Music Learning and Youth Intervention

Socio-Emotional Learning, Positive Youth Development, and Music for Detained Youth

 

In the past two decades, the notion of music learning as means for youth intervention has begun to emerge in the field of music education and music education research. This is primarily in response to shifts in how youth intervention is thought as. Only since the 1950’s has juvenile crime intervention and treatment programs been officially recognized by the government. During the time between 1950 and 1970, these intervention programs expanded to include treatment for substance use, conduct disorder, academic failure, and teen pregnancy. During the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s these prevention programs would focus on treating problems separately (results being mostly ineffective). This led to a shift of focus to the ‘precursors’ of a single problem. Finally, in the 1980’s and early 1990s, critiques of the ‘single problem approach’ led to the eventual change of focus to and creation of, Positive Youth Development. As discussed later below, Positive Youth Development implemented the use of programs that focused on the whole child (Catalano, 2012). Within these programs, the arts, including music, were found to offer beneficial outcomes in youth intervention and were means to addressing the needs of the whole child.

The purpose of the paper is survey the research that has been done in regard to music learning and youth intervention. The research presented has been organized in three domains of youth intervention: Socio-emotional Learning, Positive Youth Development, and Music for Detained Youth.

Socio-emotional Learning

Music education research within the domain of social and emotional intelligences has suggested improved outcomes for music learning. For disengaged (at-risk or delinquent) youth, studies show improved outcomes in: self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-concept (Anderson & Overy, 2010); mood, socio-emotional states, behavior and increased positive participation (Anderson & Overy, 2010; Devroop, 2012; Woodward, Sloth-Neilson & Mathiti, 2008); positive identities rather than offending identities (Baker & Homan, 2007; Woodward et al., 2008); positive social behaviors, capacity to engage in and persist with learning tasks (Barrett & Baker, 2012; Henley et al., 2012) Common among all studies were the beneficial social changes and positive shifts in identity (Barrett and Bond, 2015). Recently however, there has been a new focus on frameworks of social-emotional learning within the context of music education.

Elias (1997) defines social emotional learning (SEL) as “the process through which children enhance their ability to integrate thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks” (p. 194). The framework and field of study for SEL was developed using Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences and with Goleman’s (1995) book on emotional intelligence. SEL is based on 5 key components (see table), including: self-awareness, social awareness, responsible decision-making, self-management, and relationship management (CASEL, 2003). Unlike more targeted intervention techniques for specific students, such as those deemed high risk, SEL is ‘universal’ intervention. In 1997, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in alignment with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) created “Promoting Social and Emotional Leaning: Guidelines for Educators” to implement programming for SEL in pre-K through 12 grades.

Core Competency	General Context	Music Learning Example
Self-awareness	Student struggles to learn a musical passage, the students will use self-awareness to identify the feeling and recognize the negative or unrealistic thoughts that accompany it.	Student struggles to learn a musical passage, the students will use self-awareness to identify the feeling and recognize the negative or unrealistic thoughts that accompany it.
Social awareness	“Perspective taking; empathy; appreciating diversity; and respect for others” (Zins et al., 2004, p. 7)	Section leader recognizes a struggling player responds best to positive constructive criticism rather then negative comments.
Responsible decision-making	“Problem identification; situation analysis; problem solving; evaluation and reflection; and personal, moral, and ethical responsibility” (Zins et al., 2004, p. 7).	An audition is up coming; the student decides to create a practice plan to prepare.
Self-management	“Impulse control and stress management; self-motivation and discipline; and goal setting and organizational skills” (Zins et al., 2004, p. 7)	Student has an upcoming solo performance and is anxious. The student recognizes the anxiousness and learns techniques to address anxiety (i.e. breathing, relaxation)
Relationship management	Communication, social engagement, and building relationships; working cooperatively; negotiating, refusal, and conflict management; and help seeking and providing” (Zins et al., 2004, p. 7)	Student is not selected as drum major. Students approaches teacher to express disappointment and asks for other leadership roles

