General Music Today OnlineFirst, published on November 24, 2009 as doi:10.

1177/1048371309354432

General Music Today

A Minds-On Approach to Active XX(X) 18

2009 MENC: The National
Association for Music Education
Learning in General Music DOI: 10.1177/1048371309354432
http://gmt.sagepub.com

Sheila Scott1

Abstract
Minds-on engagement in active learning is explored through the experiences of Margaret Sanders, a general music
teacher. Minds-on learners think about their experiences.They are actively involved as questioners and problem solvers
while they complete musical tasks and reflect on their work after it is completed. Minds-off learners focus on their
actions but not on the thinking required to complete a given task. This idea is explored in relation to the use of
classroom routines to direct instruction. Routines serve a valuable function in moving students through their school day,
assisting their progress from class to class to their dismissal at the end of the day. However, teachers may assume that
students are involved in minds-on learning when, due to instructional routines, students responses represent a minds-
off engagement in their learning. Teachers of general music must constantly challenge students in unexpected ways to
maintain their minds-on engagement in music.

Keywords
constructivism, hand-on, minds-on, active learning

Margaret Sanders has taught elementary general music for
15 years. The general music curriculum recently developed
in her school division is built on constructivist theories for
learning. This approach is new to Mrs. Sanders, so in antic-
ipation of the adoption of this document, she enrolls in a
masters-level course for practicing teachers to learn about
the theory that forms the foundation for this curriculum.
Through this course, she realizes that although the term
constructivism is an addition to her professional language,
the intent of the theory resonates with how she thinks about
music education practice (see Table 1 for Margarets list of
educational terms).
The term constructivism is used to describe how people
learn. The two types of constructivism most relevant to
Margarets work in general music classrooms are cogni-
tive constructivism and social constructivism. Cognitive
constructivism emerges from the work of Piaget (1971),
who believed that people learn in individualized ways by
considering new experiences in relation to what they
already know. Piagets perspective coincides with Bruners
(1961) acts of discovery where he maintains that people
gain a deep understanding of what they discover for them-
selves. As summarized by Marlowe and Page (2005):
From discovery . . . comes increased intellectual
ability, including the ability to solve problems.
This discovery is a matter of students thinking and
rearranging material in terms of their interests and
cognitive structures . . . in a way that leads to new
insights and new inquiry. (p. 13)
Cognitive constructivist theory affects Margarets work
by underlining the importance of providing students
with opportunities to uncover musical understanding for
themselves, rather than to passively receive information
from their teacher.
Social constructivism arises, in part, from the work of
Vygotsky, who believed that knowledge making occurs
both cognitively and socially and that these components
cannot be viewed separately. Thus, the cognitive growth
of the individual occurs in social situations. Given this
premise, Vygotsky was interested in how children learn
with assistance from others. In addition, social construc-
tivists find roots in Dewey (1966), who believed that
students extend their personal knowledge structures
through active engagement with others. New knowledge
emerges from discoveries co-authored by individuals
through negotiations undertaken by the group. General
music classrooms become communities of practice
(Rogoff, 1990) where students extend their musical
1
Brandon University, Manitoba, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Sheila Scott, Brandon University, 270 18th Street, Brandon, Manitoba,
Canada, R7A 6A9
Email: scotts@brandonu.ca
2 General Music Today XX(X)
Table 1. Definitions
Terms Definitions
Constructivism A psychological theory based, in large
part, on the belief that learners extend
knowledge, skills, and understanding by
relating new information to what they
currently possess
Cognitive A stream of constructivism based on the
constructivism premise that people interact with their
environments in highly individualized
ways, in large part, by manipulating
cognitive structures to make way for
new information
Social A stream of constructivism based on the
constructivism premise that people learn by interacting
with other individuals within their
environment
Active learning Students reshape previous knowledge by
engaging in their musical environments
as performers, creators, and listeners
Minds-on learning Students actively construct musical
knowledge for themselves by thinking
about what they are currently doing in
relation to what they already know
Minds-off Students complete tasks without thinking
engagement about what they are doing; they
