1. "A music curriculum may be established for teachers by a state or a local school district" (pg. 303). It frustrates me that certain school districts mandate such strict expectations for their teachers. Are teachers meant to be a machine at the end of an assembly line? Are they meant to be the means whereby politicians and other officials carry out their agendas? My father has been in business his entire life, and he has taught me some good principles - the principles of delegation and trust. Of course the opposite of this would be the scary world of micromanagement. I believe that if you higher a professional to do a job, like a teacher, you should let them do what they're trained to do. You place trust in the teacher by hiring and paying them. You don't need to micromanage everything that teachers do. Not only is this aggravating, infuriating, and frustrating, it doesn't show trust or proper management skill. I agree with a system of checks and balances to make sure that the teacher you hired for general music isn't teaching the children how to smoke marijuana, but administrators should let their teachers design their own curriculum. I say, let the teachers earn the money that they don't make.
2. "When planning a curriculum, teachers need to have a big picture and a specific picture in mind" (pg. 306). I like how this sentence is worded. I think it's another way of saying, "Reach for the stars, but keep your feet on the ground." Although I don't agree with this quote in every instance, I think it applies well here. As teachers, we all have grandiose visions of what we want to accomplish. We want to teach 100% of the students 100% of the time. But in real life we know that this never really works. There needs to be some sort of compromise. So we need to think big, but we also need to think realistically. Another thing I think the author is trying to say is that educators need to plan practically for how they are going to teach their lessons. How do we turn a proactive scholar into a practitioner? I think that this is the most important thing that I'm going to have to learn in order to be a successful teacher. Although going to college is one way of learning this craft, I think nothing can substitute for the experience of teaching in the schools. So, in other words, this will come as I mature and learn by experience.
3. "The result of trying to do a little bit of everything can be that children receive a superficial experience, rather than an in-depth experience, leaving them mentally impoverished" (pg. 321). As I look back on my experiences in middle school and high school, it doesn't take me long to remember experiences I had when teachers would try to cram down every last lesson in the text book into our heads. The result was just as the quote said: I felt "mentally impoverished." This always seemed to happen in math class too. I think there was a lot of pressure for the teachers to get through every math lesson in the book, which is hard because math is full of complicated concepts and procedures that take awhile for some students to grasp (like me). I don't think we have nearly the same problem in the world of music education. However, we too need to be careful of balance and flow. For example, I thought it was a good thing in world music how we only had a couple of specific units. How can you possibly cover the entire world in a semester? Obviously you cannot. But I strongly believe that presenting a large unit on one area makes a lot more sense than trying to teach a little bit of everything.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
11/3/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 16
1. "The federal government encourages but does not require states to create and fund special programs for gifted and talented students" (pg. 399). I think it's great that the federal government even goes so far as to encourage states and school districts to have special programs for gifted and talented students. But I don't believe it is the government's job to provide the money for such programs. I think that public schools have enough trouble getting money to have running water and electricity that works. From an idealistic vantage point, it always sounds like a good idea to create special programs for the gifted and talented, but are these programs practical? Perhaps the answer lies in technology. Hopefully there will come a time when children can learn at their own pace due to the technological capacity of the future music room.
2. "Because learning disabled is an umbrella term covering a wide range of behaviors, it is difficult to state principles that will apply in every case" (pg. 407). Music educators should plan and be ready for every type of situation one may encounter. Obviously, the new music educator will have to learn by experience all the different types of disabilities, diseases, and disorders that a child may come into the classroom with. Even a veteran music educator who has been teaching for a very long time might come into contact with certain cases that he or she has never experienced before. I think in all cases a good deal of patience will go a long way in helping the teacher, student, and specialist(s) to assist the child.
3. As a result of their behavior, depressed children are often socially isolated and in trouble academically" (pg. 410). Like all children, children that suffer from depression come in all varieties. Some appear as though they are shy and detach themselves from the group. Others are more animated and just as likely to participate in a normal fashion like most children. Often times, children suffering from depression are ignored and considered a nuisance for teachers to deal with. In situations when it is apparent that children are suffering from depression, there is a lot that a music educator can do to help the child to feel at ease, or feel better about their situation. A lot of the time, this depression comes from the home, and teachers need to be extra sensitive when dealing with these students. They need love and support, encouragement, and strength. But most of the time, I think they just want to be treated like everyone else.
2. "Because learning disabled is an umbrella term covering a wide range of behaviors, it is difficult to state principles that will apply in every case" (pg. 407). Music educators should plan and be ready for every type of situation one may encounter. Obviously, the new music educator will have to learn by experience all the different types of disabilities, diseases, and disorders that a child may come into the classroom with. Even a veteran music educator who has been teaching for a very long time might come into contact with certain cases that he or she has never experienced before. I think in all cases a good deal of patience will go a long way in helping the teacher, student, and specialist(s) to assist the child.
