university of wales, newport€¦ · web viewr.6 makes music expressively with another or others,...

1

MSc in Applied Psychology of Intellectual Disabilities

An Ethnographic Study into the Musical Interaction of a

Young Man with an Intellectual Disability and his Music Teacher

Bethan Mair Pickard BMus(Hons) DipABRSM – 469064

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4

Method ................................................................................................................................... 12

Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 15

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 64

References ............................................................................................................................ 68

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................... 83

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................ 93

Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................ 96

Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................................ 97

Appendix 5 .......................................................................................................................... 100

Abstract

Following a brief literature review in the field of music and intellectual disabilities, this auto-ethnographic study contemplates and analyses the musical interaction of a young man, G, who has a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, intellectual disability and a visual impairment, and myself, his music teacher. Video footage of weekly music sessions was accumulated over the course of one year, and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The communicative function of musical improvisation in the initial stages of the relationship is deliberated, before examining the effectiveness of an alternative notation system which was conceived and implemented. The learning profile of individuals with Down’s syndrome is discussed in relation to the content and direction of the session and resources prepared. The contribution of the music sessions to the consolidation of social skills is proposed, as well as implications for increased clarity and breadth of speech. My contribution to sessions is critically reflected upon in addition to a reflexive appraisal of my own preconceptions and attitudes. Implications for further research are discussed as well as the contribution this study makes to the literature on music and intellectual disabilities.

Introduction

This study is fuelled and inspired by the informative, systematic and contemporary discussions of Lubet (2009); as he encapsulates in this enlightening, inclusive statement: “Music making is largely comprised of an almost constant state of learning... regardless of a musician’s level of professional attainment” (p. 121).

Karst (1982) echoes Lubet’s sentiment by reviewing the positive repercussions of musical participation specifically for individuals with intellectual disabilities, suggesting that creative self-expression may transcend the limitations of intellectual disability, functioning as a natural medium for communication beyond both intellectual and verbal ability (p. 25). The words of Alvin (1976) are particularly reminiscent here, suggesting that music may have a special significance to those with intellectual disabilities, “because it may be a substitute for impossible things, a superlative or even exclusive means of self-expression and communication” (p. 9).

Before concentrating on the specific populations upon which it impacts and in what ways, let us discuss the power and potential of music as an entity. Despite fascinating insights discussing the influence of music in various educational contexts for the general population; such as mathematics (Vaughn, 2000), phonological skills (McMahon, 1979; Bolduc, 2009), verbal fluency and visualisation abilities (Hassler, Birbaumer & Feil, 1985), verbal memory (Chan, Ho & Cheung, 1998), reading (Kokas, 1969; Atterbury, 1985; Lamb & Gregory, 1993), literacy skills (Douglas & Willatts, 1994) and self-regulation (McPherson & Zimmermann, 2002), as well as in other fields such as neurophysiology (Schlaug, Norton, Overy & Winner, 2005) and sociology (Cross, 2001; Huang & Dodder, 2002); little has been written outside of the therapeutic context (Alvin, 1976; Nordoff & Robbins, 1973, 1975, 1977; Bunt, 1994) about the musical experiences of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Although in the extreme minority, some thoroughly inspiring work has been written in specific relation to music and the intellectually disabled population, such as discussions of the use of music with children with severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties (SLD or PMLD) and complex needs (Ockelford, 2000, 2008; Welch, Ockelford, Carter, Zimmermann & Himonides, 2009; Blair, 2009).

Ockelford (2000, 2008) in particular has pioneered research to specifically address the development through and provision of music for children with SLD or PMLD and complex needs. His longitudinal observations and the ‘Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ which was conceived as a result (Ockelford, 2008; Welch, Ockelford, Carter, Zimmermann & Himonides, 2009) are both captivating and exciting, setting a fine example of thorough and dedicated research in this vastly unreported domain.

Ockelford’s (2008) discussions and analyses of ‘Zygonic Theory’ in the interpretations of musical improvisations were fascinating, and it was hoped that this impressive analysis might be applicable to my own data. However, in an initial investigation of some elementary material, it was decided that the lack of melodic content in the musical improvisatory data, as well as features of echolalia in both speech and musical expression, proved incompatible with analysis in this format.

Conversely, the ‘Sounds of Intent’ observational framework proposed by Ockelford (2008) and Welch, Ockelford, Carter, Zimmermann & Himonides (2009), designed to map musical behaviour and development in children and young people with complex needs provided an ideal and insightful measure of progress.

Figure 1 – Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework,’ Ockelford, 2008

This thorough and holistic approach to musical experience was developed in order to address the unfitting preceding format (QCA, 2001) of conceptualising musical development “unidimensionally” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 77); conversely illustrating sequences of development in three key domains of musical activity, termed ‘Reactive’, ‘Proactive’ and ‘Interactive’.

Ockelford (2008) explains that although the five developmental stages within each domain were aligned across sectors, they were not connected, “to make it easier to conceive... that profiles of attainment could be non-uniform” (p. 82). I welcome this notion and design whole-heartedly, having long been frustrated with conventional, mainstream systems of measurement which do not reflect or accommodate the “non-uniform” or uneven profiles of development which are typical of those with intellectual disabilities. ‘The Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ (Ockelford, 2008; Welch et al., 2009) will be used to analyse data at the commencement and at the conclusion of this study.

Paterson & Zimmermann (2006) and Cross (2007) have too made valid and significant contributions to the world of pedagogy: discussing attitudes, methods and techniques in instrumental teaching for individuals with intellectual disabilities, accordingly raising the profile of this otherwise specialist and unknown field.

Various studies have contributed to the domain of classroom music education for those with intellectual disabilities, advocating the implementation of accessible resources (Jaquiss & Paterson, 2005), facilitation of the development of social skills (Chamberlain & Gallegos, 2006), availability and utilisation of contemporary music software (McCord, 2001), access to necessary documentation, e.g. Individual Education Plans (Rose, 2005), provision of adequate and appropriate training for teachers (Hourigan, 2007, 2009), positive opportunities for inclusion and integration (Damer, 2001, 2005) and the application of a conducive, nurturing environment which promotes a sense of ‘belonging’ (Blair, 2009). Despite these few dedicated and important studies, relatively little is published about the specific detail and nature of the musical experiences of individuals with intellectual disabilities, outside the music therapy setting.

A unique and insightful research study was presented by Portowitz & Klein (2007) who deliberated that children with learning difficulties are often deterred from trying to cope with academic challenges and that music may provide an alternative outlet whereby children with intellectual disabilities can succeed, even if their verbal and mathematical skills are comparatively weak (p. 260). Furthermore, they proposed that the innate joy derived from music could be used to motivate these children to participate in musical activities, and subsequently their active participation used to promote learning in other subject areas (p. 260). This hypothesis formed the foundation of this distinctive study, where an experimental group of 45 children with learning difficulties partook in two to three hours a week of music appreciation, performance and creativity, conducted within a ‘Mediated Learning Environment’ over a period of two years; while 36 children with learning difficulties in the control group did not.

Pre and post assessments evaluated the development of cognitive skills (Raven, Complex Figure Tests) and social esteem (Fitts), indicating significant differences between the groups (Portowitz & Klein, 2007, p. 107). Much inspiration was drawn from this illuminating study when planning and executing my own work.

Having both reviewed the literature to date on music and intellectual disabilities, and reflected upon my own practice as a musician who works with individuals with intellectual disabilities both in an educational and therapeutic context, this study aims to contribute to a contemporary and exciting field of research by reviewing footage of private music lessons between myself and a young man with an intellectual disability, whom I shall refer to as G, over the course of one year.

Reviewing the footage poses an abundance of emerging research issues: How does G perceive the session? What function does the music play for G? How does the teacher-pupil relationship contribute to the musical experience? How transferable are the positive interactions, experiences and skills acquired during the sessions? These issues were considered and enumerated into six key aims for the study:

1. To deliberate and critically reflect upon the precise phenomena at play during the session: both in terms of G’s responses and experiences, and my own contributions, interpretations, actions and reflexion.

2. To determine whether G is developing musical skills, in a similar or different way to typically developing pupils or other pupils with intellectual disabilities.

3. To experiment with alternative notation systems to facilitate access to musical experience, and potentially develop an approach which may benefit others with or without intellectual disabilities.

4. To explore whether any other areas of experience are affected or augmented by musical involvement.

5. To contribute to the body of research regarding musical involvement for those with intellectual disabilities.

6. To raise the profile and awareness of the potential of those with intellectual disabilities to receive, enjoy and thrive at musical involvement.