Studies that link music education and SEL are limited. The studies that do exist are non-empirical and are limited to emotional intelligence or student/teacher relationships (Edgar, 2013, p. 30). With that, music teacher training has left music teachers unprepared to address socio-emotional challenges in their classroom (Conway & Zerman, 2004; DeLorenzo, 1992; Kelly, 2008; Krueger, 2000; Randall, 2010). Edgar (2013) suggests that Pellitteri’s (2006) work on emotional intelligence fits into the framework of SEL. Specifically Edgar cites “(a) music can be used as an emotional stimulus; (b) music can be used as an aesthetic experience; (c) music can be used for relaxation and imagery; (d) music making can be a form of self-expression; and (e) music making can be a form of group experience” (p.30).

Despite the lack of teacher training, Edgar (2013) suggests there are activities currently being used in classrooms that reflect the framework for SEL. These activities include improvisation, ensemble playing/singing, and identifying emotions in music. Improvisation within the music classroom allows for the expression of emotions as they occur. Ensemble playing/singing promotes social awareness, and self control. Identifying emotions, as suggested, is when students identify emotional qualities in music and are able to manipulate the emotional qualities.

At stated before, literature that involves SEL and music education is limited. Currently speaking, Scott Edgar leads the research/literature on this matter with published articles, presentations, a dissertation, and a recently released book “Music Education and Social Emotional Learning”. The focus of Edgars work is in music teacher training and professional development in the context of SEL. A common thread among each article published by Edgar is a call for more research to be done. As Edgar (2016) suggests:

“Experimental studies measuring social and emotional competencies in varied settings and points in students’ music education would be beneficial to determine the true power of a facilitative music educator in the social emotional lives of their students. To do this accurately, music-specific evaluation tools to measure students’ musical, social, and emotional competencies would be required. Further interaction with the adolescent development literature would be necessary for this type of inquiry” (p. 250)

Positive Youth Development

Adolescence is known to be “a time of experimentation and increased involvement in risk” (Barrett and Bond, 2015, p. 38). Risk behaviors include school truancy and failure, youth violence, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behavior (Barratt and Bond, 2015). To address these at-risk behaviors, youth programs have typically focused on prevention of one at-risk behavior at a time (Damon 2004). However, as research suggest, this approach does not necessarily promote successful outcomes or adaptive behaviors (Allison, Edmonds, Wilson, Pope, & Farrell, 2011). A larger issue with this approach is the focus on student deficits rather than student potential. Given this, Positive Youth Development is geared to recognize the potential of youth and their contribution to society. Damon (2004) goes further to say

“While the positive youth development approach recognizes the existence of adversities and developmental challenges that may affect children in various ways, it resists conceiving of the developmental process mainly as an effort to overcome deficits and risk. Instead, it begins with a vision of a fully able child eager to explore the world, gain competence, and acquire the capacity to contribute importantly to the world. The positive youth development approach aims at understanding, educating, and engaging children in productive activities rather than at correcting, curing, or treating them for maladaptive tendencies or so-called disabilities.” (p. 15)

O’Neil (2006) describes the PYD framework as one that provides and strengthens the “protectors” and “supporters” within the lives of youths. Protectors are the competencies that provide resiliency against negative situations. The “supporters” represents the context in which the competencies can be developed and the inherently supportive interactions that take place.  These “protectors” and “supporters” can also defined as the “developmental assets.” These developmental assets (Benson 1997),  (40 in total) were divided into two groups, external and internal. External assets included family and community support, empowerment boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time. Internal assets included commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, and positive identity. Finally, Lerner (2000, 2002, and 2006) created a framework for PYD that brought emphasis to interaction between personal and social dimensions of youth development and engagement.

