| dc.description.abstract | Abstract
This master's thesis in music didactics is based on the situation of the newly implemented (Autumn 2020) education reform in Norway named Curriculum (LK20). The focus of the study are on the new Music Subject Curriculum (MUS01-02), and more specifically; the thesis deals with how two primary school music teachers experience understands and uses the so called newly created curriculum-concept “Kjerneelement” - directly translated core element (or Core area) in their teaching and planning of music lessons in their primary school. There are usually 4 or 5 different Core elements in each subject, but in this thesis the focus lies on the one core element titled "Experiencing Music".
Explained in more detail, this investigation focuses specifically on whether the language and the use of different terms in the core element can be perceived as too "vague" or "interpretation-based" for it to be practically applicable for the music teachers who uses it.
The focus of the thesis will also be on the connection between how the linguistic formulation of "Experiencing Music" is experienced and used by the music teachers, and whether their use and perception are consistent with the intended political goals with the new curriculum. The intention was formulated early by the Directorate of Education that the renewal should: "contribute to a more holistic curriculum work, updated and actualized for today and future society" (Directorate of Education 2016, p. 19). To shed a light on this connection between political intention and the teachers use of the curriculum, different documents, curriculum theories, guidance documents and other relevant background information about the preparation of the Educational Reform (LK20) will be read and reflected upon.
The main research question this thesis thus sets out to find out about is: "How do music teachers experience the core element of “Experiencing Music” in their planning and execution of teaching in music subject education in primary school?" and also “how do these experiences compare to the political intentions with the renewal of the educational reform (LK20)?"
The task or issue at hand can be perceived as twofold since the study is based on the collection of two different sets of empirical research data. One part consists of two semi-structured in-depth interviews of two music teachers from a primary school, and the other collection consists of different documents connected to the educational reform (LK20).
The scientific theoretical positioning, which is the framework for how the research project should be perceived and understood, is a combination of Hermeneutics and Phenomenology; so-called Hermeneutic-phenomenology. The choice landed on this framework because both an interpretation of the documents (hermeneutic-part), as well as an investigation of the music teachers' qualitative experience of the core element Experiencing Music (phenomenology-part) is among the data material to be analyzed and understood.
Three research questions were drawn up to clarify and more precisely answer the main problem. These research questions are presented in the introduction under the 1.1 main problem presentation on page 3.
To analyze the collected data, two types of methods are used. For the documents, document analysis with the method of qualitative content analysis have been used, while the interviews have been analyzed according to the IPA method (Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis).
The results of the survey indicate that the language in the new curriculum in music (MUS01-02), and especially in relation to the core element "Experiencing Music", is sometimes perceived as "vague", "approximate" or "more open to interpretation" by the music teachers. At the same time, the open language with an anchoring in the new core elements is a change from LK06 that both participants appreciate. This is because it allows them more independent decision making in their teaching work. (One interpretation is that open language in the curriculum shows/communicates confidence that teachers are independent and can/should be allowed to make their own decisions based on professional judgement.) At the same time, the analysis and interpretation of the interviews shows that the music teachers have different perceptions of the different expressions and the concepts in the core element. This means that they interpret and solve Experience Music slightly differently in their didactic work.
The discussion part then considers how these findings stand in relation to the political intentions of the reform work, and whether the reform work then can be considered “successful”. The answer is a long way off, yes, but at the same time there are many things, including supplemented from previous research, which suggests that there are a number of optimization problems with "Experience music" and potentially LK20. With "too vague" language that is based too much on open, free interpretation, there is a hint that there will be too much interpretation in the curriculum, which makes it impossible to assess. In order to assess whether the goals achieved are meaningful, they cannot be based on a "come si come sa" philosophy. The fact that almost all teaching could be approved because the interpretation possibilities are too wide, could become a problem, and in the worst case can give the students a very poor teaching, without the music teachers being held responsible for it. A reminder is that the curriculum are the first-hand source on which all teaching in Norway must be based and evaluated from.
Keywords: Keywords: Curriculum, LK20, curriculum in music educational reform, (MUS01-02), primary school, Music, Core element, core area, experience music, listening, active listening, sensory listening, existential experience, planning, teaching, language, formulations, phenomenology, hermeneutics, hermeneutic-phenomenology, qualitative, inductive, interview, document analysis, IPA method, Goodlad, Cuban, Varkøy, utilitarian thinking, intrinsic value, music education philosophy. | |