passively accept information provided
by others
proficiencies through active participation with others in
collaborative music making.
There is a variance between these two perspectives,
with cognitive constructivists seeing individuals learning
on their own through a cognitive process as they interact
with their environment and social constructivists empha-
sizing that individuals learn within communities through a
process of collaboration with others. Nonetheless, both
schools of thought share the belief that learners actively
construct knowledge for themselves rather than accept
information passively when transmitted by others. Margaret
wonders which perspective best serves her work in the
classroom. She concludes that she must bridge the two
ways of thinking about learning by providing opportuni-
ties for students to consider their own musicality and work
on musical problems by themselves alongside opportuni-
ties to engage in collaborative problem solving with others
within a diverse musical environment.
Constructivism is not a theory for teaching. Rather, it is
a theory that describes how people learn. For this reason,
Margaret is unable to find tried-and-true instructional
techniques for constructivist teaching. She does, however,
uncover guidelines for professional practice founded on
constructivist principles for learning:
1. Students make personal meaning of new infor-
mation based on what they already know. For
example, students interpret their musical envi-
ronments in school in relation to the music in
their worlds outside school.
2. Teachers facilitate group conversations where
participants investigate their musical worlds and
negotiate a shared understanding. To illustrate,
students explore expressive elements in the song
One More River to Cross. Through analysis and
evaluation of various performances, the group
decides which interpretation is the most musi-
cally satisfying.
3. Rather than adhering to a predetermined scope
and sequence for the direct teaching of musical
materials, planning is responsive to the needs of
the students. This does not mean that curriculum
planning is haphazard. Teachers create a frame-
work based on their music teaching knowledge
and experience; this framework is reshaped and
expanded as interactions with the students
reveal what they currently know and guide both
teacher and students in uncovering what they
still need to understand. For example, Margaret
teaches syncopation to her grade 3 students. She
knows where this item fits into the traditional
scope and sequence of the material and may
choose to teach it when she and the students
reach that point in the curriculum. This is not a
hard and fast rule. Should the need for this infor-
mation become apparent through classroom
conversations or student explorations, this will
be addressed in the class through direct instruc-
tion or indirect problem-solving activities. On
the other hand, as Margaret continues working
with the students, she may realize that they are
already familiar with syncopation. Rather than
teaching this element directly, she finds ways to
draw the students attention to this rhythm (per-
haps by choosing literature that features this
element) so that students gain further experience
in this area.
4. Students are provided with opportunities to
explore music and music making and, in so
doing, extend their current understanding and
challenge their existing beliefs through active
engagement in musical tasks.
5. Students are provided with opportunities to
reflect on their understanding of music and their
work as musicians. In Margarets classes, stu-
dents reflect on a personal level by making entries
in journals.
Scott 3

Grade 3 Music
Process
Opening (warm-up)
Outcomes*:
1a. Students sing independently, on pitch and in rhythm, with appropriate timbre, diction, and posture, and maintain a
steady tempo
1b. Students sing expressively with appropriate dynamics, phrasing, and interpretation
Materials: O Music, Sweet Music; Dont Let the Wind
Process: Students sing known songs, focusing on intonation of the interval mi-fa (O Music, Sweet Music) and
construction of the pentatonic scale (Dont Let the Wind).
Problem Solving: Students analyze their performance and provide suggestions for adding expression to their work.

Development
Outcomes:
2b. Students perform easy rhythmic, melodic, and chordal patterns accurately and independently on rhythmic, melodic, and
harmonic classroom instruments
2e. Students perform in groups, blending instrumental timbres, matching dynamic levels, and responding to the cues of the
conductor
4b. Students create and arrange short songs and instrumental pieces within specific guidelines
Materials: Dont Let the Wind; Leaf Jumpers (book)
Process: Students complete their arrangement of Dont Let the Wind for Orff instruments (they created bass and alto
parts in a previous lesson, and now add the glockenspiel).
Problem Solving: Students provide suggestions for how the glockenspiel part could be added, experimenting with their
ideas and analyzing the results. They create soundscapes to accompany the book Leaf Jumpers.

