Federal Funding of Arts Education Research: Round 3

Here's the follow-up email I sent earlier today to the US Department of Education, in response to their response of June 9th to my policy inquiry of May 19th.

Basically, I just ask the same questions over again, after pointing out how their initial response was, er, unresponsive. I also suggest that perhaps the new head of the DoEd's Institute for Education Science (IES) – whose appointment had not yet been confirmed, nor term begun, when I sent my first inquiry – would be the best person to answer the questions, since the research funding programs are administered by the IES.

I await the IES' response.

------------------------------

From: Jim Plamondon [mailto:jim@igetitmusic.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:17 PM
To: 'Harvey, Edith'; 'Easton, John'
Cc: 'Geddes, Claire'; 'Jonathan Levy'; 'Ruth Clark'; 'Tom Rudolph'; 'Wendy Free'; 'Michael McCaul'; 'Kay Bailey Hutchison'; 'John Cornyn'
Subject: RE: US Department of Education response to your inquiry

Dear Ms. Harvey,

I appreciate your response of 9th June (below) to my email of 19th May to Secretary Duncan, in which I inquired as to whether the Department of Education would continue the Bush-era policy of excluding arts education research from receiving funding from the DoEd’s research grant programs.

I would have appreciated your response even more if it had answered the questions that I had asked. ;-)

In your response, you stated that “The Institute of Education Sciences oversees the research initiatives you inquire about. Their website can be found at the following address: http://ies.ed.gov.”

I appreciate your bringing this information to my attention, although my initial email (appended below)
(a) mentioned the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and its relevant research funding programs by name;
(a) included links to IES website’s relevant web pages; and
(b) was copied to the IES staff member (Dr. Jonathan Levy) who administers those research grant programs.

[Jim: yes, I really did number these items a, a, & b – rather than a, b, & c – which I noticed only after I had sent the email.]

In your response, you stated that “The Department of Education funds several arts education grant programs.”

The only such arts-related program mentioned on DoEd’s website as receiving DoEd grant funding is its Arts in Education outreach program, of which, according to this web page, you are the overseer. Thank you for helping this outreach program, which is described on that web page as seeking to “encourage the involvement of, and foster greater awareness of the need for, arts programs for persons with disabilities.” While this is indeed a worthy program, which I heartily support, it is an outreach program, and my initial inquiry was focused specifically on *research* funding, not outreach funding. If the DoEd funds any arts education *research* programs, I would welcome hearing about them.

With arts education poised to bear the brunt of crisis-driven state and local school budget cuts, research into new means of significantly increasing the educational efficiency of arts instruction – thus giving it more bang for the buck – could not be more timely. This is particularly true, given that the percentage of the US economy that is driven by arts-based creative industries is high and rising. Unfortunately, the IES’ website states clearly that research funding is available only for research into “reading, writing, mathematics, or science” – a list which clearly excludes research into arts education per se.

For your convenience, I will re-state the questions I asked in my initial email:
1. Is it the official policy of the IES, under the Obama Administration, to continue to exclude arts education research from funding under the IES’ Education Technology research initiative?
2. Is it the official policy of the IES, under the Obama Administration, to continue to exclude arts education research from funding under the IES’ Cognition and Student Learning research initiative?
3. If the answer to either or both of the above questions is “yes,” then what change in circumstances would need to be effected in order to make those answers “yes" [Jim: should have been "no" – another typo/error] and what chain of events would be required to bring about that ultimate change in circumstances?

Perhaps these questions could be best answered by the IES’ new Director, Dr. John Q. Easton (whose appointment was confirmed, and whose term began, after I sent my initial enquiry on May 19th). I have taken the liberty of copying Dr. Easton’s presumed email address, John.Easton@ed.gov, on the “to-line” of this message. If this is not his actual email address, I would appreciate your forwarding it to him accordingly.

Respectfully Yours,

Jim Plamondon
Austin, Texas

Federal Research Funding for Arts Education

Earlier today, I sent the following email to Arne Duncan, the head of the US Department of Education.

