I was excited to read Denise's column on music therapy literature in music therapy education. As a new music therapy educator, I feel fortunate to have a plethora of resources from which to choose.
I teach at an undergraduate music therapy program with students of greatly varying ages, educational backgrounds, and life experiences. I, like Denise, believe strongly in providing exposure to all aspects of music therapy so that my students can make informed choices as to the theory and practice that best fits their belief system. This can be quite a challenging task, given I have my own preconceived beliefs about music therapy. I make a conscious effort to provide varying viewpoints for discussion.
For my Introduction to Music Therapy Courses (Foundations and Populations), I use Bruscia's Defining Music Therapy, Davis, Gfeller, and Thaut's Introduction to Music Therapy: Theory and Practice, and Pavlicevic's Music Therapy: Intimate Notes. I match the case studies in Pavlicevic's book with the chapters in the Davis, Gfeller, and Thaut book; the students really enjoyed the connections.
As for the Clinical Skills courses (Structured Music and Improvisational Music), I use course packs of research articles, practical articles, and conference handouts. I have not found a specific text for either class.
My next challenge is my advanced techniques classes this Fall (Music Therapy with Children and Music Therapy Principles). My plan is to construct the Music Therapy with Children class like the Music Therapy Treatment Process. We will start with Assessment (examine different assessment techniques, examine child diagnoses in the DSM), move on to Treatment Planning, Specific Music Therapy Techniques, and then discuss Evaluation, Termination, and Closure. I think the overriding metaphor of the Music Therapy Treatment Process in learning will serve the students well.
I can certainly appreciate Stephen's comments regarding Denise Grocke's column on Music Therapy Literature. What I think needs to be addressed, at least in terms of music therapy in the United States, is that undergraduate and graduate education are two very different "beasts." Stephen's response was well-thought and presented, showing his level of education (current graduate student) and perhaps his life experience and knowledge about the therapeutic process. I think undergraduate education presents a few more challenges.
As I was preparing to take on my first teaching position as an undergraduate educator in music therapy, I imagined my efforts in providing a eclectic, well-rounded experience for my students - one in which they would be exposed to and informed on a variety of music therapy philosophies and approaches. My hope was that they could then look inward and create their own belief system based on what I had given them and what they believed. I truly believe an educator's job is to facilitate the inner learning process.
What I found is that many undergraduate students do not yet have a sense of themselves, their place in the world, etc., and to ask them to formulate their belief system about music and music therapy is quite a challenge, if not nearly impossible. I feel that developmentally, graduate students have an easier time formulating such beliefs. I believe it comes down to life experience - you could have an undergraduate student who is older, with more life experience, who knows him/herself well and can grasp the theories at hand and align with them. Most often, I find that young undergraduates are still learning about themselves and have a hard time learning about what it takes to provide emotional support, etc. for someone else.
We do not send out bachelor's level counselors, social workers, or therapists and ask them to do the work that music therapy often requires. I wonder often if we are selling ourselves short when we do not require a Master's degree minimum for clinical practice.
I know that this will raise eyebrows and turn stomachs for some, as this is a constant area of disagreement for many music therapists in the United States. As an educator, I feel it is my duty to challenge the past, and look to the future. I have the great job of facilitating the education of hungry students - it's a challenge to provide them with as diverse experiences as possible so to prepare them for a myriad of challenges when they leave in only four years.
I hope my students will be well-informed, self-knowledgeable therapists who are ready and willing to provide the best music therapy services possible. I foster this through exposing them through a variety of readings, experience, and viewpoints, and by challenging them to critically examine past and present music therapy practices. I know I'm not alone in this endeavor. My concern is that what we currently provide is not enough for what our world needs and requires.
Posted on the walls of the Boston-based high-tech company at which I am employed, a laundry list of "selling solutions" punctually prompts the personnel passing by to be ever-mindful of the ways to both satisfy existing customers, and secure new accounts. Among ten numerically bulleted items, the seventh solution reads: "Diagnose before you prescribe".
In her column, Denise Grocke reveals that she chooses "to be eclectic - to incorporate a range of styles and methods that enable a music therapy graduate to be adaptable and flexible in their approach to clinical work." This pronouncement naturally raises the question: How broad and how eclectic need be a music therapy scholarly curriculum? For years, the field of music therapy was eager for additional paradigmatic texts from which to further define itself. At present, the discipline has been rendered so variegated that students could not possibly peruse all such related literature in an introductory course. Grocke asserts that "the literature is highly influential," and while this is certainly accurate, ambiguities increasingly arise when such an array of vastly dissimilar methods are foisted upon unsuspecting students in such a fleeting period of time.