Extension
Outcomes: see Development
Performance: Students incorporate their soundscapes with the song Dont Let the Wind creating a performance in
rondo form.
Problem Solving: Students complete a reflection sheet in which they analyze/evaluate their own and another groups
performance and provide feedback to inform future learning.

Assessment For Learning

Informal: Throughout the lesson the teacher asks open-ended questions and uses the responses to assess the
students ability to analyze their performances.
Formal: Students provide written feedback for the performance of the soundscapes and song.

Figure 1. Lesson Plan

*Outcomes from Performance Standards for Music prek-12: Strategies and benchmarks for assessing progress toward National Standards (MENC, 1996).

Margaret emphasizes that these suggestions do not
constitute a specific music teaching methodology. Rather,
they are guideposts for practice. The ways in which music
interactions unfold are distinct, depending on ages, prior
music experiences, and personal backgrounds of the
students with whom she works.
Active Minds-On Learning
Constructivist theory emphasizes that students actively
relate new information to what they already know and
reshape their previous knowledge to make way for new
understanding. Active approaches to learning fit well
with general music where students are engaged as per-
formers, creators, and listeners. However, a constructivist
stance for learning signifies more than the students
involvement in the completion of hands-on tasks. Con-
structivist perspectives are founded on the belief that,
through active involvement in musical structures and
materials, students construct musical knowledge for
themselves. They sing and play repertoire that repre-
sents a variety of cultures and styles and, through
student-initiated questioning and problem solving,
become discriminating listeners able to make musical
decisions about the quality of their own and others
performances.
To learn more about constructivist perspectives and
music education, Margaret spends time observing the
teaching practice of a colleague, Edith Holmes, who is
well regarded throughout the district for her work in
building constructivist classrooms. Margaret is inter-
ested to see how Mrs. Holmes incorporates problem
4 General Music Today XX(X)
solving into her plans for instruction (see Figure 1 for
Mrs. Holmes lesson plan built around outcomes from
the performance standards for music prek-12; MENC,
1996). The following is a summary of what Margaret
observes in a grade 3 classroom.
Grade 3 Music Demonstration
Opening (Warm-Up)
a. O Music, Sweet Music (Hackett, 1998). Children begin
by singing the song in unison, first using the words and
second using solfa syllables and hand signs. Are there any
places where our voices dont sound in tune? asks the
teacher. When we sing from mi to fa, answers a student.
The students practice this interval, focusing on intonation,
and then sing the song in canon.
b. Dont Let the Wind (Choksy, 1999; Steen, 1992). Chil-
dren sing the song. They then build a solfa ladder (do, re,
mi, so, la, do) and identify the key of the piece (do penta-
tonic). What kind of a wind are we singing about? asks
the teacher. A boring wind, replies a student. Well, we
dont want a boring wind. How can we show the wind with
our voices? asks the teacher. Another student replies, We
could start softly and get louder to show that a storm is
coming. The group uses this idea as a basis for the next