In response to the bold words of Lee (2000): “Music is the most enigmatic and elusive ingredient to empirical scrutiny, whether quantitative or qualitative methods are used” (p. 147), a diverse assortment of analytical approaches will be convened in this ethnographic, phenomenological dialogue.

This study was fulfilled in the spirit of Pink’s (2001) sentiment, that ethnography is not a method for the collection of data, but a process of creating and representing knowledge that is based on ethnographers’ own experiences (p. 18), and is founded on video footage accumulated from weekly forty-five minute music sessions between myself and G over a period of one year. The words of Pink (2001) resonate with my desire to immerse myself in the experiences of my pupils in order to truly understand their involvement in and perceptions of our music sessions.

Since the sense that we make of informants’ words and actions is “an expression of our own consciousness” (Cohen and Rapport, 1995, p. 12), I appreciate that my participation is integral to the musical interaction and relationship, and am thus preparing to critically examine my own contribution accordingly, dedicating a section of this study to reflexively analysing my own role, actions and interpretations.

Method

Private, individual music sessions between G and I were held once a week in G’s home for a duration of forty-five minutes. Before the conception of this study, these sessions were recorded on a digital camera for my own reflection, record-keeping and professional development purposes. As a result of the intriguing developments in G’s progress and my own fascination in the processes at play during these sessions, I decided to review and analyse one year of this footage and discuss the phenomena involved; forming the foundation of this study.

G’s developing understanding of the routine and process of our sessions during the course of the study will be considered, as well as the value and communicative function of musical improvisation to G. The analysis of video footage and transcriptions will be guided by the following principles:

1. The widely accepted learning profile of individuals with Down’s syndrome (Kumin, 1996, 2003; DSA UK Education Consortium, 2006; Lecas, Mazaud, Reibel & Rey, 2011) which was an integral part of the planning and execution of sessions, shall be discussed in relation to specific characteristics such as short-term auditory memory deficit (Marcell & Armstrong, 1982; Mackenzie & Hulme, 1987; Marcell & Weeks, 1988; Broadley & MacDonald, 1993; Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997; Jarrold, Baddeley & Hewes, 2000; Brock & Jarrold, 2005; Jarrold, Purser, & Brock, 2006; Lecas, Mazaud, Reibel & Rey, 2011) and relative strengths in visual memory tasks (Marcell & Armstrong, 1982; Bower & Hayes, 1994; Kay-Raining Bird & Chapman, 1994; Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997; Jarrold, Baddeley & Hewes, 1999; Conners, Rosenquist & Taylor, 2001; Purser & Jarrold, 2005).

2. The application of ‘Errorless Learning’ techniques (Duffy & Wishart, 1990, Wishart

& Duffy, 1994) will be reviewed, as well as their contribution to G’s experience of the learning process and acquisition of skills in a more general context. The philosophy of ‘Errorless Learning’ is to teach a child to complete a task by guiding them through each step correctly with prompts and not allowing them to fail. As the child becomes more confident the regularity of prompts are diminished until the child can complete the task without support (Buckley & Bird, 1993, p. 37). This method is reportedly particularly effective for those with Down’s syndrome (Wishart & Duffy, 1990, Duffy & Wishart, 1994; Buckley & Bird, 1993).

3. Ockelford (2008) and Welch, Ockelford, Carter, Zimmermann & Himonides’ (2009) ‘Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ will be utilised to reflect on G’s progress and development over the course of one year, in addition to highlighting areas of strength or weakness, in order to better tailor future interventions. Potential sequences of development are illustrated in three key domains of musical activity, termed ‘Reactive’, ‘Proactive’ and ‘Interactive’; acknowledging the typical non-uniformity of development in individuals with intellectual disabilities.

4. Finally, my own contribution to and interpretations of the sessions will be deliberated. This reflexivity is central to the ethos of ethnography (Pink, 2001) and is a vital ingredient in the precious working relationship which has been established.

My expectations, preconceptions and attitudes will be critically reflected upon in order to truly appreciate the interactions and happenings of these absorbing and exceptional sessions.

In the concluding chapter, implications and ideas for future research will be deliberated as well as the consequences of the findings and potential for generalisation from this single case study. The contribution of this study to the literature will be considered, as well as its influence on future work with G and others.

Results and Discussion

Learning Profile of Individuals with Down’s Syndrome

As the most commonly identified genetic cause of intellectual disability, affecting 1 in every 1000 live births (Hassold & Patterson, 1998; Martin, Klusek, Estigarribia & Roberts, 2009), there is an expansive body of literature concerning the specific learning profile and particularly the language and communication characteristics of individuals with Down’s syndrome. It was decided to use this vast wealth of knowledge to my advantage in designing the most constructive and appropriate resources for G.

Countless studies have confirmed that children with Down’s syndrome have a deficit in short-term auditory memory (Marcell & Armstrong, 1982; Mackenzie & Hulme, 1987; Marcell & Weeks, 1988; Broadley & MacDonald, 1993; Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997; Jarrold, Baddeley & Hewes, 2000; Brock & Jarrold, 2005; Jarrold, Purser, & Brock, 2006; Lecas, Mazaud, Reibel & Rey, 2011). A widely accepted phenomenon, short-term auditory memory deficit is suggested by the DSA UK Education Consortium (2006) to be a result of the fact that children with Down’s syndrome do no develop the same strategies as their typically developing peers, such as rehearsal and organisation skills, which help them to remember information.

Proportionate to the numerous studies reporting short-term auditory memory deficit in individuals with Down’s syndrome, an abundance of studies have also documented better performance in visual memory tasks compared to verbal memory tasks in people with Down’s syndrome (Marcell & Armstrong, 1982; Bower & Hayes, 1994; Kay-Raining Bird & Chapman, 1994; Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997; Jarrold, Baddeley & Hewes, 1999; Conners, Rosenquist & Taylor, 2001; Purser & Jarrold, 2005).

Lecas, Mazaud, Reibel & Rey (2011) report that visual-spatial task performance of those with Down’s syndrome was comparable to those of control groups (p. 85), implying that this area of development is markedly less affected by intellectual disability than other areas.

This extremely specific trait and learning style provides us with an insight into the potentially most successful differentiation methods to apply to tasks designed with individuals with Down’s syndrome in mind. As a result, vast amounts of highly visual resources were prepared for G, preventing him from being reliant on his weaker short-term auditory memory for processing or consolidation of information. Tasks were planned to be presented visually, with instruments physically introduced to G and information delivered through a variety of kinaesthetic, sensory channels. Additional consideration was given to G’s visual impairment, rendering his typically ‘stronger’ sense, slightly weaker.

G responded remarkably positively to the visual content of sessions, learning the names and timbres of eleven instruments as well as learning six rhythmic motifs represented visually by words, photographs and standard notation. Being able to design sessions with G’s learning profile in mind was an invaluable tool: as well as saving my time in preparing or delivering inaccessible material, this process enabled G to avoid disheartening unsuccessful learning experiences, and allowed him to concentrate on and celebrate his strengths, providing for a much more positive and pleasant session.

This design follows the principles of ‘Errorless Learning’ (Wishart & Duffy, 1990; Duffy & Wishart, 1994) whereby an individual is supported to reach the correct answer, until they have acquired the necessary skills to do so independently. This strategy has been shown to be particularly successful with individuals with intellectual disabilities, namely Down’s syndrome (Wishart & Duffy, 1990; Duffy & Wishart, 1994; Buckley & Bird, 1993).

The acknowledgment of such a relative strength in one precise area of cognition can be utilised to great advantage in the spheres of education and child development: a prime example is seen in studies which have shown facilitation in spoken language development through the teaching of sign language to children with Down’s syndrome (Kouri, 1989; Layton & Savino, 1990; Clibbens, 2001). The use of signs and visual memory capacity may thus serve as a compensatory strategy in verbal lexicon development for children with Down’s syndrome (Lecas et al, 2011, p.85). This very phenomenon was deliberated and incorporated naturally into the sessions with G, in which gesture and sign was used extensively to support verbal communication.

Elements of Makaton, Sign Along and British Sign Language are prominent in my work in various settings and different roles. G didn’t use any form of signing at home with his parents in my company, although it was noted that the parents’ communications were heavily gestured. As the relationship between G and I developed, so did my own use of British Sign Language in another setting. This growing competency was transferred, perhaps subconsciously, to my work with G, who responded positively to an increased use of signs. G’s attendance at a local special school implies his familiarity with or at least exposure to some form of signing on a daily basis, and thus his subsequent prosperity.