-------------------------------------

From: Jim Plamondon
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:59 PM
To: 'Arne Duncan'
Cc: 'Jonathan Levy'; 'Ruth Clark'; 'Tom Rudolph'; 'Wendy Free'; 'Michael McCaul'; 'Kay Bailey Hutchison'; 'John Cornyn'
Subject: Research Funding for Arts Education

Dear Mr. Duncan,

Is it the official policy of the Department of Education to continue to exclude arts education from its research initiatives?
I have copied Dr. Jonathan Levy, Program Officer for the Institute for Educational Sciences’ research programs into Education Technology and Cognition and Student Learning, on this email. According to the IES’ website, these programs remain focused – as they were under the Bush Administration – exclusively on “reading, writing, mathematics, or science,” thereby implicitly excluding the arts from any research funding.

I have also taken the liberty of copying my federal representatives – Michael McCaul, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and John Cornyn – so that they can be advised of this issue and, hopefully, its resolution.

I raise this question because I am aware of an innovation which has the potential to significantly increase the efficiency of music education in the K-12 environment, thereby reducing costs while maintaining quality. The potential impact of the ideas underlying the innovation may have application to the STEM domains (Science, Technology, Engineering, and mathematics) currently targeted by the Department of Education’s research efforts. However, the test-case for these ideas is arts-focused, and hence, apparently, barred from consideration for the Department’s relevant research programs, including the IES’ Education Technology Program and the IES’s Cognition and Student Learning programs, which I will now discuss individually.

IES: Education Technology
Is it the official policy of the IES, under the Obama Administration, to continue to exclude arts education technology from the IES’ Education Technology research initiatives?

Please allow me to suggest that this would be a significant oversight, for five reasons:
1. The arts appear to be bearing the brunt of state and local school budget cutbacks resulting from the current, ongoing economic crisis.
2. This places at risk the growth of the USA’s Creative Economy, which has been shown to be an important source of GDP growth and export revenue in recent decades.
3. Whereas music educators might not previously been willing to consider any changes to the technology of music education, the current crisis – which is putting their very livelihoods at risk – could make them more amenable to change. If positive change is the objective, now is a moment of great opportunity.
4. There exists at least one arts education technology, here in the USA, that has the potential to significantly increase the efficiency of music education (see this paper: www.igetitmusic.com/papers/JIMS.pdf). If the potential of “JIMS” is borne out by research, then it could reduce the cost of music education by half, or more. This is exactly the kind of dramatic efficiency improvement that cash-strapped American schools desperately need.
5. In addition to reducing the cost of music education, the development of efficiency-improving arts technologies here in the USA can also drive the emergence of a new high-tech American export industry, thereby saving and creating American jobs.

There is not yet any solid proof that JIMS (or other JIMS-like arts education technologies) can indeed deliver efficiency improvements of this magnitude. At present, JIMS is just a “thought experiment.” However, there is a strong possibility that such benefits are possible.

I have taken the liberty of copying two experts in arts education – TI:ME’s Tom Rudolph and the College Board’s Wendy Free – who can attest to the potential benefits of JIMS-like systems. Determining whether this potential can be borne out in practice will require research – exactly the kind of research that the IES exists to fund…if, that is, the IES’ guidelines did not prohibit its funding research into arts education technology.

However, the broader question is not about JIMS, but rather is whether or not the IES will continue, under the Obama Administration, to exclude arts education technology from its Education Technology research funding program. JIMS is just one example of the kind of arts education technology that is being excluded from funding as a result of this inherited policy decision.

IES: Cognition and Student Learning
Likewise, is it the official policy of the IES, under the Obama Administration, to continue to exclude arts education technology from the IES’ Cognition and Student Learning research initiatives?

