.2 The Spiral Model
4.5.3 The Spaghetti Model
4.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 BECOMING THE VOIDS: THE GENERIC CROSS-CULTURAL FRAMEWORK FOR AFRICAN MUSICAL ARTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 GENERIC CROSS-CULTURAL STANDARDS REVISITED: PURPOSE AND PLACE IN AFRICAN MUSICAL ARTS ASSESSMENT
5.2.1 What is the purpose of the framework, The Generic Cross-cultural Assessment Standards
for African Musical Arts, and for whom are they written?
5.2.2 How were the standards developed and what do they look like?
5.2.3 What type of standards was developed and why were these specific standards chosen? 5-
5.3 AN ACHIEVEMENT FRAMEWORK: ORGANIZING THE STANDARDS
5.3.1 Deciding on the Framework and its purpose
5.3.2 How to read and understand the Framework
5.3.2.1 Re-contextualized Standards and Framework as re-contextualized authenticity
5.3.2.2 The structure, domains and flow of the Framework
5.3.2.3 Learning Outcomes in the Framework
5.3.2.4 Benchmarks in the Framework
5.3.2.5 Standards-levels as developmental stages or enculturation process
5.3.2.6 Novice, Proficient and Master Levels
5.3.2.7 Generic level-descriptors
5.4 THE FOUR STANDARDS AND THEIR DESCRIPTORS REVISITED
5.4.1 Standard 1: Conceptualize holism in African musical arts
5.4.2 Standard 2: Understand, know and engage in communalism
5.4.3 Standard 3: Understand and know the inter-relatedness of arts and life
5.4.4 Standard 4: Understand, know and engage in praxialism as living theory
5.4.5 Re-contextualization and The Generic Cross-cultural Assessment Framework for African Musical Arts
5.5 PRESENTING THE GENERIC CROSS-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR AFRICAN MUSICAL ARTS
5.5.1 Formulation of the Standards
5.5.1.1 Internationalizing indigenous musics
5.5.1.2 Verbs with a generic function
5.5.1.3 Definitions by African musicians
5.5.1.4 Formulation and the inter-relatedness of domains, standards and benchmarks
5.5.2 The Generic Cross-cultural Assessment Framework for African Musical Arts
CHAPTER 6 REFLECTING: FROM VOIDNESS TO VIVDNESS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 MAIN FINDINGS AND SUB-CONCLUSIONS: VOIDNESS AND VIVIDNESS
6.2.1 MAIN FINDINGS
6.2.2 Sub-conclusion 1: Cross-cultural dialogue facilitates the negotiation of new, inclusive boundaries for the construction of assessment standards internationally
6.2.3 Sub-conclusion 2: Bridging the voids between formal and informal educations is possible through a generic assessment framework inclusive of similarities, differences and necessities
6.2.4 Sub-conclusion 3: Cross-cultural assessment of the arts is possible; arts can be measured,
on an objective, reliable and valid level
6.2.5 Sub-conclusion 4: African musical arts can be measured with international standards and standards-levels
6.2.6 Sub-conclusion 5: Presenting generic cross-cultural standards for African musical arts assessment
6.3 REFLECTIONS AND INTERPRETATION: WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THIS RESEARCH?
6.4 THE ROAD AHEAD: RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4.1 The foundation: The Generic Cross-cultural Assessment Framework for African Musical
Arts as reference for further research
6.4.2 Identifying, analysing, standardizing and categorizing processes, procedures, strategies and structures
6.4.2.1 What are these processes and where are they located?
6.4.2.2 Why are these processes important for further research?
6.4.3 Writing a curriculum for African musical arts
6.4.3.1 Defining the music curriculum as cultural studies
6.4.3.2 Verbalizing and structuring an African musical arts curriculum
6.4.4 Quality education: Training, RPL, assessment validation and accreditation of African musical arts practitioners, assessors and educators
6.4.5 Contextualizing the aesthetics of African musical arts
6.4.6 Government-based or institutional education assessment and achievement systems
6.4.7 Re-contextualized authenticity
6.5 POSTSCRIPT: ALTERNATIVE ROUTES IN MUSIC EDUCATION
REFERENCES