The notion of understanding and comprehension increased as did the incidence of signing; confirming that if individuals with Down’s syndrome are afforded the opportunity to understand visual representations as opposed to solely verbal ones, they should be better equipped and able to recall given information (Lecas at al., 2011, p. 85).

As a music teacher of individuals with intellectual disabilities, it has always been my intention to appreciate and celebrate the individualities of each of my pupils. It has never been my intention to develop a specific method of teaching for those with Down’s syndrome, since there are indeed more differences between children with Down’s syndrome than there are similarities (Selowitz, 1997, p.24) and it would be naïve to think that one method would be applicable and successful for all. Despite this, I believe it is an invaluable advantage to be aware of the learning profile of individuals with Down’s syndrome when planning and delivering sessions, in order to facilitate the most effective and relevant learning process.

Musical Improvisation as a Means of Communication

Working with G was a significant learning process for myself, and although I had in mind the ‘Mediated Learning Environment’ of Portowitz & Klein (2007), I felt passionately that I wanted the content and direction of our sessions to be an organic product of our mutual interaction and experience. I was reluctant to demonstrate excessive leadership in our initial sessions and was eager and attentive to discover what path G would choose.

Musical improvisation was our initial medium of communication, almost solely, while we became accustomed to each others’ styles and modes of communication. It is suggested in the music therapy literature that musical improvisation of this kind has the power to connect together two minds and two bodies in the same experience (Ansdell, 1995, p. 13) permitting mutuality and synchrony on a level unparalleled in other mediums: providing an opportunity for interaction on “equal terms” (Bunt, 1994, p. 16).

Improvisation provides a forum to get to know one another through jointly generated, spontaneous sound forms (Pavlicevic, 2000, p.272) and this was the exact intent of my initial encounters with G: to construct a “shared context” (Bailey, 1985) where we could be ourselves and begin to understand one another without being dependant on the beautiful intricacies and vast complexities of spoken language and vocabulary.

Music permitted us this time and experience before we moved on to developing a spoken dialogue to support our sessions. This initial improvisatory forum continued on a smaller scale for the duration of the study, forming the welcoming, introductory element of each session, reminding G and I of the strength and importance of our musical relationship.

Learning Social Skills through Music Making

The early encounters of G and I laid the foundation for our working relationship and built up a level of trust and understanding. Little direction was given in these initial sessions in order to discover G’s wishes and intentions through the music, but once some ideas were in place, a structure was developed to support our work. Consistency of routine was key in creating a notion of stability for G, in order that he would know what to expect from each session, and thus be free to enjoy, express himself through the music and be in an optimum mindset for learning.

The opening musical activity of each session was for G to select an instrument with which he would like to play the first musical improvisation. As well as being a meaningful musical activity, the connotation of choice and feeling empowered to make a decision is an important social skill which was addressed through this component of the session.

I felt passionately that G should feel empowered to choose the content of each structured element, in order that our sessions were fulfilling his autonomous musical desires. Encouraging G’s expression of choice reflects the feeling of mutuality I was hoping to evoke, in order to respect G as a young man who is able to learn and participate on equal terms.

This routine took a very long time to establish, and for G to understand what was being asked or offered. Much more deliberation will be given to my own participation in this exchange in a later chapter. Figure 2 shows an extract of a transcription from our session on 20/10/2010, when we had been working together for approximately 6 months.

Figure 2 – Extract of transcription from 20/10/2010 session

SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT


G and I then continued to take each instrument from the box in turn, named it, played it, and moved on to the next. The subsequent extract in Figure 3 shows the element of choice being posed again:



We see here that G selects his instrument of choice after 7 minutes and 29 seconds. The fact that G did so as I raised my flute to play suggests that it was indeed the language that G had difficulty in deciphering as opposed to understanding the relevant action or sequence of events. Conversely, it could be said that G needed to review each of the instruments in turn in order to recall their names or timbres before deciding on which one he would like to play. If we look at Figure 4, we see a similar behaviour pattern:


In Figure 4, G had preliminarily selected an instrument but had demonstrated that he wanted to explore the other instruments before making his final decision. He went on to investigate the triangle and each of the other instruments in the box in turn, before making his selection, as we see in Figure 5:



We can see a development in Figure 5, equally in the relationship and the understanding in communication, as in G’s musical and social development. G has made his preference for reviewing the instruments in succession clear, and this has in turn become an important element of the session.

This expression can be interpreted to be as much of an articulation of choice as choosing which instrument one would like to play: G has chosen that he would like to alter the process so that he may experience each instrument in turn before making his selection. This is a mature and intelligent decision which shows that G is able to make such smart judgments, and that hopefully, our relationship and communication system is strong enough to facilitate G’s wishes.

`Micro-analysis of G’s response to the instruments each week shows definite progress in his recognition of the feel and physicality of the instrument, its given name and its sound or timbre. Figure 6 is a good example of G fluently and accurately naming each instrument produced from the box. Each instrument is held up for him to see and is simultaneously sounded to demonstrate its timbre. This level of fluency was reached after 9 months of working together.






As we see in Figure 6, G is asked for the first time to name the bells upon hearing their sound but not seeing them. G pauses, potentially due to the unfamiliar nature of the question, but is able to answer correctly.

Consequently, in our session dated 22/02/2011, 10 months after we began working together, I changed the format of the initial activity very slightly to include this ‘blind’ labelling of the instruments. This would determine whether G could recognise the instruments by sound and without seeing their physical form, see Figure 7:

Figure 7 – Extract of transcription from 22/02/2011 Session




Through working at G’s pace and in the style which G himself had dictated, G was able to access skills relevant to Level 1 of the National Curriculum for Music in Wales, such as “recognise and describe sounds in the environment and sounds made by classroom instruments”, “respond to music through movement and/or other forms of expression”, and “improvise, compose and arrange music using a variety of sound sources, e.g. their bodies, voices, sounds from the environment, and tuned and untuned percussion” (The National Assembly for Wales, 2000, p.7). This is encouraging evidence for the fulfilment of individual potential when the correct support and approach are in place. As previous studies have suggested, G’s thorough and uninhibited enjoyment of musical participation renders the music session an ideal and conducive environment for education and learning (Standley & Hughes, 1997; Schellenberg, 2004; Overy, Norton, Cronin, Winner & Schlaug, 2005; Standley, 2008).

The accumulation of these skills reached a climax by 28/06/2011 when G was first able to articulate his choice of unseen and unheard instrument when asked what he would like to play. This demonstrates that equipping G with the experience, familiarity and knowledge of many instruments, at his own pace and in his own way, gave him the power to choose which instrument he preferred to use and the facility to communicate his choice effectively with others. See Figure 8 and 9:







These examples could be seen as preparatory work for G to more effectively access more mainstream musical opportunities, to more successfully understand and discuss musical ideas in the school classroom, to be more empowered in the management of his leisure time, and in communicating his wishes and intentions to others in any of the aforementioned settings. This transition to mainstream resources and opportunities has long been an important consideration to me, with the intention of equipping individuals with the skills and experiences necessary to integrate into mainstream settings and thus access the expansive world of musical opportunities that others take for granted.

In a Speech and Language context, our sessions have equipped G with a strong topic-based vocabulary which will support him in many future musical endeavours. Since G is so passionate about music, and actively seeks musical experiences, this acquisition of associated language and vocabulary will empower and enable him to more successfully access specific experiences which are of interest and of value to him, subsequently contributing to his quality of life.

Alternative Notation Systems

In the second half of most of our sessions, we would revert to our djembe drums and experiment with rhythmic patterns. Again, the notation system we arrived at was the outcome of G’s creative process, whereby we explored various avenues of more traditional instrumental tuition, such as standardised notation or learning musical phrases “by rote” (Cross, 2007), but discovered that the echolalic nature of G’s expressions reflected well in recognition of syllabic patterns in words or phrases.

This phenomenon was discussed with G’s parents and a subject for the target vocabulary was decided upon with their guidance: G’s fondness of helping with the shopping list and weekly grocery shopping deemed food-based vocabulary to be an effective and accessible choice. Consequently, flash cards were devised constituting four key elements: colour, photograph, written word and standard notation. This was very much an exploratory process and as such, it was unknown at the point of formulating the resources, which, if any, of the four elements would be most constructive or comprehensible to G.

One could argue that the vibrant nature of the cards provided a sensory overload and perhaps took away from the centrality of each individual element and its message. However, having discussed G’s degree of visual impairment with his parents, it was clear that he would need resources of this size and clarity in order for them to be functional to him. Figure 10 shows the initial set of flash cards designed for G.

