Pedagogy Interest Group Meeting
Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society
Washington, DC
28 October 2005

In Attendance:

Matt Baumer, James Briscoe, J. Peter Burkholder, Tony Bushard, Julia Chybowski, Mark Clague, Alice Clark, Jim Davis, Patrick Fairfield , Jessie Fillerup, chair; Karen S. Henry, Sarah Carleton Latta, Janel Long, Katrina Mitchell, Mary Natvig, Peter Poulos, David Schiller, Amanda Sewell, John Snyder, Vicki Stroeher, Patrick Warfield , and Jamie Younkin

Minutes:

Peter B. opened the meeting at 1:04 with a welcome that highlighted the importance of pedagogy in the field of music history. Mary's book Teaching Music History was mentioned along with its timeliness and the lacuna that exists in music history pedagogy.

Jessie began by stating some overall purposes for the meeting: assessing the need for the group, its growth, and actions for the future. She stressed that participation would be the key to the success of the meeting and to the group itself.

She then opened the floor up for comments on the current state of pedagogy for music history.

Patrick F. and John both commented that, given their experience in theory, they found that history did not supply the "hands on" opportunities that theory does and that this is something to be addressed when teaching history.

Matt asked if this issue of teaching was important to AMS. Peter B. responded that twenty years ago it was, but not now. (It was mentioned earlier that teaching tapes kept coming up as a topic on the AMS list, but no action was thought to have been taken.) Peter B. went on to say that right now the AMS is about research and suggested an emphasis on the "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning."

Alice next mentioned the "drive toward assessment issues" and how this group might address the task of "learning outcomes," as it is worded in many assessment documents. She also commented on on-line teaching, how it is different than classroom teaching, and stated that the group might eventually address a need such as this.

Jim B. commented that a call for papers might begin to focus on some of the interests mentioned. John referred to a paper he presented on how one might teach. He stated that it faced some indifference from the faculty in attendance; however, the graduate students "wrote like fiends."

Jessie then called on Mary to make a statement about Teaching Music History Day recently held at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Mary stated that the day was a success with a summary of Peter B.'s talk, panel discussions on various aspects of pedagogy, and the presentation of five papers on pedagogical issues. Everyone in attendance at the current meeting was encouraged to consider attending next year.

The next item on the agenda was the discussion of the purposes for forming the pedagogy interest group. Vicki commented that some schools put the emphasis on teaching and that the research component then falls into place. Peter B. affirmed with the comment, "It's what we do." Jessie pointed out that a list (on-line) for pedagogy would need to be practical. As it is, the list available highlights more of a philosophical discussion. She also mentioned that an archived list would be most useful.

Jim B. pointed out that we must be mindful of how we are assessed--by student evaluation. Mary mentioned the need for a "scholarship of assessment."

Peter B. then recalled a book he had read about teaching objectives entitled Preparing Instructional Objectives by Robert F. Mager. He quoted a line from the book which maintained that if you can not fill in the blank with, "Hey, Dad, watch me __________.", then it is not a teachable objective.

Alice then stated that AMS can help change this discourse and possibly influence the evaluation of teaching. It can emphasize the importance of not using student evaluation as data on its own. Peter B. responded by mentioning the importance of watching others teach and how reluctant most are to do that, neither are they willing to allow themselves to be observed. Patrick F. suggested exchanging syllabi with those who are not willing to observe or be observed. Jessie stated the need to understand the language used for accreditation and evaluation, as this is becoming a more involved process.

Jim B. then passed around a flyer for the College Music Society's Institute for Music History Pedagogy to be held June 8-10, 2006 at Butler University in Indianapolis. The flyer contained a list of three day's worth of presentations and performances concerning teaching strategies, repertoires, technologies, and textbooks. More information can be found at the CMS website www.music.org on the Calendar of Events.

Jessie suggested that a future endeavor could be a scholarly journal for the pedagogy of music history much like the one for the pedagogy of music theory, possibly 10-15 years down the road. Jim B. asked if the journal might feasibly be an on-line journal. Jessie said that was negotiable.

Mary suggested that the papers from Teaching Music History Day would be a good place to start, but that anyone speaking on pedagogy could submit for possible acceptance. She also suggested possibly hooking up with the AMS website.

The last item of business was actions for the upcoming year. Jessie mentioned the need to draft a letter to the AMS board seeking formal recognition and to write a mission statement. Peter B. suggested that we ask for permission to form as a study group and relay the purposes for which we are forming. He also mentioned that we should be in the process of writing by-laws at the time of this letter. He then suggested following the model of the LGBTQ Study Group in that they had been lauded by the AMS board for taking the right steps in forming their group.

It was decided to aim for a session at the 2006 meeting in Los Angeles, and at least have a business meeting. Jamie suggested the possibility of a round table discussion. Tony suggested doing something with the Committee on Career-Related Issues. Jim D., a member of CCRI who has agreed to facilitate communication between our group and CCRI, responded affirmatively. Peter B. noted that although our emphasis is different from CCRI, there is much common ground.

Mark suggested an evening session; Alice agreed as it would be less formal.

Patrick F. volunteered his expertise as a website engineer for the group.

Jessie then asked for volunteers for two committees. On the committee to draft the letter requesting formal recognition as well as the mission statement are Jim B., Alice, and Peter B. The committee addressing the 2006 session is made up of Matt, Vicki, and Patrick W. Jim B. ended with a few last comments on the Institute for Music History Pedagogy and commented that there will be a film to circulate.

The meeting adjourned at 1:47 with plans to meet again at the next AMS Annual Meeting to be held 2-5 November, 2006 in Los Angeles, CA.

Respectfully submitted,
Katrina Mitchell