rendition of the song. They perform ideas from two or
three other students and discuss the musical impact of the
performances.
Development: Playing Instruments
a. Dont Let the Wind (Orff Orchestration). Students per-
form the piece using barred instruments and nonpitched
percussion instruments. Students have been working on
this portion of the lesson for the past three classes. They
review the bass and alto parts by imitating the teachers
body percussion and transferring this movement to the
instruments. How shall we add color with the glocken-
spiels? asks the teacher. Amanda raises her hand: I think
we should play on the word wind because that is what the
song is about. Arthur agrees, suggesting they play the note
F in octaves going from low to high. The teacher asks
Arthur to be the conductor, showing the students how he
thinks this part should be performed. After some experi-
mentation, the group is satisfied with the way the instrument
parts go together.
b. Leaf Jumpers (soundscape). Students are divided into
four groups, with five students in each group. Each group
chooses a barred Orff instrument and assorted percussion
instruments. With these, they create soundscapes that
reflect the text from the picture book Leaf Jumpers
(Gerber, 2004):
We watch a soft wind shake the trees. It lifts the
leaves and sets them free.
Released, they flutter through the air, drifting down-
ward gracefully. (pp. 2-3)
Among the groups, students decide who will play instruments
and how they will be played. As well, students decide
how to add movement to their performances.
Extension: Performance
Students discuss how to shape the song, Orff orchestra-
tion, and soundscapes into a final form. They begin their
performance by singing Dont Let the Wind. They then
extend this into rondo form, with the A sections as the Orff
orchestration of the song and the intervening sections as
the soundscapes (A, B, A, C, A, D, A, E, A). There is not
sufficient time for each group to receive feedback from all
members of the class. The teacher divides the groups into
teams, so that Groups A and B exchange reflections;
Groups C and D do the same (see Figure 2: Reflection
Sheet). She ends the class with the following comment:
You will have time to discuss the reflections and experi-
ment with the new ideas the next time we meet.
Discussion
This demonstration illustrates an activity-based learning
environment, but are students actively learning? Mar-
garets caution is supported by Fosnot (2005):
various interpretations of constructivism still abound,
often confusing it with hands-on learning, discov-
ery, and a host of pedagogical strategiesconfusion
and misinterpretation that has resulted in public
attacks by the media, by parents, and even at times by
various groups in the academic community. (p. x)
Margaret is also reminded of Scott (2006): Music
instruction does not reflect constructivist principles
because students are learning by doing. This [may represent]
a form of pseudo-constructivism: a surface approach that
gives the appearance of a constructivist learning environment
within a teacher-centered activity-based approach (p. 21).
Margaret investigates this dilemma by examining minds-on
learning and minds-off engagement in terms of what she
observed.
Minds-On Learning
Constructivist theories for learning are founded on the
belief that students are engaged in minds-on learning.
This requires that students be focused on what they are
Scott 5