Figure 10 – Initial set of flash cards designed for G

G responded well to these flash cards and was excited by the success he achieved in recognising their messages accurately. I was careful to discretely draw G’s attention to the various elements included in each card in order to maximise his potential for accurate recall and success. Positive reinforcement and Errorless Learning techniques (Wishart & Duffy, 1990; Duffy & Wishart, 1994) were used throughout and proved truly motivational for G’s progress, as well as heightening his enjoyment of the learning process.

The large flash cards seen in Figure 10 were used in order to learn the initial constellation of rhythmic motifs. To combine these motifs in order to create more complex rhythmic patterns or, ultimately, to create a piece of music; smaller yet identical flashcards were created, backed with Velcro in order that G may decide on his own collection and arrangement of rhythmic motifs, and read them as a rhythmic line. See Figure 11 for an example of one of G’s compositions.

Figure 11 – Development of initial flash card designs

Fascinatingly, when referring to the flashcards, G would always run his finger along the standard notation when naming the card. I do believe he looked to the photograph for immediate recall, but his acknowledgment and exclusive attention to the notation was of great interest to me. In order to discover from which element of the card G was drawing most information, separate cards were prepared for each individual element, i.e. written word cards, photograph cards and standard notation cards, see Figure 12.

Figure 12 – Dissecting the individual elements of the initial flashcards




At this juncture, it was deduced that G was able to recognise some written words, all photographs and some standard notation, as Figure 13 demonstrates. A definite turning point and an indicator of G’s understanding and maturity came when he was asked to describe the rhythm shown in Figure 14, built of individual standard notation cards:

Figure 14 – Notation cards presented to G

The work preceding this task had been to familiarise ourselves with repeated crotchets ( ) and repeated quavers ( ), both of which we had learned on the ‘Tick-Tock’ and ‘Coca-Cola’ flash cards respectively. We had practiced and repeated each of these rhythms vocally and on the djembe, and used the individual standard notation cards to build up a bar-long motif of each. When presented with one card illustrating a pair of quavers and one crotchet card, G responded as is described in Figure 15:

Figure 15 – Extract of transcription from 08/03/2011 session SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT


This extract demonstrates that G has understood the meaning of the individual notated elements, and is able to interpret them either as single units e.g. “Tick” or “Co-ca”, or combined to form a motif, e.g. “Tick – Tock”, “Co-ca – Co-la”. This was a significant breakthrough in our work, and was a clear indicator for me of a turning point in G’s musical understanding. Further research could determine what implications this has for G’s cognitive development; that he is able to identify individual elements of a musical language as well as their significance when combined to create a shared meaning. Could this level of understanding have an effect in other spheres of life? Could a similar process be applied in G’s understanding of written language, such as the significance of single letters or phonics before they are combined to make words?

Figure 16 - Evolution from initial flash cards to more mainstream notation

Figure 16 illustrates how the notation system has been adapted to incorporate the element of colour, in order to support G to transition from solely rhythmic motifs to melodic phrases on tuned percussion instruments too. This is the most recent addition to our repertoire, and was introduced during the final sessions captured for this study. G was very excited by the prospect of playing this material, but was having difficulty co-ordinating the previously consolidated rhythmic motifs with the newly established element of colour. As a result, G was inclined to beat the syllabic rhythm of the colour names on the respectively coloured bars of the glockenspiel, as opposed to the aforementioned rhythmic motifs.

Figure 17 – Notated example of G’s performance of the coloured notation


Figure 18 – Notated example of an accurate performance of the coloured notation


Figure 17 demonstrates what G would play, and Figure 18 shows an accurate performance of the coloured notation. It is worth noting that G is accurately playing the rhythm that he speaks, and is playing these rhythms on the correspondingly coloured bars. Therefore, G is completing the task he has interpreted accurately, this is merely a slightly different task from the one that has been set. I believe that this speaks volumes about G’s level of understanding and maturity, and could well be applied to other spheres of experience.

If we look at the actions of G, or others with intellectual disabilities, in a variety of settings, we may well conclude that a behaviour or response is inappropriate, inapplicable or ‘wrong’ for the scenario at hand. However, if we take the time to analyse such behaviours, it may well be that these are highly relevant responses to a specific situation, which are merely being enacted at an inappropriate juncture. Consequently, targeting the understanding of when to use each response may be more beneficial in supporting those with intellectual disabilities than discouraging behaviours deemed as inappropriate at that particular moment.

With this hypothesis in mind, future sessions with G could be restructured in order for his responses and interpretations of material to generate the trajectory of the rest of the session. This ties in well with the ethos of ‘Errorless Learning’ (Wishart & Duffy, 1990; Duffy & Wishart, 1994) which encourages the guidance of the individual to the correct answer. In order that G may have the greatest possible experience of positive and successful outcomes, the target stimulus could indeed be altered so that G was giving the correct answer. His response could be celebrated as a correct answer, and we could explore the context in which this is so. Hopefully, this will contribute to G’s optimistic interpretation of the learning process and will encourage him to pursue his endeavours further.

Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework

The ‘Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ (Ockelford, 2008; Welch, Ockelford, Carter, Zimmermann & Himonides, 2009) was conceived in response to the inflexibility and ill-fitting nature of the preceding P-scales (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2001), which envisage musical development to be a unilateral process.

The ‘Sounds of Intent’ project constructed an innovative format which considers and facilitates development across three key domains of musical activity, termed ‘Reactive’, ‘Proactive’ and ‘Interactive’.

The circular design of the visual framework was pivotal in reinforcing “a feeling of growth, evolving intentionality, and agency – of moving out from a limited sense of self into a more extensive environment of others – that was not implicitly judgmental” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 81). This unique model allows for recognition and celebration of development in distinctive sub-categories of musical experience. Ockelford (2008) explained that although the five developmental stages within each domain were aligned across sectors, they were not connected, “to make it easier to conceive... that profiles of attainment could be non-uniform” (p. 82).

As was mentioned previously, I unequivocally welcome this format, having long been frustrated with conventional, mainstream systems of measurement which do not reflect or accommodate the “non-uniform” or uneven profiles of development which are typical of those with intellectual disabilities. ‘The Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ (Ockelford, 2008; Welch et al., 2009) was used to analyse and document G’s musical development at the commencement (22/06/2010) and at the conclusion (05/07/2011) of the study.

This proved to be an enlightening resource, allowing me to contemplate specific aspects of G’s progress as well as to have a visual representation of how each sub-category’s level contributed to and affected its respective level in another sub-category. This model allowed me to pinpoint G’s areas of relative strength and weakness in order to both celebrate his strengths and prepare resources to more effectively support his relative weaknesses. Additionally, this resource provided constructive ideas when planning the direction and increment of progression for the content of sessions.

Figure 19 illustrates which descriptors were felt to best fit G’s musical experience on 22/06/2010, when we had been working together for just eight weeks. In the ‘Reactive’ domain, it was felt that G was “making differentiated responses to the basic qualities of different sounds” and “responding to musical and other sounds increasingly independent of context” (Ockelford, 2008, p.99), which corresponds to a secure level two; and on occasion, however not consistently, was “recognizing and reacting to a regular beat” and “recognizing and reacting to simple patterns formed through regular change”, which corresponds to a level three.

In the ‘Proactive’ domain, G was unquestionably able to create “an increasing diversity of sounds intentionally through an increasing variety of means” and showed “increasing control over the sounds that are produced”, which constitutes a level two. In my opinion, G was not yet independently “intentionally making simple patterns through repetition... (or) a regular beat... (or) through regular change” which would equate to a level three (Ockelford, 2008, p. 100).

The ‘Interactive’ domain was always G’s strength in my opinion, since he thrives upon the connection he gets from making music with others; a sentiment reminiscent of the mutuality and relationship discussed through our musical improvisations. When analysing the footage of 22/06/2010, I felt G was very successfully “responding in sound to sounds made by another” and was beginning to explore the notion of “making sounds to stimulate response in sound by another” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 99) which would class his ‘Interactive’ score as a level two. The jump to level three of the ‘Interactive’ domain requires “imitating the sounds made by another” and “imitating simple patterns in sound made by another” (Ockelford, 2008, p.100) which was indeed a prime focus for our sessions.

