This ethnographic study examines the development of agency in students with special needs during an experiment of classroom music teaching in a special school. The experiment took place from August 2015 to March 2016 and was based on Emile Jaques-Dalcroze’s ideas of music and movement as a means of developing competencies, skills and understanding in music and life in general. The lessons included activities, such as quick reaction and follow exercises, singing with movement, body percussion exercises, dancing, movement improvisation, and relaxation exercises. The data consisted of video recordings of the lessons, and interviews with students, teachers, and teaching assistants. The data were analyzed using qualitative analysis software and thematic analysis. The analysis of the ethnographic data of this practitioner research showed that music-and-movement activities support the development of students’ agency by fostering (a) students’ own decision-making, (b) interaction with others, (c) expression of emotions and initiative, and (d) being recognized by others as active and able musicians. Consequently, this study encourages educators to advocate music and movement as a tool to support individual agency and active participation inside and outside the classroom.
AbrilC. R. (2011). Music, movement, and learning. In ColwellR.WebsterP. R. (Eds.), The MENC handbook of research in music learning, Vol. 2: Applications (pp. 92–129). Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamekM.DarrowA.-A. (2012). The intersections of arts education and special education: Exemplary programs and approaches. Music participation as a means to facilitate self-determination and transition to community life for students with disabilities. The Kennedy Center.
3.
Attride-StirlingJ. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405.
4.
Basic Education Act 628/1998. Amendments up to 1136/2010. (2010). Government of Finland.
5.
BurrowS. (2009). Bodily limits to autonomy: Emotion, attitude, and self-defense. In CampbellS.MeynellL.SherwinS. (Eds.), Embodiment and agency (pp. 126–144). The Pennsylvania State University Press.
6.
CampbellS.MeynellL.SherwinS. (2009). Embodiment and agency. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
7.
CooperV.EllisC. (2011). Ethnographic practitioner research. In CallanS.ReedM. (Eds.), Work-based research in the early years: Positioning yourself as a researcher (pp. 47–61). SAGE.
8.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. HarperCollins.
9.
DavidsonJ. W. (2009). Movement and collaboration in musical performance. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 364–376). Oxford University Press.
10.
DavisJ.WatsonN. (2000). Disabled children’s rights in everyday life: Problematising notions of competency and promoting self-empowerment. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 8(3), 211–228.
11.
DeNoraT. (2002). Music in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
12.
EllsC. (2001). Lessons about autonomy from the experience of disability. Social Theory and Practice, 27(4), 599–615.
13.
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf
14.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Publications 5. Finnish National Board of Education.
15.
GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB.DennyS. J. (Eds.). (2006). Video research in the learning sciences. Routledge.
16.
Habron-JamesB. (2013). Mémoire de Diplôme: The application of Dalcroze Eurhythmics to the teaching of children with special educational needs [Unpublished Diplome Superieur thesis]. Institut Jaques-Dalcroze.
17.
HammelA. M.HouriganR. (2011). Teaching music to students with special needs: A label-free approach. Oxford University Press.
18.
HoehlS. (2013). Early sensitivity to emotion cues: Precursors of social referencing? In MetcalfeJ.TerraceH. S. (Eds.), Agency and joint attention (pp. 196–205). Oxford University Press.
19.
HoveM. J.RisenJ. L. (2009). It’s all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27, 949–961.
20.
JuntunenM.-L. (2015). Pedagoginen kokeilu integroida Ipadin käyttö, luova tuottaminen ja keholliset työtavat peruskoulun seitsemännen luokan musiikinopetuksessa: Tapaustutkimus toimijuuden näkökulmasta [Pedagogical experiment on the use of iPads with creative production and bodily approaches in 7th grade music instruction: A case study from the perspective of agency]. Finnish Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 56–76.
21.
JuntunenM.-L.HyvönenL. (2004). Embodiment in musical knowing: How body movement facilitates learning with Dalcroze Eurhythmics. British Journal of Music Education, 21(2), 199–214.
