User talk:Nyrhtac7/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Music Education in the United States
This article appears to contain mostly neutral and relevant information. The majority of the article discusses the history of music education, so there are not many opposing views within the article. However, there are some problems that should be addressed. The section labeled “Music Educators in the Community” does not have any content, so it is unnecessary and should be removed unless relevant content is added because it is confusing to the reader. In the “Impacts on Childhood Development and Academic Success” subsection, the author seems to be biased toward assuming that the research proving academic success from music is correct, and the author fails to address that more research needs to be done to verify any view until the next paragraph. A way to appear less biased would be to approach the research with caution and discuss how the research has not yet been confirmed in the previous paragraph. Also, possible irrelevant information could be the details concerning Marguerite V. Hood’s career in the Introduction of technology subsection because getting the point across may involve speaking solely about the radio’s impact on music education in the United States. Also, the reference link “"The History of Dalcroze". Dalcroze Society of America” does not open to a valid url. Many of the sources are taken from arts blogs, which does not necessarily mean they are biased, but should be examined. For example, the source “"What You Need To Know About the New National Core Arts Standards". ARTS Blog” is biased by openly supporting arts education as a core subject. Some of the links are not scholarly sources, but blogs or organization websites, which could hinder the validity of the arguments made. Also, in the “Two methodologies: rote vs. note” section, there are not a sufficient number of references made to facts and opinions toward the end of the section. This article can be improved with additional information. I propose adding a section in the article that discusses the current debate about funding for music education in the United States, specifically for elementary schools. This would further enhance the article and discuss current viewpoints in the United States that are important when considering the field of music education in the U.S. as a whole. Nyrhtac7 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Nyrhtac7 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Music Education in the United States
This article appears to contain mostly neutral and relevant information. The majority of the article discusses the history of music education, so there are not many opposing views within the article. However, there are some problems that should be addressed. The section labeled “Music Educators in the Community” does not have any content, so it is unnecessary and should be removed unless relevant content is added because it is confusing to the reader. In the “Impacts on Childhood Development and Academic Success” subsection, the author seems to be biased toward assuming that the research proving academic success from music is correct, and the author fails to address that more research needs to be done to verify any view until the next paragraph. A way to appear less biased would be to approach the research with caution and discuss how the research has not yet been confirmed in the previous paragraph. Also, possible irrelevant information could be the details concerning Marguerite V. Hood’s career in the Introduction of technology subsection because getting the point across may involve speaking solely about the radio’s impact on music education in the United States. Also, the reference link “"The History of Dalcroze". Dalcroze Society of America” does not open to a valid url. Many of the sources are taken from arts blogs, which does not necessarily mean they are biased, but should be examined. For example, the source “"What You Need To Know About the New National Core Arts Standards". ARTS Blog” is biased by openly supporting arts education as a core subject. Some of the links are not scholarly sources, but blogs or organization websites, which could hinder the validity of the arguments made. Also, in the “Two methodologies: rote vs. note” section, there are not a sufficient number of references made to facts and opinions toward the end of the section. This article can be improved with additional information. I propose adding a section in the article that discusses the current debate about funding for music education in the United States, specifically for elementary schools. This would further enhance the article and discuss current viewpoints in the United States that are important when considering the field of music education in the U.S. as a whole. Nyrhtac7 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Nyrhtac7 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to Add a Section to an Existing Article: Music Education in the United States
The article titled “Music Education in the United States” should discuss the current views on funding music education. I propose adding a section titled “ Views on funding music education.” Here are the information and references that could potentially go in the article: Funding music education has been debated in the United States in recent years due to budget cuts music programs have been experiencing and varying beliefs on what proper learning priorities should be in public schools [1]. The two general viewpoints of this issue either support or oppose allocating more federal funds toward music education. In order to understand this issue, it is important to discuss the beliefs each viewpoint holds. Generally speaking, those in favor of increasing federal funds toward music education argue that music provides children with cognitive and emotional benefits, which may help students succeed in other school subjects, so it is worth financially supporting [1]. One study revealed that students who played instruments significantly outperformed non-musicians in rhythmic skills and finger dexterity, and concluded that neural placidity may occur in areas of the brain that involve musical training [2]. Also, musical training has been proven to improve spatial and temporal brain functions, therefore allowing students to perform better academically [1]. Socially, advocates describe music as something that provokes peace, passion, and reduces stress, so the emotional benefits of music is worth the cost [3]. However, opponents of increasing federal funds toward music education believe that music is not important enough to federally financially support [4].$1.8 billion annually are being federally funded to arts education in the United States, but many believe it is a waste of tax dollars because the funding is unnecessary [4]. Many assert that music programs distract students from gaining practical skills and takes money away from more useful areas, so the funds could be more wisely spent [1]. Another side to this viewpoint is the belief that music doesn’t provide cognitive or academic benefits because the research is unproven and needs to be investigated further before reaching a conclusion, as supported by various studies and researchers [5]. References [1] Slaton, Emily Dawn. “Collegiate Connections: Music Education Budget Crisis.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 99, no. 1, Sept. 2012, pp. 33-35. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0027432112454837. [2] Hyde, Krista L., Lerch, Jason, Norton, Andrea, Foregeard, Marie, Winner, Ellen, Evans, Alan C., and Gottfried Schlaug. “Musical Training Shapes Structural Brain Development.” Journal of             Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 10, 11 Mar. 2009, pp. 3019-3025. doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5118- 08.2009 [3] Lewis, Rebecca. “The Time is Now. (Forum Focus: Arts Awareness and Advocacy).” American Music Teacher, vol. 53, no. 3, Dec. 2003, pp. 56-57. Gale Student Resources in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A111507064/SUIC?u=txshracd2560&xid=1dff9fae. [4] Gillespie, Nick. “Government Waste, From Arts Funding to Education and Defense.” The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2013. www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/10/08/what-federal-spending-are-we-better-off- without/government-waste-from-arts-funding-to-education-and-defense [5] See, Beng Huat. “Arts Education May Be Important, But The Academic Benefits Are Unproven.” The Conversation, 17 Nov. 2015, http://theconversation.com/arts-education-may-be-important-but-the-academic- benefits-are-unproven-50496 Nyrhtac7 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)