As we have already discussed widely, G had a natural affinity for repeating fragments of speech, actions, behaviour and musical motifs. Despite this, in a musical context, G tends to eagerly join in before he has had time to securely consolidate or even hear the entire phrase which he will repeat. As a result, his musical imitations are often inaccurate since he has been playing the opening of the phrase while the ending has yet to be played to him. This phenomenon was discussed in a previous study (Pickard, 2009) and was noted extensively in musical observations of individuals with Down’s syndrome of all ages across a variety of settings. As a result of this inconsistency, it was decided not to assign G the level three descriptor in the ‘Interactive’ domain yet, as he had not perfected the art of listening carefully enough to allow himself to imitate successfully.

Figure 19 – descriptors most apt for G’s musical experience on 22/06/2010

Figure 20 – the descriptors most apt for G’s musical experience on 05/07/2011

Figure 20 shows the descriptors assigned to G’s musical experiences based on the final footage collected for this study on 05/07/2011 when we had been working together for sixty-three weeks. The representational layout of the model emphasises G’s growth and progress over the course of one year and illustrates his areas of particular relative strength.

By 05/07/2011, G had developed the ability in the ‘Reactive’ domain to “respond to groups of sounds as discrete entities” and to respond to the “repetition, variation and transformation of groups of musical sounds (as in ‘call and response’)”, (Ockelford, 2008, p. 101) signifying a level four on the ‘Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’. This level of understanding could have profound repercussions in other areas, as Ockelford (2008) makes links with Gestalt perception, whereby aspects of a perceptual domain that change in a similar way are perceived as a unit (p.100). There is certainly scope for further specialised research here. The next step in attaining a level five descriptor involves “recognising prominent structural features and responding to characteristics with learnt connotations” as well as “responding to general features whose connotations are established by convention (such as Western ‘major’ or ‘minor’ modes)” (Ockelford, 2008, p.102). I firmly believe that G is more than capable of reaching such goals, and perhaps already has, but finding a means to communicate these sentiments remains the challenge; more-so to myself than to G perhaps.

The ‘Proactive’ domain was also described as level four by the 05/07/2011 analysis, where G was able to confidently and competently create or re-create “short groups of musical sounds that have distinct identities”, repeat, vary or transform “groups of musical sounds as in ‘call and response’” and link “groups coherently through common elements (as in ‘question and answer’)” (Ockelford, 2008, p.101).

The skills required to attain a level four were firmly established and even some of the preliminary requirements of level five, such as “performing short and simple pieces of music, potentially growing in length and complexity”; but on the other hand, the creation of “pieces of music, potentially of increasing structural coherence, complexity and length” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 102) was an area we hadn’t particularly explored yet. Structural coherence requires consolidation and retention of material on a large scale, which has proved challenging for G thus far. This will certainly be an area worthy of dedicated focus in future sessions.

Finally, the criteria of level four for the ‘Interactive’ domain were deemed appropriate for G’s musical experience by 05/07/2011. G was able to proficiently imitate “groups of sounds made by another (‘call and response’)”, link “groups of sounds coherently to those produced by another (‘question and answer’)” and was predominantly able to “interact through coherent patterns of turn-taking” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 101).

By this point, G was able to also complete some of the requirements of level five of the ‘Interactive’ domain, such as “performing simultaneously with others, maintaining their own part”, an activity we have put much effort into and in which we have seen vast improvements. Despite this, “improvising with others, repeating and/or developing material and/or building on material that is presented” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 103) remains an area for future progression, as G develops the ability to contribute original ideas and develop them himself.

The ‘Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ (Ockelford, 2008; Welch et al., 2009) transpired to be an effective, thorough and constructive resource for mapping G’s musical development over the period of one year.

In implementing the ‘Sounds of Intent Musical Development Framework’ we are able to observe and record G’s growth and evolution in his musical endeavours, such as his growing independence in expressing, developing and performing a musical phrase (‘Proactive’ domain, level four and ‘Interactive’ domain, level five); while our attention is also drawn to specific areas which may benefit from targeted intervention, such as developing understanding of a larger scale musical structure (‘Reactive’ domain, level five). The implementation of this resource will continue as an observational measure of progress.

Reflections

As was outlined in the ‘Introduction’ section, the auto-ethnographic nature of this study demanded that I reflect critically upon my own contributions to sessions with G, and determine any aspects which could be analysed and potentially improved for future work. I found this process, which required openness and a frank discussion of techniques and attitudes observed, to be a difficult and personal journey. Having a conscious awareness of my tendency to be very critical and questioning of my own practice was accommodating in this instance, and enumerating critical appraisals of each transcription wasn’t difficult.

However, in order to be constructive, the critiques were reviewed with the intention of using these reflections to better future work with G as well as for my own personal and professional development. Recurring themes from these critiques were selected for further discussion in this section.

Language

The first concept that struck me when reviewing the footage was one concerning the function and content of language. Although my entire working life is spent supporting individuals with intellectual disabilities and/or communication difficulties, it was surprising to discover the amount of surplus, inaccessible vocabulary that was used. Ockelford (2008) suggests accordingly that language erects an unnecessary barrier in the teaching of music to those with intellectual disabilities, and that music provides a far more immediate form of communication in sound (p. 154); a notion that I certainly provided evidence for in these transcriptions. Figure 21 illustrates an instance of un-necessary and inaccessible conversation:



Another phenomenon that I was disappointed to see myself exhibit, was the apparent inability to repeat simple sentences. Ockelford (2008) proposes that music has potential to structure language for individuals with intellectual disabilities who are faced with a perplexing array of unnecessary and indecipherable variations on a single sentiment. This “array of variations” (p. 136) was evident in my own practice, and a distinct lack of response from G suggests that he felt perplexed. Ockelford elucidates:

“...in the face of little or no immediate reaction from those they [adults] are addressing, they are culturally programmed not to repeat themselves. If at first you don’t succeed, there is a strong inclination to try again, using alternative means of expression.”

(Ockelford, 2008, p. 136).

Although I was well aware of this phenomenon, having read Ockelford’s work extensively, and preached the virtues of it to others, I found myself to be guilty of doing exactly what I should have avoided, as Figures 22, 23 and 24 illustrate:






Numerous examples in the transcripts confirm the prevalence of this phenomenon, and in reviewing the footage I am able to witness the confusion this process inflicts upon G. Bringing this tendency into my awareness will hopefully contribute to a re-evaluation of my choice of language when interacting with G and others with intellectual disabilities and/or communication difficulties, encouraging a more conscious consideration of the forces at play during a conversation or interaction and their implications.

The profusion of inaccessible and thus futile conversation discovered in the transcripts, as though any silence was being filled with conversation even if the language and pace was not accessible to G, suggests an aversion to ‘silence’, the symbolism of which could be analysed in a later study.

This was certainly more evident in earlier sessions, where I can openly admit that the unfamiliarity of G’s means of communication and level of understanding left me feeling uncertain in myself, perhaps leading me to fill any silences with ‘cheerful chit-chat’. This was almost certainly a coping strategy which enabled me to feel more comfortable, but conversely, in retrospect, I am able to appreciate that the excessive use of inaccessible language is likely to have caused confusion and potential anxiety to G.

This will be an important consideration in future work, particularly in early sessions when forming acquaintances for the first time: this process has certainly taught me to be less self-conscious and to consider more exclusively the impact of my choice of language upon its recipient.

Having formed a strong working relationship and an equally strong friendship with G, we were able to establish a means of communication whereby we were both understood. In the first instance, the medium was music; we both articulated ourselves through simple musical expressions, “proto-conversations” (Ockelford, 2008, p. 141), establishing a mutual, reciprocal language for our initial encounters. As we came to understand and appreciate each others’ musical outputs, we could begin to understand each others’ personalities and means of expression, facilitating a necessarily deeper, reciprocal relationship (Piaget, 1965; Matheson, Olsen & Weisner, 2007). Once we moved on from my one-sided conversation, to a mutual musical conversation, we were able to explore appropriate language, signs and gestures to formulate a shared conversation.

Assumptions

Reviewing my work with G, I was startled to discover the number of assumptions I had made. As was discussed previously and is elaborated upon in Appendix 1, I had little knowledge of G’s abilities, level of understanding or means of communication before commencing music sessions with him. Naturally, I had some preconceptions having worked extensively with individuals with intellectual disabilities and namely Down’s syndrome for many years.

It was my aim not to implement any interventions or notation systems until I was confident in my understanding of G’s level of comprehension and the most appropriate mediums of communication for us. However, it soon became evident that this would be an evolving process, which would be modified accordingly as we progressed and issues arose. The notation system that was developed grew from G’s inclination to repeat fragments of speech during our interaction. It was noted that G rarely spoke spontaneously or responded to questions with original material, but very often repeated the end of sentences back to me in an echolalic fashion; see Figure 25.