22.
KarlsenS. (2011). Using musical agency as a lens: Researching music education from the angle of experience. Research Studies in Music Education, 33(2), 107–121.
23.
KarlsenS.WesterlundH. (2010). Immigrant students’ development of musical agency: Exploring democracy in music education. British Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 225–239.
24.
KellerP. E.NovembreG.HoveM. J. (2014). Rhythm in joint action: Psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130394.
25.
KosterM.TimmermanM. E.NakkenH.PijlS. J.van HoutenJ. E. (2009). Evaluating social participation of pupils with special needs in regular primary schools. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 213–222.
26.
LaesT. (2015). Empowering later adulthood music education: A case study of a rock band for third-age learners. International Journal of Music Education Research, 33(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413515815
27.
LaesT. (2017). The (im)possibility of inclusion: Reimagining the potentials of democratic inclusion in and through activist music education (Studia Musica 72). Sibelius-Akatemia.
28.
LakkalaS.MiettunenH.TakalaM.Kyrö-ÄmmäläO.SarivaaraE.KielinenM. (2019). Steps towards and challenges of inclusive education in Northern Finland. In BeatonM. C.HirshbergD. B.MaxwellG. R.SprattJ. (Eds.), Including the north: A comparative study of the policies on inclusion and equity in the Circumpolar North (pp. 125–142). http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-337-136-1
29.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books.
30.
LederD. (1990). The absent body. The University of Chicago Press.
31.
LotanG.EllsC. (2010). Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and participation in decision making: Ethical considerations for professional–client practice. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934–9556–48.2.112
32.
MackenzieC. (2008). Relational autonomy, normative authority, and perfectionism. Journal of Social Philosophy, 39(4), 512–533.
33.
MackenzieC. (2009). Personal identity, narrative integration, and embodiment. In CampbellS.MeynellL.SherwinS. (Eds.), Embodiment and agency (pp. 100–125). The Pennsylvania State University Press.
34.
MaclarenK. (2009). Emotional metamorphoses: The role of others in becoming a subject. In CampbellS.MeynellL.SherwinS. (Eds.), Embodiment and agency (pp. 25–45). The Pennsylvania State University Press.
35.
MaesP.-J. (2016). Sensorimotor grounding of musical embodiment and the role of prediction: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 308.
36.
MatyjaJ. R.SchiavioA. (2013). Enactive music cognition: Background and research themes. Constructivist Foundations, 8(3), 351–357.
37.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
38.
MetcalfeJ.TerraceH. S. (Eds.). (2013). Agency and joint attention. Oxford University Press.
NepiL. D.FacondiniR.NucciF.PeruA. (2013). Evidence from full-inclusion model: The social position and sense of belonging of students with special educational needs and their peers in Italian primary school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(3), 319–332.
41.
NussbaumM. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability nationality species membership. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
42.
PerdueN. H.ManzeskeD. P.EstellD. B. (2009). Early predictors of school engagement: Exploring the role of peer relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 46(10), 1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20446
43.
RainioA. P. (2010). Lionhearts of the playworld: An ethnographic case study of the development of agency in play pedagogy. Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki.
Sheets-JohnstoneM. (2009). The corporeal turn: An interdisciplinary reader. Imprint Academic.
46.
SutelaK.JuntunenM.-L.OjalaJ. (2019). Applying music-and-movement to promote agency development in music education: A case study in a special school. Britighs Journal of Music Education, 37(1), 71–85.
47.
TaylorC. (1994). The politics of recognition. In GutmannA. (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton University Press.
48.
TerziL. (2007). Capability and educational equality: The just distribution of resources to students with disabilities and special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 757–773.
49.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
50.
van der MerweL. (2015). The first experiences of music students with Dalcroze-inspired activities: A phenomenological study. Psychology of Music, 43(3), 390–406.