Reflection Sheet

Soundscape: Leaf Jumpers

Part 1 Complete and give to partner group

1. Describe one way that your partner group showed the words of the poem in sound.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________

2. How might you help your partner group compose and/or perform their soundscape?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Part 2 Complete and put in music folder.

1. Describe one way that your soundscape showed the words in sound.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________

2. How might you help your group compose and/or perform your soundscape the next time?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2. Reflection Sheet

doing, interpreting their current learning in terms of what
they already know. The activities in which students
engage provide avenues for minds-on learning; however,
minds-on learning is not a guaranteed byproduct of active
engagement. Rather than learning by doing, a construc-
tivist perspective urges that students learn by thinking.
Within this context, students participate actively by
asking questions and solving problems in which they
explore and experiment musically such as when the stu-
dents in the sample lesson are presented with the task of
composing soundscapes that reflect the poem. Through
these processes, students are meaningfully engaged,
extending their understanding using strategies similar to
those employed by musicians to solve musical problems.
It is important to note that minds-on learning is not
restricted to those activities where students demonstrate
behaviors that may be observed by others. When students
reflect on their performance or the performance of others
without asking questions or providing a verbal critique in
response, they may still be actively thinking about what
they hear, making personally relevant connections between
their past and current musical experiences. Perhaps they do
not possess the words to describe the impact of their musi-
cal experience; in fact, such words may not exist: Pupils
need not do anything in such settings; pupils deserve just
to be and, even, to lose themselves in their own wonder
(Davis, 1998, p. 122).
Through interactions with students, teachers gain a
sense of what their pupils musically know and are able
to do. Using this information, they plan educational
opportunities to help their students extend their current
understanding. Rather than transmitting knowledge through
direct instruction, teachers guide the students learning by
asking questions that encourage them to think about music.
Central to this approach are the social interactions among
teachers and students as all participants seek new knowl-
edge. Margaret sees this perspective in the demonstration
lesson she observed. The students analyze their perfor-
mances and make musical decisions to improve their work,
rather than accept the teachers judgment on musical mat-
ters. Using questions, the teacher asks the students to
analyze their performance of O Music Sweet Music. They
add expression to Dont Let the Wind by responding to the
teachers open-ended question, What kind of wind are
we singing about? The teacher uses an open-ended ques-
tion to encourage students to think for themselves. There
are no predetermined right or wrong answers. Students
determine the effectiveness of various responses by
experimenting with their ideas and judging the merit of
the resulting performance.
6 General Music Today XX(X)
Students bring their analytic skills to bear on musical
problems, rather than accept musical decisions made by
the teacher. Margaret observed this process in the sound-
scapes produced by the students. Here the teacher provides
the materials (the song, the poem, and the pitched and
nonpitched instruments); the students are free to deter-
mine how their group will carry out this task.
The significance of minds-on learning is that students
think about their musical experiences. They are actively
involved as questioners and problem solvers while they
complete musical tasks and reflect on their work after it is
completed. Davis (1998) emphasizes that for hands-on
activities to qualify as educationally appropriate tasks,
teachers must work with pupils before, during, and after
these engagements so that pupils maintain a minds-on
awareness of the unfolding experiences (p. 120). He con-
tinues: Hands-on offers an incomplete and often superficial
vision of rich possibility. It stops short of a reasonably
appropriate goal. Only as teachers stress minds-on dimen-
sions will these activities edge closer to their bright
intentions (p. 120).
Margaret sees reflection integrated into the lesson she
observed. This provides students the opportunity to con-
sider what they have learned in terms of the strengths and
weaknesses of their performance and to contemplate what
they would like to work on as they continue their journeys
toward greater musicianship. These reflections reinforce
the student-centered nature of the classroom. They guide
how future music experiences may unfold, so that curricu-
lum direction comes from the students ideas as well as
from the professional judgments of the teacher.
Shifting educational environments from teacher-centered
to student-centered is not an easy task. Teachers are chal-
lenged to take on the roles of facilitators and mentors,
rather than the bearers and transmitters of knowledge.
Students move from passive receivers of knowledge to
active, minds-on musicians creating their own knowledge.
This is not an all or none proposition. Teachers must find
the balance of teacher direction and student engagement
appropriate for their students. The less experience that stu-
dents have in self-directed learning, the more guidance
they will need from their teachers. Margaret observed stu-
dents who demonstrated independence as questioners and
problem solvers when working within a framework devised
by the teacher. The next step in the journey is to involve