It was decided to use this tendency to our advantage and teach G rhythmic fragments in a repetitive fashion. A similar method is advocated by Cross (2001) who has found that individuals with Down’s syndrome responded particularly well to tuition “by rote” (p. 54). As a consequence of the aforementioned short-term auditory memory deficit (Lecas et al., 2011) and relative strength in visual memory tasks (Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997) reported amongst individuals with Down’s syndrome, it was decided to create visual reinforcements for each rhythmic fragment, and thus the aforementioned flashcards were produced.

When designing these flashcards, I decided to include maximum visual input in order to increase G’s prospects of registering the message of the card. As a result, each card in the initial set (see Figure 10) had its own colour, photograph, written word and standard notation. At this juncture, it was uncertain which aspect, if any, would be most accessible to G.

The learning process continued as G made fantastic progress, and it was concluded by 04/02/2011 that G was able to recognise some written words, all of the photographs, and many of the standard notations, see Figure 13. I was thrilled with G’s progress, and mentioned so to his mother after one of our sessions. It wasn’t until this point that G’s mother mentioned that G was unable to read.

I was thoroughly taken aback by this revelation, having long since made the assumption that G was able to read. G’s recognition of the target vocabulary reinforces the notion that individuals with Down’s syndrome learn to read using whole-word recognition (Buckley & Bird, 1993, p. 38) and unequivocally suggests that G has the potential to learn to read in the future. G’s parents recalls in Figure 26 an instance where G recognised and read one of the target words in another context, to his parents’ surprise and delight.

Figure 26 – An extract from G’s parents


Although this assumption caused some misunderstanding in this instance, I am unapologetic for having such high expectations for G. I firmly believe that this is an integral element of supporting individuals with intellectual disabilities to reach their full potential, and hope that this incident will both advocate and facilitate the opportunity for G to learn to read. There is definitely scope for future study here, potentially using the natural engagement with and enjoyment of music as an educational tool (Standley & Hughes, 1997; Schellenberg, 2004; Overy, Norton, Cronin, Winner & Schlaug, 2005).

Conclusion

The planning and execution of this study has been an exciting learning experience for myself, as well as for G. There has been much food for thought, and I have come to review my own practice and attitudes in a new light. Many ideas for diverging interventions have emerged, as well as an abundance of inspiration for future research.

In reviewing footage, a potential area for further research which springs to mind would be to consider any incidences of ‘Interactional Synchrony’ (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991) in the recordings and transcriptions. ‘Interactional Synchrony’ can be seen as a dance between partners, whereby each individual adapts his gaze, body language and vocalisations in order to personally fit and exchange with the communicating partner (Pavlicevic, 2000, p. 274). This would be a time consuming but worthwhile microanalysis to discover whether any of G’s body language is reflecting my own and vice versa, and the implications of this discovery. By preliminarily analysing early footage with this concept in mind, it is noted that G has his own preferred way of sitting, but also that his body movements are quite echolalic as is his speech and musical expression, and thus there is a possibility that we would find some correlations here.

Another possibility for future study was unearthed during this revisit to the footage, when it was observed that G makes countless actions and responses which are not seen or acknowledged by myself in real time. For example, on 08/12/2010, G is seen clearly waving to the camera as I set it up. My back would have been turned to G at this point, and as a result I did not witness this behaviour, but also, I was unaware of G’s level of attentiveness to the camera’s presence. This was a fascinating discovery which speaks volumes of G’s level of understanding, and also his subtlety in giving this wave to the camera out of my sight. No such behaviour was ever seen when I was giving G my full attention.

Another example is seen on 08/03/2011 when I hold my wrist and work out on my watch how much time has passed and how much is left. Engrossed in my own calculations, I was unaware that G was precisely imitating my actions, although he wasn’t wearing a watch.

An enlightening example with perhaps further reaching repercussions, was on 22/06/2010, when we were exploring a variety of flash cards to decide on one which G was able to interpret as , see Figure 27. We began with ‘Fish Fingers’ and in my determination to concentrate on the rhythmic quality of the syllables, I was unaware that each time we mentioned the word “fingers”, G would raise his hand and move his fingers. He had obviously recognised the word in another context which shows a secure and mature understanding of the vocabulary used. Had this been noted in real time, we could have explored a motif where we used the interpretation of “fingers” which G had understood, and this may have made for a more memorable syllabic pattern.

Figure 27 – Flash cards prepared to denote , a rhythm G found particularly tricky.

Having discussed the theory and practicalities of a deficit in short-term auditory memory for those with Down’s syndrome (Marcell & Armstrong, 1982; Mackenzie & Hulme, 1987; Marcell & Weeks, 1988; Broadley & MacDonald, 1993; Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997; Jarrold, Baddeley & Hewes, 2000; Brock & Jarrold, 2005; Jarrold, Purser, & Brock, 2006; Lecas, Mazaud, Reibel & Rey, 2011), I should like to take a moment here to consider the latter half of my sessions with G. Here we take a less formal, less structured approach and take some time to listen to, enjoy and sing and/or move along with some of G’s favourite music. G enjoys current, pop music and is able to sing along to an incalculable number of songs, knowing the precise lyrics from memory.

A similar occurrence has been noted in my work with a nine year old girl with Down’s syndrome, a six year old boy with Down’s syndrome, an eight year old boy with Down’s syndrome, as well as my experience with my own sister who is twenty seven years old and has Down’s syndrome.

I propose that there is scope here for further research to deduce whether the accompaniment of music affects the capacity of the short-term auditory memory. Could musical auditory input have a different potential for consolidation and memorisation than verbal auditory input? What element of musicality is so memorable? Is a line of a song processed in a different way to a line of a story? Is this phenomenon more prevalent in those with Down’s syndrome than the general population?

A mother of a child with Down’s syndrome testifies, that if she needed him to pay attention or to do something, “if I ‘sang’ him the instruction, he would reply” (Pickard, 2009, p.56); as Ockelford (2008) suggests, music can help to structure language (p. 136).

Ockelford (2008) clarifies that by setting selected phrases to characteristic snatches of melody, reinforced where appropriate with gestures, signs, symbols, or objects of reference, the consistent delivery of key messages is assured (p. 137). This proposition could be married with the aforementioned possibility, that it is the understanding of the appropriate juncture for each response that causes difficulty to those with intellectual disabilities. Were different occasions, topics, or responses set to melodies, the complicated structure of language may be more accessible and understandable. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this study, but provokes excitement and curiosity for further research.

It is necessary to acknowledge the single case nature of this study, and to be cautious in generalising findings across populations. However, I believe that the notion of considering and incorporating the identified learning profile of individuals with Down’s syndrome into the planning of musical interventions specifically for this group of individuals is an important development. There is a wealth of well-documented information available to us (Kumin, 1996, 2003; DSA UK Education Consortium, 2006; Lecas, Mazaud, Reibel & Rey, 2011), and I believe that we owe it to the individuals that we support to understand and take into account this knowledge. Evidence based practices benefit from sharing information and experience, and it is hoped that this study will provide inspiration for further application.

This study has confirmed my passion for my work, and has ignited enthusiasm in exploring alternative approaches and considerations. The critical auto-ethnographic nature of this study has empowered me to celebrate my successes in addition to reviewing and potentially adjusting some of my practices. G continues to be both my teacher and my inspiration.

References

Alvin, J. (1976), Music for the Handicapped Child, Oxford University Press, London

Ansdell, G. (1995), Music for Life: Aspects of Creative Music Therapy with Adult Clients, Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London

Atterbury, B. W. (1985), “Musical Differences in Learning Disabled Readers and Normal Achieving Readers, aged seven, eight and nine”, Psychology of Music, 13, 114-123

Bailey, J. (1985), “Music Structure and Human Movement” In Howell, P., Cross, I. & West, R. (Eds.), Musical Structure and Cognition, Academic Press: London, 237-258

Bernieri, F. J. & Rosenthal, R. (1991), “Interpersonal Co-ordination: Behaviour Matching and Interactional Synchrony”, In Feldman, R. S. & Rimé, B (Eds.), Fundamentals of Non-Verbal Behaviour, Cambridge University Press: Paris, 401-432

Blair, D. (2009), “Nurturing Music Learners in Mrs. Miller’s ‘Family Room’: A Secondary Classroom for Students with Special Needs”, Research Studies in Music Education, 31, 20-36

Bolduc, J. (2009), “Effects of a Music Programme on Kindergartners’ Phonological Awareness Skills”, International Journal of Music Education, 27, 37-47

Bower, A. & Hayes, A. (1994), “Short-term memory deficits and Down syndrome: A comparative study”, Down syndrome: Research and Practice, 2, 47–50

Broadley, I. & MacDonald J. (1993) “Teaching short-term memory skills to children with Down’s syndrome”, Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 1993, 1(2), 56-62

Brock, J. & Jarrold, C. (2005), “Serial order reconstruction in Down syndrome: Evidence for a selective deficit in verbal short-term memory”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 304–316

Buckley, S. & Bird, G. (1993), “Teaching Children with Down’s Syndrome to Read”, Down’s Syndrome Research and Practice, 1(1), 34-39

Bunt, L. (1994), Music Therapy: An Art Beyond Words, Routledge: London

Chamberlain, S. P. & Gallegos, J. (2006), “Judith A. Jellison: Music and Children with Special Needs”, Intervention in School and Clinic, 42, 46-50

Chan, A. S., Ho, Y. & Cheung, M. (1998), “Music Training Improves Verbal Memory”, Nature, 396, 128

Clibbens J. (2001), “Signing and Lexical Development in Children with Down Syndrome”, Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 7(3), 101-105

Cohen, A. & Rapport, N. (1995) Questions of Consciousness, London: Routledge.