Lerner’s framework for positive youth development, as used for todays PYD model, is associated with the “Five Cs” approach to PYD. These “Five C’s include: Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character, and Caring. The outcome of these five domains result in a sixth approach, contribution (Ramey & Rose-Krasnor, 2012). Barret and Bond (2014) suggest that while “whilst there is an emerging body of research investigating the application of this PYD model to a range of engagement and learning program with young people, including participation in youth clubs and sporting program…less is known about the ways in which engagement and participation in music program might contribute to PYD outcomes.” (p. 38).

In regards to music education, studies have suggested that extra musical benefits are associated with positive cognitive and psychosocial outcomes, making music a ‘vehicle’ for PYD (Barrett and Bond 2014). While the outcomes of these research studies might justify the role of music in PYD, there has been little research done using the framework of PDY. Barratt and Bond (20014) stand out as the lone study that uses the framework of PYD to examine the musical and extra-musical outcomes in music programs. In this study, Barrett and Bond interviewed two music teachers that teach in four ‘socio-economically’ disadvantaged schools. Similar to conclusions made by O’Neil, this study showed that students developed competencies in PYD domain of Competency, Confidence, Connection, Character, and Caring. Expanding on this, the chart below includes the ‘teaching and learning practices that “promote learning” as gathered from the two teachers involved (A and B).

Teacher	Teaching and learning practices that promote PYD and learning
A and B	Commitment to re-investment in the music learning experiences that nurtured them
A	Developing music literacy skills (aural and written)
A	Cross-age grouping and peer mentoring
A	Positive reinforcement
A	Development of extra-musical skills through music
A	Positive view of mistakes as an opportunity to learn
A	Clear structure of each learning experience
B	Collaborative Learning and teaching process that draws on the tenets of informal and non-formal learning and teaching processes
B	Legitimate peripheral participation.

Music for Detained Youth

According to a 2011 census, there were 61,423 youth detained in detention facilities in the United States (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2013). By law, youths detained in juvenile detention centers are required to receive an education. While the frequency and content of the services provided are determined state-by-state, a child detained has the same educational rights as those who are not. With that said, studies within in the field of education for detained youth are limited due to constraints of the population and the environment in which they occupy. As Hickey (2014) suggests, “there are no reports that detail the specifics of education in these settings, as rules differ state by state as well as institution by institution. Perhaps the only consistent finding about formal schooling in juvenile detention facilities in this country is that they are perilous” (p.600).

Due to the varying rules and its subsequent educational offerings, there is no single study or report that offers an all-encompassing survey on the state of music education in youth detention centers. However, Williams (2008) and Cohen, Duncan, and Anderson (2012) offer a small glimpse into select residential juvenile detention facilities across the United States. Williams (2008) surveyed 478 public residential juvenile correctional facilities and of the 175 institutions that replied, 100 or 57.4 percent of institutions reported having an arts program. Of those 100 institutions, 50 described their program as educational while 33 described their program as recreational. The remaining 16 described the program as both educational and recreational. When asked about the content of those programs, 11 described the program as a combination of music and visual arts, or musical theater and visual arts. Out of the 100 institutions only one institution described its program as having music alone. Cohen, Duncan, and Anderson (2012) attempted a similar survey, however with the focus exclusively on music programs in juvenile detention facilities. Out of the 265 facilities surveyed, only 34 or 12.8 percent had ‘structured’ music programs.

Given the limited amount of programs, as suggested by Williams (208) and Cohen et al. ( 2012), there are a limited amount of studies, especially those that are rigorous or contain longitudinal data. And while the United States incarcerates youth a higher rate than other countries (Medel, 2011), a majority of the studies of music education programs in juvenile detention facilities, have been done outside the United States. To date, there are 10 research studies that have studied music activity in juvenile detention facilities. Hickey (2014) offers a boiled down look into these studies in a comprehensive table that categorizes the studies into methodology, participants, activity or intervention, length of time, and conclusion/outcome.