these students in the development of the initial framework
for future inquiries.
Minds-Off Engagement
In contrast to minds-on learning, minds-off engagement
occurs when students are focused on their actions but not
on the thinking required to complete a given task (Davis,
1998). Hands-on simply can be minds-off (Davis, 1998,
p. 120). Regelski (2004) refers to minds-off or, in his
words, mindless (p. 24) activities as those that involve
mere behavior. In music, mindless activities have a non-
musical focus, such as pleasing the teacher or just
having fun (Regelski, 2004, p. 24). Learning is sec-
ondary or may be nonexistent, slight, or haphazard
(Regelski, 2004, p. 24). Margaret supports the notion that
students enjoy their experiences in music class. She is,
however, aware that enjoyment must be tied to the students
engagement in music as minds-on learners.
Margaret wonders how students experience minds-off
engagement in music classrooms. Central to her concern
is a music teachers use of classroom routines to monitor
students behaviors and to direct instruction. Routines
dominate the schedule for moving students through their
school day, assisting their progress from class to class,
through recesses, lunch, and their dismissal at the end of
the day. Through routines, teachers and students devise
ways to nurture a classroom environment that respects the
rights of individuals, for example, expectations that stu-
dents raise their hands and wait to be called on to contribute
to full-group conversations.
Margaret sees instructional routines applied in the dem-
onstration lesson. The class begins with students reviewing
familiar pieces with a focus on in-tune singing. Using the
song, Dont Let the Wind, students build a solfa ladder
and identify the key of the piece. This process is common
practice in general music (see, for example, Choksy, 1999).
The teacher also uses this piece as a vehicle for exploring
music expressiveness. In the second part of the lesson,
students review the bass and alto parts of an Orff orches-
tration through imitation and explore possibilities for the
glockenspiel. This shows the application of procedures
recommended by master teachers of the Orff process (see,
for example, Steen, 1992). Similarly, exploration and
improvisation form a basis for the students soundscapes
integrating poetry, music, and movement. Margaret is famil-
iar with the procedures used to create a final performance
around rondo form using the Orff orchestration as the
A section and the soundscapes as the intervening sections
as this is a routine she uses in her music program.
Classroom routines are necessary. They form the basis
for organizing discourse and a comfort for students who
know what to expect in general music. Nonetheless, Mar-
garet wonders how an overreliance on routines affects her
students learning. In this sense, there is a
danger that students participate in collective class-
room interactions in a routine manner in order to
please the teachers expectations of their active
role in meaning making. In these situations, com-
munal classroom practices and discussions may
become ritual rather than productive. (Kovalainen
& Kumpulainen, 2007, p. 142)
Scott 7
Margaret considers this statement in terms of the class
she observes from a pseudo-constructivist perspective:
that is, as minds-off engagement with the appearance of
minds-on learning. First, in response to the teachers request
to identify places where their singing is out of tune, the
students focus on the interval mi to fa. Although it appears
that the students have analyzed their work to draw this
conclusion, perhaps this response is based on routine.
Students have focused their attention on this interval
since it became a part of their music vocabulary and
provide this response, not through musical analysis, but
because they believe it is what teacher wants. Similarly,
the question What kind of wind are we singing about?
appears to elicit minds-on thinking about expression in
music performance. This may degenerate to minds-off
engagement if the same question has been used repeatedly
in conjunction with this song or if different versions of
this question have been used in reference to a variety of
pieces in their repertoire of songs (for example, for the
song Rain, Rain Go Away [Choksy, 1999]What kind of
rain shower are we singing about? or for the song This
Train Is Bound for Glory [Hackett, 1998]What kind of
train are we on?). In this case, rather than thinking and
analyzing, students revert to past experience and provide
rote responses to the teachers enquiries.
Margaret is reminded of her own practice. She engages
students in forming a performance around the song Love
Somebody (Choksy, 1999) by combining several media
(singing the song, playing the song on pitched and non-
pitched instruments, and creatively moving to the piece).
The first time the students engage in this activity, they are
confused by her question How might we combine our
singing, playing, and moving into a larger form? She
begins the discussion by suggesting they play an introduc-
tion on bass xylophone and combine this with movement
from beats 9 to 16. Students join the conversation by sug-
gesting the A section be unaccompanied singing with A
variants as accompanied singing (Variant 1) and instru-
ments only (Variant 2). They finish with a coda mirroring
the introduction. Margaret is pleased with how students
apply their musical knowledge to this problem. She
decides to approach the next piece in a similar way but is
dismayed with how the conversation unfolds. After a stu-
dent suggests they begin their performance with the
introduction, a student interjects: Its just like we did the
last day. With this comment, a minds-on approach to
music becomes a minds-off activity with students repeat-
ing ideas developed in the previous class. From this
experience, Margaret is aware of the pitfall of routinized
behavior as related to the performance of rondo form