Connners, F. A., Rosenquist, C. J. & Taylor, C. A. (2001), “Memory Training for Children with Down’s Syndrome”, Down’s Syndrome Research and Practice, 7(1), 25-33

Costa-Giomi, E. (2003), “Young Children’s Harmonic Perception”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 477-484

Cross, I. (2001), “Music, Cognition, Culture and Evolution”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 29-42

Cross, R. (2007). “Teaching Tom”, in Coll, H. & Finney, J. (Eds.), Ways Into Music – Making Every Child’s Music Matter, Matlock: The National Association of Music Educators, 54-56

Damer, L. K. (2001), “Students with Special Needs”, Music Educators Journal, 87, 17-18

Dobbs, J. P. B. (1966), The Slow Learner and Music: A Handbook for Teachers, Oxford University Press: London

Douglas, S. & Willatts, P. (1994), “The Relationship Between Musical Ability and Literacy Skills”, Journal of Research in Reading, 17(2), 99-107

DSA UK Education Consortium (2006), Children with Down’s Syndrome – Short-term Auditory Memory Information Sheet: Alton, S.

Duffy, L. A. & Wishart, J.G. (1994), “The Stability and Transferability of Errorless Learning in Children with Down’s Syndrome”, Down’s Syndrome Research and Practice, 2(2), 51-58

Gaser, C. & Schlaug, G. (2003), “Brain Structures Differ Between Musicians and Non-Musicians”, Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 9240-9245

Goodley, D. (2000), “Acting Out the Individual Programme Plan: Performance Arts and Innovative Social Policy for and by People with ‘Learning Difficulties’”, Critical Social Policy, 20, 503-532

Hallam, S. (2001), The Power of Music: A Study Commissioned by The Performing Right Society, PMRS: London

Hallam, S. (2005), “How to Advocate for Music: Personal Stories of Music Education and Advocacy: The Power of Music”, International Journal of Music Education, 23, 144-148

Hassler, M., Birbaumer, N. & Feil, A. (1985), “Musical Talent and Visual-Spatial Ability: A Longitudinal Study”, Psychology of Music, 13, 99-113

Hassold, T. J. & Patterson, D. (Eds.) (1999), Down Syndrome: A Promising Future, Together, John Wiley-Liss: New York

Hourigan, R. (2007), “Preparing Music Teachers to Teach Students with Special Needs”, Applications of Research in Music Education, 26, 5-13

Hourigan, R. (2009), “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Fieldwork Experiences in a Special Needs Classroom”, Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 152-168

Huang, Q. & Dodder, R. A. (2002), “Creating Therapy and Initiative Activities Among People with Developmental Disabilities in Public Facilities”, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13, 138-143

Huotilainen, M., Putkinen, V. & Tervaniemi, M. (2009), “Brain Research Reveals Automatic Musical Memory Functions in Children”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 178-181

Jaquiss, V. & Paterson. D. (2005), Meeting SEN in the Curriculum: Music, David Fulton Publishers: London

Jarrold, C. & Baddeley, A. D. (1997), “Short-term memory for verbal and visuo-spatial information in Down syndrome”, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 2, 101–122

Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D., & Hewes, A. K. (2000), “Verbal short-term memory deficits in Down syndrome: A consequence of problems in rehearsal?”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 233–244

Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D., & Hewes, A.K. (1999), “Genetically dissociated components of working memory: Evidence from Down’s and Williams syndrome”, Neuropsychologia, 37, 637–651

Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D. & Phillips, C. (1999), “Down syndrome and the phonological loop: The evidence for, and importance of, a specific verbal short-term memory deficit”, Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 6, 61–75

Jarrold, C., Purser, H.R.M. & Brock, J. (2006), “Short-term memory in Down syndrome”, In Alloway, T.P. & Gathercole, S.E. (Eds.), Working Memory and Neurodevelopmental Conditions, Hove: Psychology Press, 239–66

Jellison, J. A. (2000), “A Content Analysis of Music Research with Disabled Children and Youth (1975-1999)”, In AMTA (Ed.), Effectiveness of Music Therapy Procedures: Documentation of Research and Clinical Practice, The American Music Therapy Association: Silver Springs, MD, 199-264

Jellison, J. A. (2006b), “Including Everyone”, In McPherson, G. (Ed.), The Child as Musician, Oxford University Press: New York, 257-272

Karst, J. (1982), Clinical Issues and implications in creative arts therapy with retarded adults”, Pratt Institute Creative Arts Therapy Review, 1(1), 25-30

Kay-Raining Bird, E., Gaskell, A., Babineau, M., & MacDonald, S. (2000), “Novel word acquisition in children with Down syndrome: Does modality make a difference?”, Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 241–266

Kokas, K. (1969), “Psychological Testing in Hungarian Music Education”, Journal of Research in Music Education, 8, 125-134

Kouri, T. (1989) How manual sign acquisition relates to the development of spoken language: a case study, Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 20, 50-62

Kumin, L. (1996), “Speech and Language Skills in Children with Down’s Syndrome”, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 2, 109-115

Kumin, L. (2003), Early Communication Skills for Children with Down Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals (2nd ed.), Woodbine House: Bethesda

Lamb, S. J. & Gregory, A. H. (1993), “The Relationship Between Music and Reading in Beginner Readers”, Educational Psychology, 13(1), 19-27

Layton, T., & Savino, M. (1990), “Acquiring a communication system by sign and speech in a child with Down syndrome: A longitudinal investigation”, Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 6, 59-76

Lecas, J. F., Mazaud, A. M., Reibel, E. & Rey, A. (2011), “Using Visual Strategies to Support Verbal Comprehension in an Adolescent with Down’s Syndrome”, Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27(1), 84-96

Lee, C. (2000), “A Method of Analyzing Improvisations in Music Therapy”, Journal of Music Therapy, 37(2), 147-167

Lefevre, M. (2004), “Playing with Sound: The Therapeutic Use of Music in Direct Work with Children”, Child and Family Social Work, 9, 333-345

Lubet, A. (2009), “Disability, Music Education and the Epistemology of Interdisciplinarity”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(1), 119-132

Mackenzie, S. & Hulme, C. (1987), “Memory span development in Down syndrome, severely subnormal and typical subjects”, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 4, 303–319

Marcell, M. M. & Armstrong, V. (1982), “Auditory and visual sequential memory of Down syndrome and nonretarded children”, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 86–95

Marcell, M. M. & Weeks, S. L. (1988), “Short-term memory difficulties and Down syndrome”, Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 32, 153–162

Martin G., Klusek, J., Estigarribia, B. & Roberts, J. E. (2009), “Language Characteristics of Individuals with Down’s Syndrome”, Topics in Language Disorders, 29(2), 112 - 132

Matheson, C., Olsen, R. J. & Weisner, T. (2007), “A Good Friend is Hard to Find: Friendship Among Adolescents with Disabilities”, American Journal on Mental Retardation, 112(5), 319-329

McCord, K. (2001), “Music Software for Special Needs: Music Educators Faced with Adapting their Instruction for Children with Special Needs Can Find Tools in Computer Software”, Music Educators Journal, 87, 17-18

McMahon, O. (1979), “The Relationship of Music Discrimination Training to Reading and Associated Auditory Skills”, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 59, 68-72

McPherson, G. E. & Zimmermann, B. J. (2002), “Self Regulation of Musical Learning: A Social Cognitive Perspective”, In Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, Oxford University Press: Oxford

