Andrea M . Calilhanna
Andrea M. Calilhanna is a PhD Candidate, University of Adelaide, Elder Conservatorium of Music, Faculty of Arts; Casual Academic; Director, Cherrybrook Music Studio; Author of Ski-hill Graph Pedagogy Meter Fundamentals, Mathematical Music Theory for Beginners, Visiting Fellow, MARCS Institute (2019), and a member of the Acoustical Society of America. I research the musical meter concerning a psychoacoustic approach to mathematical music theory, with the visualisation and sonification of beat-class theory through ski-hill and cyclic graphs (linear and circular) (Cohn, 2018 & 2020). In 2019, I collaborated on African music studies (Nigeria, Igbo). Recently I was awarded a Master of Music (Musicology) at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and have been part of the casual Academic Staff of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music; Casual Academic Tutor at UNSW, School of the Arts and Media (2021) Teaching Musical Meter to School-Age Students Through the Ski-Hill Graph can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/2123/19791 See also: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-calilhanna-20391955/
Supervisors: Stephen Whittington, Emily Dollman, and Professor Sally Macarthur
Address: Elder Conservatorium of Music
Adelaide, South Australia.
Supervisors: Stephen Whittington, Emily Dollman, and Professor Sally Macarthur
Address: Elder Conservatorium of Music
Adelaide, South Australia.
less
InterestsView All (85)
Uploads
Papers by Andrea M . Calilhanna
NESA’s evidence base, published in the draft syllabus, while not perfect nor up-to-date, is an excellent recognition of the philosophical and research underpinnings of the current syllabus (2003).
Teachers and researchers also noted that the draft included prescriptive lists of content-to-be-taught, in line
with current NESA policy for standardisation of syllabi, which were in direct contradiction to both NESA’s Evidence base and the syllabus directions for differentiation. We confirmed this by meeting with the (only)
NESA Music Subject Matter Expert. Since musical knowledge is culturally situated (Dunbar-Hall, 2005; Elliott, 2005; Regelski, 2005 - all cited in the Evidence Base), the monocultural manner in which so many of the prescriptive points were written again contradicted NESA’s own Evidence Base.
We triangulated our own analysis by writing to three of the most esteemed authors in NESA’s Evidence Base, Distinguished Teaching Professor of Music (Emeritus) Professor Thomas Regelski (State University of New
York at Fredonia), Emeritus Professor David Elliott (New York University), and Honorary Associate Professor Peter Dunbar-Hall (Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney). Each expert
confirmed in strong words that the content of the syllabus, especially the Stage 5 content, was not consistent with their research as cited in the NESA Evidence Base. Their correspondence is included in a section below, and they gave permission for it to be shared with NESA, with the teaching profession, and publicly.
To respond to these inherent problems, we formed a group to (a) (re-)read the Evidence Base and then (b) propose changes to the draft syllabus that would resolve the contradictions. We took the approach of rewriting rather than only providing a commentary because the NESA Music Subject Matter Expert said that this would be most useful.
NESA’s evidence base, published in the draft syllabus, while not perfect nor up-to-date, is an excellent recognition of the philosophical and research underpinnings of the current syllabus (2003).
Teachers and researchers also noted that the draft included prescriptive lists of content-to-be-taught, in line
with current NESA policy for standardisation of syllabi, which were in direct contradiction to both NESA’s Evidence base and the syllabus directions for differentiation. We confirmed this by meeting with the (only)
NESA Music Subject Matter Expert. Since musical knowledge is culturally situated (Dunbar-Hall, 2005; Elliott, 2005; Regelski, 2005 - all cited in the Evidence Base), the monocultural manner in which so many of the prescriptive points were written again contradicted NESA’s own Evidence Base.
We triangulated our own analysis by writing to three of the most esteemed authors in NESA’s Evidence Base, Distinguished Teaching Professor of Music (Emeritus) Professor Thomas Regelski (State University of New
York at Fredonia), Emeritus Professor David Elliott (New York University), and Honorary Associate Professor Peter Dunbar-Hall (Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney). Each expert
confirmed in strong words that the content of the syllabus, especially the Stage 5 content, was not consistent with their research as cited in the NESA Evidence Base. Their correspondence is included in a section below, and they gave permission for it to be shared with NESA, with the teaching profession, and publicly.
To respond to these inherent problems, we formed a group to (a) (re-)read the Evidence Base and then (b) propose changes to the draft syllabus that would resolve the contradictions. We took the approach of rewriting rather than only providing a commentary because the NESA Music Subject Matter Expert said that this would be most useful.
mathematical music theory and, more broadly, to music education.
Traditionally, mathematical music theory uses the formalisms of
mathematics (such as equations and graphs) to represent and produce
models of musical phenomena that serve explanatory, predictive, or
generative purposes. By contrast, computer-based models use interactive
elements to represent and model musical phenomena within a software
environment.