Neil Postman once wrote, "The big issue we need to face is information glut. We are in a situation where there is so much information available from so many different sources.that we have a problem." In my estimation, this assertion is exceedingly true and raises two important questions. When music therapists work with an increasingly diverse clientele, many of whom will not respond to the most ubiquitous methodologies, what information is truly relevant in the immediacy of the music therapy session? When prescriptions have been hastily insinuated before an exhaustive diagnosis has been completed, or when all hell breaks loose and chaos ensues, how will the therapist's years of training influence an apposite instantaneous response?
To echo the well-worn yet accurate axiom, the medium is the message. Grocke is entirely correct in asserting that "what we include on the reading lists, and what we exclude from the reading lists, have an impact on the way in which students conceptualize the profession of music therapy and how they practice it." This undertaking is largely subjective and primarily informed by the beliefs and opinions of the instructor. Yet what students need the most - as keen, independently-minded individuals, are both the voice to challenge established theories and the freedom to integrate alternative ideas and multifarious literature into the discipline of music therapy. Students would be best served by being encouraged to look internally for a clear diagnosis of their own values and beliefs - and then seek out a diverse range of literature from any number of genres which may foster the furtherance of that unique vision. In conjunction with a mentor's instruction and supervision, this combination could yield powerful results in equipping students to generate fresh, innovative prescriptions - which reflect their distinguishing strengths, and their deepest values.
Ms. Grocke has presented a timely and very interesting question of direct relevance to my current situation. After reading the responses to date, however, I recognize that I am coming from a slightly different perspective as an instructor of an "introductory" course in music therapy to music majors at a local college. This course is a stand-alone elective, as there is not presently a training program at this college. Hence, my consideration of what to include and exclude is not impacted by the knowledge/crossover effect of any other music therapy courses which the students may be taking concurrently, or will be taking in the future. I have also had the opportunity to teach a much shorter (12 hours), less comprehensive, introductory course at a local community college, through their Arts Outreach program.
My selection of a textbook for began last May. I had the opportunity to review Music Therapy by Jacqueline Peters, (2nd Ed.); and An Introduction to Music Therapy, by Davis, Gfeller and Thaut (2nd Ed.). (I have since reviewed A Comprehensive Guide to Music Therapy by Wigram, Pedersen and Bonde). The reasons for selecting the text I chose were three-fold. First, I wanted to provide students with a text which was published within the last five years, and which provided them with a well-rounded body of information concerning the profession and practice of music therapy. The Davis, Gfeller, and Thaut text presented its contents in a straightforward and attractive (typesetting, layout, etc.) format and did not appear overly biased towards one theoretical orientation or another. Secondly, the inclusion of "study questions" at the end of each chapter also helped in the development of test and examination materials. The authors' influence within the field of music was a third and final consideration based on my own graduate training in music therapy, a Masters of Music Therapy, and ongoing review of music therapy literature for professional purposes.
In addition to the text, I chose supplemental materials (journal articles and videos), based on their ability to provide students with exposure to a wide range of pedagogical and theoretical orientations, as well as a diverse geographical scope. Included were materials from the Nordoff and Robbins approach, Analytical Music Therapy, Bruscia's text on Improvisational music therapy techniques, Rehabilitation and medical settings (Thaut's "Gait Training" video, NAMT/AMTA's "Medical Partnerships" video); the Mozart effect, materials from North America, Europe, and Australia; and electronic resources such as the Voices e-magazine and various web resources/sites. In particular, I supplemented the chapter on "Medical Music Therapy", including information pertaining to pre-birth/womb musical experiences, labour and delivery and developmental aspects of music with premature and healthy infants. Similarily, I supplemented the "History of Music Therapy", including information on the development of music therapy in Canada, using Maranto's International Perspectives and professional discussions and correspondence with my fellow music therapists. The only chapter which I failed to utilize and/or supplement in the text was "Music Therapy in Correctional Settings".
I feel strongly that students should also have an opportunity to experience a variety of music therapy techniques, within the ethical and knowledge based limitations of my professional abilities. Hence, I did not include a GIM or biofeedback experiential component. I did, however, include experiential sessions involving: improvisational techniques, music listening/lyric analysis, song-writing, music and movement/dance, and culturally-based music therapy interventions (materials in French, drumming, and native American spiritual beliefs and activities).