As Hickey (2014) suggests, “the outcomes from the studies presented in Table 38.1 fall into four categories: musical, psychological, learning non-musical skills, and altering behavior” (p. 6) . Kennedy (1998), Barrett and Baker (2012), and Woodward et al. (2008) reported having musical outcomes while the remaining studies reported non-musical or psychological outcomes such as improved confidence and self-esteem (Anderson & Overy, 2010; Bittman, et al., 2009; Ezell & Levy, 2003; Tett, et al., 2012; Tyson, 2002; Wolf & Holochwost, 2014; Woodward, et al., 2008). Also, Anderson and Overy (2010) and Tett et al. (2012) suggested that music, as a means of intervention, improved behavior and reduced recidivism. It is also worth noting that in a majority of the studies, composition and popular music were most commonly used. The implications here might be that composition and popular music are found to be (1) most accessible to detained juveniles and (2) are effective tools for yielding non-musical benefits. However, further studies would need to be done to find such correlations between musical intervention outcome and musical genres or musical activity.

Conclusion

Given the relative newness of music learning as a means for youth intervention, it goes without saying that more research is necessary. With that said, particular understanding for the non-musical, specifically, socio-emotional, benefits of music learning need to be further investigated. As O’Neill  (2006) suggests, “ultimately, researchers will have to find a way to examine musical development as a social phenomenon in terms of its embeddedness in a temporal and social world.” (p. 45). The implications for such research is far-reaching; not only does this approach promote music learning as a chance for non-musical growth, but it promotes an overall positive musical engagement and youth centered learning. O’Neill (2006) summarizes this best by stating:

“By ensuring the primary focus of musical development is on positive musical engagement and youth-centred learning contexts, we can respond to the diverse talents, skills, and interests of young people by providing a rich array of musical activities that allow opportunities for youth to participate at all levels of expertise” (p. 47)

The inclusion of non-musical goals, objectives, and outcomes will not only allow for a more inclusive and positive musical experience but will develop a foundation for positive social-emotional growth that has already seen benefits in other non-musical, youth-centered domains. Frankly put, it is time for music education to join other youth-centered domains and become progressive in its contribution to socio-emotional learning and positive youth development. Anything less will not only be ignoring the overall trends in youth development but will be systemically ignoring a large portion of the youth population and their vital developmental needs.

 

References

 

Allison, K. W., Edmonds, T., Wilson, K., Pope, M., & Farrell, A. D. (2011). Connecting youth violence prevention, positive youth development, and community mobilization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1–2), 8–20.

Anderson, K., & Overy, K. (2010). Engaging Scottish young o enders in education through music and art. International Journal of Community Music, 3(1), 47–64. doi: 10.1386/ ijcm.3.1.47/1.

Baker, S., Homan, S. (2007). Rap, recidivism and the creative self: A popular music program for young offenders in detention. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(4), 459–476.

Barrett, M. S., & Baker, J. S. (2012). Developing learning identities in and through music: A case study of the outcomes of a music programme in an Australian juvenile detention centre. International Journal of Music Education, 30(3), 244–259. doi: 10.1177/0255761411433721.

Barrett, M. S., & Baker, J. S. (2012). Developing learning identities in and through music: A case study of the outcomes of a music programme in an Australian juvenile detention centre. International Journal of Music Education, 30(3), 244–259. doi: 10.1177/0255761411433721.

Barrett, M. S., & Bond, N. (2015). Connecting through music: The contribution of a music programme to fostering positive youth development. Research Studies in Music Education, 37(1), 37–54.

Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bittman, B., Dickson, L., & Coddington, K. (2009). Creative musical expression as a catalyst for quality-of-life improvement in inner-city adolescents placed in a court-referred residential treatment program. ADVANCES, 24(1), 8–19.

Catalano R, Fagan A., Gavin L., Greenberg M., Irwin C., Ross D., Shek D. (2012). Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health. Lancet. 379(9826),1653-64.

