This intervention-based study focuses on the relation between music and its graphic representation from a meta-representational point of view. It aims to determine whether middle school students show an increase in meta-representational competence (MRC) after an educational intervention. Three classes of 11 to 14-year-old students participated in the teaching experiment: one experimental class (E) and two control classes (C). An intervention on MRC was carried out on the E class during the hours that were allocated for the regular music lessons, while students from the C classes followed the regular music curriculum. E and C classes were given the same pretest and posttest, which measured students’ MRC by means of six representational criteria. One month after the posttest, all classes completed a retention test. The results reveal an overall effect in favour of the E group, despite the negative results for two representational criteria. Moreover, the overall gain, to a great extent, was due to a decrease in the score of the C classes, while the gains in the E class were rather small. Theoretical, methodological and educational implications are discussed.
BambergerJ. (1980). Cognitive structuring in the apprehension and description of simple rhythms. Archives de Psychologie, 48, 171–199.
2.
BambergerJ. (1982). Revisiting children’s drawings of simple rhythms: A function of reflection in action. In StraussS.SavyR. (Eds.), U-shaped behavioural growth (pp. 191–226). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
BambergerJ. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BambergerJ.BrofskyH. (1975). The art of listening. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
5.
BarrettM. S. (1997). Invented notations: A view of young children’s musical thinking. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 2–14.
6.
BarrettM. S. (2004) Thinking about the representation of music: A case-study of invented notation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161–162, 19–28.
7.
BarrettM. S. (2005). Representation, cognition, and communication: Invented notation in children’s musical communication. In MiellD.MacDonaldR.HargreavesD. J. (Eds.), Musical communication (pp. 117–142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
CohenS. R. (1985). The development of constraints on symbol-meaning structure in notation: Evidence from production, interpretation, and forced-choice judgements. Child Development, 56(1), 177–195.
9.
DavidsonL.ColleyB. (1987). Children’s rhythmic development from age 5 to 7: Performance, notation, and reading of rhythmic patterns. In PeeryJ. C.PeeryI. W.DraperT. W. (Eds.), Music and child development (pp. 107–136). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
10.
DavidsonL.ScrippL. (1988). Young children’s musical representations: Windows on music cognition. In SlobodaJ. A. (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 195–230). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
11.
diSessaA. A. (2002). Students’ criteria for representational adequacy. In GravemeijerK.LehrerR.van OersB.VerschaffelL. (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
12.
diSessaA. A.HammerD.SherinB. L.KolpakowskyT. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(1), 117–160.
13.
diSessaA. A.SherinB. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398.
14.
GaverW. W. (1993a). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29.
15.
GaverW. W. (1993b). How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 5(4), 285–313.
16.
GodøyR. I. (1999). Cross-modality and conceptual shapes in music theory. In ZannosI. (Ed.), Music and signs, semiotic and cognitive studies in music (pp. 85–98). Bratislava, Slovakia: ASCO Art & Science.
17.
HargreavesD. J. (1978). Psychological studies of children’s drawings. Educational Review, 30, 247–254.
18.
KirkT. (2001). Cooperative learning: The building blocks. Improving Schools, 4(2), 28–35.
19.
MartindaleC.MooreK. (1989). Relationship of musical preference to collative, ecological, and psychophysical variables. Music Perception, 6(4), 431–446.
20.
McAdamsS. (1993). Recognition of sound sources and events. In McAdamsS.BigandE. (Eds.), Thinking in sound: The cognitive psychology of human audition (pp. 146–198). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
21.
MeschD. J. (1991). The jigsaw technique: A way to establish individual accountability in group work. Journal of Management Education, 15(3), 355–358.
22.
PirieF. L. (1999). Implementation and evaluation of a proposed measure of musical ability for auditory interface testing (Unpublished master’s thesis). Department of Computer Science, University of York, United Kingdom.
23.
ReybrouckM. (2001). Biological roots of musical epistemology: Functional cycles, Umwelt, and enactive listening. Semiotica, 134(1–4), 599–633.
24.
ReybrouckM. (2005). A biosemiotic and ecological approach to music cognition: Event perception between auditory listening and cognitive economy. Axiomathes, 15(2), 229–266.
25.
ReybrouckM. (2009). Similarity perception as a cognitive tool for musical sense-making: Deictic and ecological claims. Musicae Scientiae, 13(1 Suppl.), 99–118.
26.
ReybrouckM.VerschaffelL.LauwerierS. (2009). Children’s graphical notations as representational tools for musical sense-making in a music-listening task. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 189–211.
27.
UpitisR. (1987). Children’s understanding of rhythm: The relationship between development and music training. Psychomusicology, 7(1), 41–60.
28.
VerschaffelL.ReybrouckM.DegraeuweG.van DoorenW. (2013). The relative importance of children’s criteria for representational adequacy in the perception of simple sonic stimuli. Psychology of Music, 41(6), 691–712.
29.
VerschaffelL.ReybrouckM.JansC.van DoorenW. (2010). Children’s criteria for representational adequacy in the perception of simple sonic stimuli. Cognition and Instruction, 28(4), 475–502.
30.
VerschaffelL.ReybrouckM.JanssensM.van DoorenW. (2010). Using graphical notations to assess children’s experiencing of simple and complex musical fragments. Psychology of Music, 38(3), 259–284.
31.
WalkerR. (1981). The presence of internalized images of musical sounds and their relevance to music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 66–67, 107–111.
32.
WalkerR. (1983). Children’s perceptions of horses and melodies. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 76, 30–41.
33.
WindsorW. L. (2004). An ecological approach to semiotics. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(2), 179–198.
