Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-5
Benefits,challenges,characteristics and instructional approaches in an El Sistema inspired after-school string program developed as a university–school partnership in the United States
The purpose of this study was to examine the benefits, challenges, program characteristics and instructional approaches of an El Sistema inspired (ESI) after-school string program developed as a university–school partnership. Case study methodology was used to examine the program. Fifth-grade students received 75 minutes of after-school instruction four days per week. Two graduate students in music performance and the elementary school orchestra/general music teacher were the program’s lead teachers. Eight additional university students gave pull-out lessons. The program featured many “distinguishing characteristics” described in the ESI literature. The learning environment included large ensemble, sectional learning, and individual lessons. The repertoire learned was standard for American beginning string classes. Teachers provided rigorous expectations for the students to strive for excellence, a safe and supportive learning environment, flexible teaching, and peer-mentoring opportunities. Benefits included high levels of musical achievement, increased learning opportunities, perceived benefits of discipline, perseverance, positive attitude, and hard work. Instructional challenges included low attendance, curricular balance, and teacher collaboration. The intensity and frequency of instruction were found to be the source of most benefits and challenges reported by the participants.
AllenM.GillespieR.HayesP. T. (2001). Essential elements 2000: For strings: A comprehensive string method. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.
3.
AustinJ. R. (1998). Comprehensive musicianship research: Implications for addressing the national standards in music ensemble classes. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 17(1), 25–32.
4.
BakerG. (2014). El Sistema: Orchestrating Venezuela’s youth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
BarrettJ. R. (2005). Planning for understanding: A reconceptualized view of the music curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 91(4), 21.
7.
BatesV. C. (2014). Rethinking cosmopolitanism in music education. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 13(1), 310–327.
8.
BenhamS. J. & American String Teachers Association. (2011). ASTA string curriculum: Standards, goals and learning sequences for essential skills and knowledge in K-12 string programs. Fairfax, VA: American String Teachers Association.
9.
BergM. H. (1997). Social construction of musical experience in two high school chamber music ensembles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
10.
BergonziL. (1995). The national standards in music education: A call for comprehensive music education for all children. In HotchkissG. (Ed.), Loyola symposium on national music standards: Implications for string education (pp. 31–45). New Orleans, LA: Loyola University.
11.
BloomB. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 3–16.
BoyerE. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
15.
BoyteH.HollanderE. (1999). Wingspread declaration on the civic responsibility of research universities. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
16.
BringleR. G.GamesR.LudlumC.OsgoodR.OsborneR. (2000). Faculty fellows program: Enhancing integrated professional development through community service. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 882–894.
17.
BringleR. G.GamesR.MallowE. A. (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
BringleR. G.HatcherJ. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516.
19.
BringleR. G.HatcherJ. A.GamesR. (1997). Engaging and supporting faculty in service learning. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2, 43–51.
20.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
21.
DoerksenP. F.DelzellJ. K. (2000). Beginning band and orchestra programs in the United States. American String Teacher, 50(2), 58–63.
22.
DukeR. A. (1999). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48. doi:10.2307/40319011
EcclesJ. S.BarberB. L.StoneM.HuntJ. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865–889.
25.
EcclesJ. S.RoeserR. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241.
26.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Gaztambide-FernandezR. A. (2011). Musicking in the city: Reconceptualizing urban music education as cultural practice. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 10(1), 15–46.
29.
GillespieR.HamannD. L. (1998). The status of orchestra instruction in the public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1), 75–86.
HamannD. L.GillespieR. (2009). Strategies for teaching strings: Building a successful string and orchestra program. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
HopkinsM. T. (2015). Collaborative composing in high school string chamber music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 405–424.
34.
HumphreysJ. T. (1989). An overview of American public school bands and orchestras before World War II. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 101, 50–60.
35.
IsraelB. A.SchulzA. J.ParkerE. A.BeckerA. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.
36.
KleinerB.PorchR.FarrisE.BurnsS. (2002). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools, 1999–2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
37.
LeeW. R. (1997). Music education and rural reform, 1900–1925. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(2), 306–326.
38.
LeeW. R.WorthyM. D. (2012). North American school ensembles. In McPhersonG.WelchG. F. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 807–825). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
LesniakM. (2012). El Sistema and American music education. Music Educators Journal, 99(2), 63–66.
40.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
LubowA. (2007, October28). Conductor of the people. New York Times.
42.
MajnoM. (2012). From the model of El Sistema in Venezuela to current applications: Learning and integration through collective music education. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1252(1), 56–64.
43.
MauskapfM. G. (2012). Enduring crisis, ensuring survival: Artistry, economics, and the American symphony orchestra (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
44.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
MikszaP. (2013). The future of music education: Continuing the dialogue about curricular reform. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 45–50.
National String Project Consortium. (2002). WANTED: 5,000 string teachers! Status of orchestra programs in America’s schools. Fairfax, VA: ASTA with NSOA.
49.
National String Project Consortium. (2010). WANTED: 3,000 string teachers! Status of orchestra programs in America’s schools. Fairfax, VA: ASTA with NSOA.
ParsadB.SpiegelmanM. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–2010. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
52.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
RandlesC.StringhamD. A. (Eds.). (2013). Musicianship: Composing in band and orchestra. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
54.
RiceR. E. (1996). Making the place for the new American scholar. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
55.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
57.
SmithC. M. (1997). Access to string instruction in American public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(4), 650–662.
58.
SnyderT. D.DillowS. A. (2013). Digest of education statistics 2012 (NCES 2014–2015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
59.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. London, UK: Sage.
60.
Toronyi-LalicI. (2012, June30). Sceptic’s Sistema. Classicalmusicmagazine.org, p. 21.
61.
TunstallT. (2012). Changing lives: Gustavo Dudamel, El Sistema, and the transformative power of music. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
62.
VygotskyL. S.Van der VeerR.ValsinerJ. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
63.
WilliamsD. A. (2011). The elephant in the room. Music Educators Journal, 98(1), 51–57.
YounkerB. AHickeyM. (2007). Examining the profession through the lens of social justice: Two music educators’ stories and their stark realizations. Music Education Research, 9(2), 215–227.
66.
ZlotkowskiE. (1996). A new voice at the table? Linking service learning and the academy. Change, 28(1), 20–27.