developed by students in the demonstration lesson. The
discussion appears to reflect minds-on learning as stu-
dents explore musical possibilities, but their work may
represent minds-off engagement if their conversation
represents a routine interaction. This revelation challenges
Margaret to consistently question students in new and
unexpected ways to maintain the students minds-on
engagement in music.
Leaving routines to find new ways to approach stu-
dents learning requires that teachers experience discomfort
and a loss of security. Teachers must relinquish the
instructional routines that are a part of their day-to-day
practice and venture to new territory where teaching prac-
tice becomes a dynamic interplay among content, pedagogy,
and the students prior experiences and knowledge. This
does not mean that teachers abandon all direct instruction
based on routine ways of music learning. For example,
Margaret uses the questioning strategies developed by
Choksy (1999) to lead students to discover new melodic
elements such as fa. She continues to use this approach to
help students extend their vocabulary for reading music.
However, Margaret steps away from routine ways of
facilitating the students journeys toward musicianship,
including routine ways of encouraging students as ques-
tioners and problem solvers. In so doing, she finds the
courage to re-envision practice, shifting students musi-
cal interactions from minds-off engagement to minds-on
learning.
Conclusion
Through Margarets reflections, we explore the implica-
tions of constructivist theory on general music in terms
of minds-on learning and minds-off engagement. Margaret
examines the roots of cognitive and social perspectives
for constructivism and concludes that her own teaching
practice combines aspects of both. Namely, students
are provided opportunities to work on musical problems
for themselves alongside opportunities to engage in
collaborative problem solving within a diverse musical
environment.
Margaret notes that theories of cognitive and social
constructivisim are founded on the belief that learners
actively construct knowledge for themselves. Margaret
explores the notion of active involvement in terms of
minds-on learning and minds-off engagement. Minds-on
learners think about their musical experiences. They are
actively involved as questioners and problem solvers
while they complete musical tasks and reflect on their
work after it is completed. In comparison, minds-off
learners focus on their actions but not on the thinking
required to complete a given task. Margaret explores this
idea in relation to the use of classroom routines to monitor
students behaviors and to direct instruction. She acknowl-
edges the value of routines to help people organize their
daily lives, both in and out of school. However, she observes
that instructional routines may lead teachers to assume
that students are involved in minds-on learning when,
8 General Music Today XX(X)
due to the habitual use of instructional routines such as
repetitive questioning formats, students responses repre-
sent a minds-off engagement in their learning.
Margaret is reminded that theory and practice are
constantly evolving. Teachers must remain open to new
possibilities, using professional judgment to make sense
of the educational issues situated within their own prac-
tice. From a constructivist perspective, educational practice
shifts from a teacher-centered to a student-centered focus.
As teachers of general music, we must consistently chal-
lenge students in new and unexpected ways to maintain
their minds-on engagement in music.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research
and/or authorship of this article.
References
Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational
Review, 31(1), 21-32.
Choksy, L. (1999). The Kodly Method I (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, O. L. (1998). Beyond beginnings: From hands-on
to minds-on. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
13(2), 119-122.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free
Press. (Original work published 1916)
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Preface. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructiv-
ism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. ix-xii). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gerber, C. (2004). Leaf jumpers. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.
Hackett, P. (1998). The melody book: 300 selections from the
world of music for piano, guitar, autoharp, recorder, and
voice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2007). The social con-
struction of participation in an elementary classroom com-
munity. International Journal of Educational Research,
46, 141-158.
Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (2005). Creating and sustain-
ing the constructivist classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
MENC. (1996). Performance standards for music grades
prek-12: Strategies and benchmarks for assessing progress
toward the national standards. Reston, VA: Author.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the rela-
tion between organic regulations and cognitive processes.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Regelski, T. A. (2004). Teaching general music k-8: A musi-
cianship approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive devel-
opment in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Scott, S. J. (2006). Deep and surface approaches to con-
structivist music education. General Music Today, 19(2),
17-21.
Steen, A. (1992). Exploring Orff: A teachers guide. New York:
Schott.
Bio
Sheila Scott, PhD, is an associate professor in the school of
music at Brandon University, Manitoba, Canada, where she
teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in music education.
Her research is in the areas of student assessment and inquiry-
based (constructivist) music education.