Cohen, M. L., Duncan, S., & Anderson, K. (2012). Who needs music? Toward an over- view of music programs in U.S. juvenile facilities. In D. Co man (Ed.), Proceedings from the International Society of Music Education (pp. 73–79). International Society for Music Education. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/o cial_isme/docs/2012_cma_proceedings?vi ewMode=magazine&mode=embed.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2003). Safe and sound: An educa- tional leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Chicago: Author.

Conway, C. M., & Zerman, T. (2004). Perceptions of an instrumental music teacher regarding mentoring, induction, and the first year of teaching. Research Studies in Music Education, 22, 72–83.

Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 13–24.

DeLorenzo, L. C. (1992). The perceived problems of beginning music teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 113, 9–25.

Devroop, K. (2012). The social-emotional impact of instrumental music performance on economically disadvantaged South African students. Music Education Research, 14(4), 407–416.

Edgar, S. N.  (2013). Introducing Social Emotional Learning to Music Education Professional Development. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 31, 2, 28-36.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ezell, M., & Levy, M. (2003). An evaluation of an arts program for incarcerated juvenile of defenders. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 108–114.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Henley, J., Caul eld, L. S., Wilson, D., & Wilkinson, D. J. (2012). Good Vibrations: positive change through social music-making. Music Education Research, 14(4), 499–520.

Hickey, M. (2014). Music education and the invisible youth: A summary of research and practices of music education for youth in detention centers. In Benedict, C., In Schmidt, P. K., In Spruce, G., & In Woodford, P. (2015). The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education.

Kelly, S. (2008). High school instrumental students’ percep- tions of effective music student teacher traits. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(2), 83–91.

Kennedy, J. R. (1998). The effects of musical performance, rational emotive therapy and vicarious experience on the self-efficacy and self-esteem of juvenile delinquents and disadvantaged children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Krueger, P. J. (2000). Beginning music teachers: Will they leave the profession? Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(1), 22–26.

Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1),

Lerner, R. M. (2006). Theoretical models of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lerner, R. M., Brentano, C., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2002). Positive youth development: Thriving as a basis of personhood and civil society. In R. M. Lerner, C. S. Taylor & A. von Eye (Eds.), Pathways to positive development among diverse youth: New directions for youth development (Vol. 95, pp. 11–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Juvenile Justice (2013). Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement 1997–2011 (online tool). Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ asp/selection.asp.

O’Neill, S. A. (2006). Positive youth musical engagement. In G. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 461–474). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pellitteri, J. S. (2006). The use of music in facilitating emo- tional learning. In J. S. Pellitteri, R. Stern, C. Shelton, & B. Muller-Ackerman (Eds.), Emotionally intelligent school counseling (pp. 185–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ramey, H. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2012). Contexts of structured youth activities and positive youth development. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 85–91.

Randall, M. (2010). Advice for the first three years. Teaching Music, 17(5), 36–38.

Tett, L., Anderson, K., McNeill, F., Overy, K., & Sparks, R. (2012). Learning, rehabilitation and the arts in prisons: A Scottish case study. Studies in the Education of Adults, 44(2), 171–185.

Tyson, E. H. (2002). Hip hop therapy: An exploratory study of a rap music intervention with at-risk and delinquent youth. Journal of Poetry erapy, 15(3), 131–144.

Williams, R. M. (2008). The status and praxis of arts education and juvenile o enders in correctional facilities in the United States. Journal of Correctional Education, 59(2), 107–126.

Wolf, D. P., & Holochwost, S. (2014). Building strengths: Examining the place for music in juvenile justice reform. Unpublished report submitted to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Woodward, S. C., Sloth-Nielsen, J., & Mathiti, V. (2008). South Africa, the arts and youth in conflict with the law. International Journal of Community Music, 1(1), 69–88.

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What the research says. New York: Teachers College Press.