Finally, I felt compelled to "prove" the growth and establishment of the profession of music therapy. Why is this something many of us still feel compelled to do? or, perhaps a better question is: Will we ever get to a point where our professional contributions to the health and well-being of our clients will be a "given"?. In preparing for this course, I was excited and somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of material available pertaining to the practice of music therapy. Hence, students were assigned a bibliographic reference search assignment in which they were to focus on a particular area of practice or topic. In doing so, I hoped to convey a sense of a developing, but established profession and perhaps, increase their "interest" in pursing a career in music therapy. The outcome of this assignment was a mixture of disappointment and clarity. Why? Students in their second year of college did not seem to be able to locate and/or identify materials, utilizing the electronic and printed materials at their disposal. (The only restrictions I placed on the assignment were: sources less than five years old and no more than fifty individual references). Perhaps I am naive in thinking that had these students been in a psychology or "science" type program, the result would have been very different. It also provided insight and clarity with respect to our professional appearance. Several students inquired as "Why were so many of the articles written by nurses and other non-music therapists?" and "Why haven't some of the criticisms made by non-music therapists concerning music therapist's research protocols and sample sizes been addressed by current music therapists who are contributing to the research literature?" While I was able to provide some insight regarding these questions, some of the same questions came to mind, personally, while I was preparing for the course and professionally as a pondered my own lack of contribution to the music therapy literature!
I look forward to reading the ongoing contributions to this discussion question and I would be happy to provide a more detailed list of the materials utilized in the long course to anyone who is interested. I may be contacted via e-mail: jlmt@telus.net or by traditional mail: 11238 - 55 Street, Edmonton, AB CANADA, T5W 3P4/Ph: (780) 406-6948.
I am also a new music therapy educator (this is my third year) and the issue of what literature to use in my courses is something I struggle with each semester. I try to provide different music therapy ideologies and perspectives in my training while trying not to confuse music therapy students. The amount of music therapy literature that has emerged in the past several years is exciting, but also overwhelming. I often find that after I have chosen my texts/articles for a course, I ultimately add readings throughout the semester because of a new journal or book that has appeared.
I teach at a small liberal arts women's college that draws students with some very limited life experiences, as well as older non-traditional students with vast life experience. My students ask me about my own beliefs and ideology in regard to music therapy and I try to differentiate what my ideology is versus what other theories are available to students.
In our Music as Therapy (Intro) course, my colleague uses Bruscia's Defining Music Therapy book and the Davis, Gfeller & Thaut, An Introduction to Music Therapy book. For Clinical Skills I: Exceptionalities and Clinical Skills II: Rehabilitation, I draw information from several books throughout the year: Edith Boxill's Music Therapy for the Developmentally Disabled, Brian Wilson (ed.)'s book Models of Music Therapy Interventions in School Settings. I also have drawn from Jayne Standley's Music Techniques in Therapy, Counseling and Special Education (as a resource for students when leading applications in class), Tony Wigram and Jos De Backer (eds.) book Clinical Applications of Music Therapy in Developmental Disability, Paediatrics and Neurology , Michel and Jones' book Music for Developing Speech and Language Skills in Children: A Guide for Parents and Therapists, Berger's book, Music Therapy, Sensory Integration and the Autistic Child , Alicia Clair's book, Therapeutic Use of Music with Older Adults and other journal articles and chapters.
I teach a Therapeutic Improvisation course, but time constraints do not allow an in-depth exploration. I do use Bruscia's Improvisational Models of Music Therapy to introduce the different models and the students do get more background in Nordoff-Robbins' approach from my colleague, Tracy Richardson. Students spend more time in this class trying to develop the music skills needed to effectively develop improvisation skills in therapy.
For the Therapeutic Processes course, which is primarily addressing documentation skills and learning about the structure of music therapy process, I began to use Kristin Cole's (Chase) new book The Music Therapy Assessment Handbook and found it was easy for my students to read and assimilate information. I also use Suzanne Hanser's book The New Music Therapist's Handbook and various chapters and articles.
Throughout the course work, I find it extremely challenging to not bias students with my own belief systems and approach. I do believe they benefit from any modeling I can provide and by hearing my own ideology. My hope is that by also increasing their awareness of other approaches and models, they can eventually begin to develop their own belief system in music therapy. I find it interesting that some students immediately gravitate toward a particular model or approach, while others continue searching/changing long after they have graduated.