Please allow me to suggest that this would be a significant oversight. As an expert in the field of educational cognition, you are doubtless familiar with Cognitive Load Theory, which divides cognitive load into intrinsic, extraneous, and germane categories. An American expert on cognitive load theory, Ruth Clark (copied), co-author of Efficiency in Learning, has agreed in principle that “notational load” may be an important component of a subject’s “extraneous load,” and that by reducing the notational load of a given subject, its educational efficiency could be improved. (See the brief discussion of notational load appended below.) JIMS provides one example, in principle only (given that its efficiency benefits have not yet been proven by research), of how the seemingly-intrinsic load of an apparently-complex subject can be exposed as actually being extraneous by reducing its notational load.

Furthermore, past examples of improvements to notation have not only increased educational efficiency, but also enabled new discoveries that were literally “inconceivable” without the new notation. JIMS exhibits this potential also, through its enabling of the recent discovery of Dynamic Tonality.

Should JIMS prove to be effective at increasing the efficiency of music education, then much of the credit will go to its reduction of notational load. This would be an important result, with potential impact not only on the arts, but also on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These domains might see similar educational efficiency gains and new discoveries – discoveries that can save and create American jobs, increase American exports, and improve America’s quality of life…but only if the impact of “notational load” can be proven, which will require research currently blocked by the Department’s funding policies.

Conclusion
As the originator of JIMS, I obviously have an interest in seeing if its benefits will prove to be as significant as I believe they might be. However, as I’ve mentioned, this email is not really about JIMS; it’s about the apparent exclusion of arts education research from the Department of Education’s research funding, no matter how significant and wide-ranging the potential benefits of such research might be.

In closing, I will re-state my initial two questions, and pose a third:
1. Is it the official policy of the IES, under the Obama Administration, to continue to exclude arts education technology from the IES’ Education Technology research initiatives?
2. Is it the official policy of the IES, under the Obama Administration, to continue to exclude arts education from the IES’ Cognition and Student Learning research initiatives?
3. If the answer to either or both of the above questions is “yes,” then what change in circumstances would need to be effected in order to make those answers “yes,” and what chain of events would be required to bring about that ultimate change in circumstances?

Hoping that this email will be received in the constructive manner in which it is offered, I am

Respectfully Yours,

Jim Plamondon
Austin, Texas

------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix: Notational Load
I define notational load as the cognitive load imposed on a learner by the notation in which a concept is expressed, rather than by the concept itself.

As examples of notational load, consider:

• Roman numerals vs. Arabic numerals: Arithmetic operations such as long division are much easier to teach, learn, and apply using Arabic numerals than Roman numerals. Indeed, the Romans’ numeric notation is often given as the main reason why the Romans contributed almost nothing to mathematics per se, whereas the Arabs made great advances in mathematics.
• Chinese writing vs. Korean writing: The use of Chinese ideograms for Korean writing restricted literacy to Korean elites until the invention of the Korean-specific Hangul writing system, which made it possible for “a bright Korean-speaking student to become literate in one day, and a slow student in ten.” The Cherokee-specific writing system produced a similar jump in literacy rates.
• The musical staff vs. neumes: Guido d’Arrezo’s invention of “sight-singing,” including the musical staff and solmization, is credited with reducing the training time of Church singers from ten years to “one, or at most two” – thus reducing the cost of music education by between 80% and 90% without sacrificing quality.

The development of other notational systems, such as calculus, the Periodic Table, and Feynman diagrams, have similarly contributed to significant increases in the efficiency of education.

Perhaps of even greater importance, the development of new notations has often led to new discoveries that were literally “inconceivable” using the previous notations, because notations invariably constrain, in addition to reflecting, patterns of thought. Examples include the Arabs’ use of their numerals in developing algebra and algorithms (the names of which reflect their Arabic roots), Mendeleev’s prediction of new elements based on “holes” in his Periodic Table, and Feynman’s use of his own diagrams in making major contributions to quantum mechanics.