Moran, N. (2001). “Music, Bodies and Relationships: An Ethnographic Contribution to Embodied Cognition Studies”, Psychology of Music Online First, 1-13

Nordoff, P. & Robbins, C., Creative Music Therapy – Individualized Treatment for the Handicapped Child, The John Day Company, New York, 1977

Nordoff, P. & Robbins, C., Music Therapy in Special Education, MacDonald and Evans Limited, London, 1975

Nordoff, P. & Robbins, C., Therapy in Music for Handicapped Children, Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, 1973

Ockelford, A. (2000), “Music in the Education of Children with Severe or Profound Learning Difficulties: Issues in Current U.K. Provision, A New Conceptual Framework, and Proposals for Research”, Psychology of Music, 28, 197-217

Ockelford, A. (2006), “Implication and Expectation in Music: A Zygonic Model”, Psychology of Music, 34, 81-142

Ockelford, A. (2008), Music for Children and Young People with Complex Needs, Oxford University Press: Oxford

Ockelford, A., Welch, G. F. & Zimmermann, S. A. (2002), “Music Education for Pupils with Severe or Profound and Multiple Difficulties – Current Provision and Future Need”, British Journal of Special Education, 29(4), 197-217

Overy, K., Norton, A., Cronin, K., Winner, E. & Schlaug, G. (2005), “Examining Rhythm and Melody Processing in Young Children Using fMRI”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 210-218

Paterson, A. & Zimmermann, S. (Eds.) (2006), No Need For Words – Special Needs in Music Education, National Association of Music Educators: Matlock

Pavlicevic, M. (2000), “Improvisation in Music Therapy: Human Communication in Sound”, Journal of Music Therapy, 37(4), 269-285

Piaget, J. (1969), The Child’s Conception of Time (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.), Routledge & Kegan Paul: London

Pickard, B. (2009), “Music and Down’s Syndrome” (Unpublished undergraduate dissertation), Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama: Cardiff, Wales.

Pink, S. (2001). Doing Visual Ethnography, London: Sage.

Portowitz, A. & Klein, P. S. (2007), “MISC-MUSIC: A Music Programme to Enhance Cognitive Processing Among Children with Learning Difficulties”, International Journal of Music Education, 25, 259-271

Portowitz, A., Lichtenstein, O., Egorova, L. & Brand, E. (2009), “Underlying Mechanisms Linking Music Education and Cognitive Modifiability”, Research Studies in Music Education, 31, 107-128

Purser, H. R. M., & Jarrold, C. (2005), “Impaired verbal short-term memory in down syndrome reflects a capacity limitation rather than atypically rapid forgetting”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 1–23

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2001), Planning, Teaching and Assessing the Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties, QCA: London

Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L. & Ky, K. N. (1993), “Music and Spatial Task Performance”, Nature, 365, 611

Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., Levine, L., Wright, E. L., Dennis, W. & Newcomb, R. (1997), “Music Training Causes Long-Term Enhancement of Preschool Children’s Spatial Temporal Reasoning”, Neurological Research, 19, 2-8

Rudd, E. (2008), “Music Therapy: Increasing Possibilities for Action”, Music and Arts in Action, 1(1), 46-60

Ruggeri, S. M. (2003), “Passionate Devotion: A Study of Aesthetic Learning Among Amateurs, in Four Movements”, Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(9A), 3162

Schellenberg, E. G. (2005), “Music and Cognitive Abilities”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 317-320

Schlaug, G., Jäncke, L., Huang, Y. et al (1995), “Increased Corpus Callosum Size in Musicians”, Neuropsychologia, 33, 1047-1055

Schlaug, G., Norton, A., Overy, K. & Winner, E. (2005), “Effects of Music Training on the Child’s Brain and Cognitive Development”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 219-230

Schneider, P., Scherg, M. & Dosch, H. G. et al (2002), “Morphology of Heschl’s Gyrus Reflects Enhanced Activation in the Auditory Cortex of Musicians”, Nature Neuroscience, 5, 688-694

Selikowitz, M. (1997), Down Syndrome: The Facts (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press: New York

Shahin, A., Roberts, L. E. & Trainor, L. J. (2004), “Enhancement of Auditory Cortical Development by Musical Experience in Children”, NeuroReport, 15, p. 1917-1921

Standley, J. M. & Hughes, J. E. (1997), “Evaluation of and Early Intervention Music Curriculum for Enhancing Prereading/Writing Skills”, Music Therapy Perspectives, 15, 79-85

Standley, J. M. (2008), “Does Music Instruction Help Children Learn to Read? – Evidence of Meta-Analysis”, Update: Application of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 17-32

Streeter, E. (1993), Making Music with the Young Child with Special Needs: A Guide for Parents, Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London

The National Assembly for Wales (2000), Music in the National Curriculum in Wales, Cardiff, Wales: NAW

Trainor, L. J. (2005), “Are There Critical Periods for Music Development?”, Developmental Psychobiology, 46, 262-278

Trainor, L. J., Shahin, A. & Roberts, L. E. (2003), “Effects of Musical Training on the Auditory Cortex in Children”, In Avanzini, G., Faienze, C., Miciacchi, D., Lopez, L. & Majno, M. (Eds.), The Neurosciences and Music: Mutual Interactions and Implications of Developmental Functions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 506-513

Trainor, L. J., Shahin, A. J. & Roberts, L. E. (2009), “Understanding the Benefits of Musical Training: Effects on Oscillatory Brain Activity”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 133-142

Uzzell, D. (2000). “Ethnographic and Action Research”, In Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S. & Fife- Schaw, C. (Eds.), Research Methods in Psychology (2nd Ed.), London: Sage.

Van Weelden, K. (2007), “Music for the Forgotten: Creating a Secondary General Music Experience for Students with Special Needs”, General Music Today, 26(1), 26-29

Vaughn, K. (2000), “Music and Mathematics: Modest Support for the Oft-claimed Relationship”, The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 149-166

Welch, G., Ockelford, A., Carter, F., Zimmermann, S. & Himonides, E. (2009), “‘Sounds of Intent’: Mapping Musical Behaviour and Development in Children and Young People with Complex Needs”, Psychology of Music, 37, 348-370

Wishart, J.G. & Duffy, L. A. (1990), “Instability on Cognitive Tests in Children with Down’s Syndrome”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 10-22

Appendix 1 – Comprehensive Discussion of Music Sessions with G

Private music lessons between G and I were initiated by G’s parents, with the aspiration of developing and building upon G’s passion for and fondness of music. G was sixteen years of age when the sessions and the research began, and was seventeen years of age upon completion of data collection. Music sessions between G and I are ongoing. G has a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, intellectual disability and a visual impairment, and he attends a local special school.

Our music sessions take place for forty-five minutes, once a week, in G’s home. G greets me on the doorstep without fail and we take our session into the living room where G faithfully occupies his favourite chair.

We begin our session with a brief conversation about our respective weeks and I ask G how his day in school has been, before turning our attention to the box of instruments I bring with me each week. I begin with my flute which is my principal instrument. G is invited to select an instrument from the box to commence his improvisation with, but as is discussed in a previous chapter, G often chooses to explore each instrument in the box before making his selection. In these instances G takes each instrument from the box in turn, listening to its timbre and naming it before placing it down before him.

When G was ready, he would select an instrument to play and we would begin to improvise. In initial sessions, I would begin to play first, and encourage G’s participation by creating opportunities for G to play, supporting his contributions with my melodies and accompaniment, and acknowledging and celebrating his involvement. Should G not wish to actively participate, listening was appreciated and reinforced as a valid choice. Once this preliminary format was established, G was able to take the lead and start improvisations himself.

I would particularly enjoy the occasions when G led an improvisation as I felt more secure in the knowledge that G was expressing his true mood or feeling at that moment than an imitation or development of a theme I had introduced. G would giggle and laugh as I imitated figures of his improvisation, or provided playful answers to his melodic or rhythmic questions. If I were leading partner, I took inspiration either from G’s mood as far as I was able to interpret before we played, the character of the instrument, or a subject we had discussed in our brief chat at the outset of the session. We also had some staple melodies that became familiar to us and provided a starting point for further improvisation. This activity was repeated on up to three instrument of G’s choice, but G was usually ready to move on after choosing and playing two instruments.

I would ask G what he would like to proceed with next and he would generally choose the “drums” (djembe drums) where we would do some work on rhythmic motifs and notation. This element of the session evolved greatly during the length

university of wales, newport€¦ · web viewr.6 makes music expressively with another or others,...

Documents