Intrinsic or Extraneous?
Notational load seems to me to be an entirely extraneous load. In opposition to this position, one could argue that the mastery of a given domain’s traditional notation is required for communication with other professionals within that domain, and that this “communication conformity requirement” makes mastery of a domain’s traditional notation intrinsic. For example, without the ability to read traditional music notation, musicians cannot read the works of other composers.
Or…can they? Using modern music notation software, musicians can convert any given piece of written music to alternative, non-traditional notations such as guitar tab. These programs often support a “plug-in” architecture that enables the developers of alternative notations to retroactively upgrade the software to support new notations The potential availability of such notation-translation software, in any given domain, and the ease of distributing it over the Internet, significantly reduces the communication conformity requirement, supporting the claim that notational load is extraneous.

Changes in notation are not easy to effect in any domain, especially among tightly inter-connected professionals. However, a dramatic increase in learning efficiency may make it possible for non-professionals to rapidly gain knowledge previously restricted to a domain’s professionals. For example, more people in the USA now read Guitar Hero’s scrolling tablature than read traditional music notation, and are, as a result, learning more about music than they otherwise would.

Instrument Selection

Every three years, NAMM hires Gallop to conduct a telephone survey of American households. I can't find the 2006 survey online, but the 2003 survey concluded that

1. 64% of instrumental music-makers started studying music when they were 5-11 years old; 18% starting 12-14; 7% 15-18; and 6% after 18.


2. 75% chose for themselves the instrument that they learned to play, with 15% making the decision jointly with parents and 10% having the choice of instrument made by the parent alone.


3. 30% took lessons at school, 26% took private lessons, and 22% taught themselves. The “taught themselves” percentage has risen over time (and may be rising much faster now due to the Internet). Boys teach themselves three times as often as girls do.

It is illuminating to make a chart of the ages at which music-makers started studying music (below).


The chart shows the percentage of instrumental music-makers who started learning music at each given age (in red) and the culumative total up to that age (in green).

The ages 5-11 are clearly critical. 69% of people who will ever learn to play an instrument have started learning by the end of their 11th year, and 87% by the end of their 14th year. Clearly, if I want to sell a lot of Thummers, I need to *eventually* meet the needs of very young students (although it may not be efficient to target them first).

NAMM’s surveys don’t ask what instrument is played, or why that particular instrument was chosen. There is little research into the factors which affect musical instrument choice among beginners, and that limited research tends to constrain the available options to band & orchestra instruments. A better understanding the factors affecting instrument-selection could suggest opportunities for improving the Thummer such that it would consistently win this selectrion process.

NAMM's survey data suggest that

• Ensuring that the Thummer meets the needs of beginners aged 5-11 is critical to its long-term success;


• We can emphasize self-teaching (online) initially, but will need to penetrate the private lesson and school-based lesson channels, also, to maximize Thummer sales;


• The ability of a given instrument to help a teenage boy “get chicks” is not sufficient, in itself, to maximize Thummer sales, as (i) it doesn’t help sell instruments to girls, and (ii) more than 80% of music-makers have already selected their instrument before their mid-teens, leaving at most 20% to be affected by this benefit.

People usually mention the "get chicks" factor with regard to the guitar -- but history suggests that jazz instrumentalists did pretty well in that regard, too, so there appears to be more to that benefit than just instrument choice.

Research Projects

I am occasionally asked if Thumtronics can propose research projects associated with its innovations. Please find a list below. I regret that I do not have the time to supervise such projects. If you undertake any research project related to Thumtronics' innovations, I would be happy to learn know how it turns out! :-)

Ease of Learning: Test the efficiency with which human subjects learn musical concepts using the piano and traditional notation vs. the ThumMusic PLUS System, and relate the human subjects’ differences in learning outcomes to differences in the systems’ respective Kolmogorov complexity.

Ergonomic Risk: What criteria are relevant to the ergonomic risk posed by playing musical instruments, what metrics are appropriate to these criteria, and how can all musical instruments’ ergonomic risk be normalized to a single common metric, such that the ergonomic risk of a given novel instrument can be benchmarked against the ergonomic risk posed by various traditional instruments?

Expressive Potential: What culture-independent criteria are relevant to the expressive potential of musical instruments, what metrics are appropriate to these criteria, and how can all musical instruments’ expressive potential be normalized to a single common metric, such that the expressive potential of a given novel instrument can be benchmarked against the expressive potential of traditional instruments?

ThumLine: Implement a ThumLine plug-in for Finale! or Sibelius. Add ThumLine support to Calliope, Lime, LilyPad, or any other open-source music notation editor.

ThumMusic Pedagogy: How should ThumMusic-based music pedagogy be different from traditional music pedagogy, to leverage the strengths of the ThumMusic System? What concepts should be introduced sooner, later, or differently, relative to the traditional system?

ThumMusic-based Music Education Materials: What materials should be developed to make the ThumMusic System’s pedagogical approach simple to deploy, use, and assess? How can modern digital media be leveraged to increase the cost efficiency of ThumMusic-based music education – that is, to maximize the positive learning outcomes while minimizing the cost of deployment, use, and assessment? How can these materials best support traditional approaches to music education?

Pressure-Sensitive Keyboard: Design a pressure-sensitive 57-button Thummer keyboard that uses a button-pressure sensing technology similar to that used by the Sony PlayStation 3 SixAxis game controller.

Motion Sensing: Design a motion-sensing module that uses a motion-sensing technology similar to that used by the Sony PlayStation 3 SixAxis game controller.

QWERTY Thummer: Implement the ThumMusic note-pattern on a standard alphanumeric (QWERTY) computer keyboard such that it emits standard MIDI and/or OSC, thereby allowing electronic musicians to use their laptop keyboards to control musical data using the ThumMusic note-pattern.

Web Thummer: Implement a Web-based applet that implements the ThumMusic note-pattern on a standard alphanumeric (QWERTY) computer keyboard such that the Web page responds to keyboard button-presses by (a) sounding the pressed note, and (b) indicating, on an interactive web page, the buttons/notes currently being pressed/sounded.

ThumTone Synth: Implement an electronic music synthesizer that implements some or all features of the X_System, e.g., (a) Dynamic Tuning, (b) tuning-aligned timbres, and (c) primeness, richness, dissonance, etc..

Dynamic Tuning: Compose music that creates and releases tension using the unique musical effects of Dynamic Tuning (tuning bends, tuning modulations, temperament modulations, new chord progressions, etc.). Induce or deduce the rules governing the effective use of these effects

Commas: Commas are ratios of small whole numbers that arise from the structure of the Harmonic Series to plague traditional music theory. Examples include the Pythagorean comma, the syntonic comma, and the schisma. Tunings such as 12-tone equal temperament "temper out" commas...but they're still in the timbre of harmonic sounds. Tempering the partials to match the tuning could eliminate the commas from the timbre, too. This suggests that pesky commas can be truly eliminated from the music theory of the X_System. Prove that this is or is not so, and if so, demonstrate the musical consequences of the result.

Ethnomusicology: Examine the tunings, timbres, and musical structures associated with the indigenous gamelan, renat, and balafon, to see if they can or cannot be explained by the X_System's pseudo-harmonic approach in a manner identical to the approach's treatment of the Western 12-tet. What do these results say about the X_System's generality?

Music Perception: For the human ear/brain/mind to accept a continuum of pseudo-harmonic tunings and timbres as being tonal, it would need to categorize pitch relationships in a tuning invariant manner. There is a hint of evidence that this is exactly what happens. Perform experiments to explore the perception of tonal structures when using a wide range of pseudo-harmonic tunings, timbres, and temperaments. What does these results say about the tuning invariance of pitch perception?

Musical Paradoxes and Illusions: Explore, using pseudo-harmonic timbres/tunings, a variety of musical paradoxes that are known to exist in harmonic/just music, such as the Missing Fundamental, Combination Tones, Shepard Tones, and Diana Deutsch's paradoxes and illusions. In what ways (if at all) does the perception of these paradoxes and illusions differ (a) among different pseudo-harmonic timbres/tunings, and (b) between harmonic/just timbres and pseudo-harmonic timbres/tunings?