3. As a result of their behavior, depressed children are often socially isolated and in trouble academically" (pg. 410). Like all children, children that suffer from depression come in all varieties. Some appear as though they are shy and detach themselves from the group. Others are more animated and just as likely to participate in a normal fashion like most children. Often times, children suffering from depression are ignored and considered a nuisance for teachers to deal with. In situations when it is apparent that children are suffering from depression, there is a lot that a music educator can do to help the child to feel at ease, or feel better about their situation. A lot of the time, this depression comes from the home, and teachers need to be extra sensitive when dealing with these students. They need love and support, encouragement, and strength. But most of the time, I think they just want to be treated like everyone else.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
10/13/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Kodaly and Dalcroze
1. "In terms of rhythm, moving rhythms are more child-related than sustained ones" (pg. 10, Choksy). I think this would be common sense to most people. Even as Chosky talks about, children are used to seeing things move and they are used to walking, running, hearing their heart beat, and doing lots of things with movement. Children have a lot of energy, and they learn a lot about their outside world through touching, feeling, and experiencing what it is like to run on an incline, or roll down a hill. It is only natural that children would connect so easily to music by means of rhythm and movement. Thus I agree with Choksy that music educators need to put a lot of different moving rhythms in their lesson plans.
2. "None of the pedagogical tools or processes associated with the Kodaly method were invented by Kodaly and his colleagues" (pg. 16). This comes as a huge surprise to me. I knew that solfege dated to around the middle ages or before, but I had no idea that none of the pedagogical tools or processes came from Kodaly or his group of intellectuals. If this is the case, can Kodaly really put his name on everything that he is known for? It seems to me that he is more of a philosopher than an inventor. I understand the Kodaly philosophy and its implications for students in the classroom, but I don't understand how names get attached to tools and processes that did not originate with the so called "founder" himself.
3. "The work of Dalcroze has been recognized not only by musicians, but also by dancers, actors, therapists, and educators around the world" (pg. 46, Mead). This makes perfect sense to me. So much of Dalcroze and Eurythmics stems from the world of movement, and movement is the essential element in dance and one of the major essential elements in acting. I can understand how therapists can use the methodologies of Dalcroze too. I used to participate in "Bio-Feedback" where you can literally train your body (particularly the muscles) to relax and perform in a certain way. You can literally teach your body how to loosen up, and this decreases your anxiety. After awhile, you can guess the levels of stress you are putting on yourself, and teach your body how to counteract stress with thoughts of relaxation. But the neat thing is that your body can learn to do this automatically. It is important for educators everywhere to be aware of Dalcroze, and the teachings he promoted. They can have a great effect in many professions.
2. "None of the pedagogical tools or processes associated with the Kodaly method were invented by Kodaly and his colleagues" (pg. 16). This comes as a huge surprise to me. I knew that solfege dated to around the middle ages or before, but I had no idea that none of the pedagogical tools or processes came from Kodaly or his group of intellectuals. If this is the case, can Kodaly really put his name on everything that he is known for? It seems to me that he is more of a philosopher than an inventor. I understand the Kodaly philosophy and its implications for students in the classroom, but I don't understand how names get attached to tools and processes that did not originate with the so called "founder" himself.
3. "The work of Dalcroze has been recognized not only by musicians, but also by dancers, actors, therapists, and educators around the world" (pg. 46, Mead). This makes perfect sense to me. So much of Dalcroze and Eurythmics stems from the world of movement, and movement is the essential element in dance and one of the major essential elements in acting. I can understand how therapists can use the methodologies of Dalcroze too. I used to participate in "Bio-Feedback" where you can literally train your body (particularly the muscles) to relax and perform in a certain way. You can literally teach your body how to loosen up, and this decreases your anxiety. After awhile, you can guess the levels of stress you are putting on yourself, and teach your body how to counteract stress with thoughts of relaxation. But the neat thing is that your body can learn to do this automatically. It is important for educators everywhere to be aware of Dalcroze, and the teachings he promoted. They can have a great effect in many professions.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
10/6/10 - 3 Points of Interest on "Together In Harmony" (pg. 9-39)
1. "Once something is experienced in the body, it is usually not forgotten" (pg. 12). I think it is amazing that the songs and musical experiences I remember most from childhood are the ones that involved some type of "body percussion" or other physical movement. One of the very first songs I learned as a child was, "If You're Happy and You Know it, Clap Your Hands!" I wouldn't be surprised if the original author of this song was an Orff educator, because they put a form of body percussion into the actual title of the song! What an amazing concept. But it's interesting that I can remember exactly where I was as a three year old when I was learning this song for the first time. I remember my teacher, the other students, the happy music, and the action of clapping, stamping, and using my head voice. Clearly, there is evidence that kinetic movement plays a huge role in helping young students to remember music.
2. "The teaching process involved in Orff Schulwerk is its greatest strength" (pg. 15). After reading these pages I learned all the things an Orff teacher needs to be trained how to do. It is amazing to me that a trained Orff teacher can look at a piece of music, automatically write an accompaniment, assign different parts to each student, and be able to teach it so naturally and quickly. I have a feeling that this type of ability must come more natural to some than others. Still, it must take a lot of practice and concentration to be able to get to the level where composing accompaniments comes automatically. As I think back to my childhood, I don't think I ever had an Orff teacher. I had classes where we used "Orff" instruments, but I was never instructed in the exact manner that they teach in this book. I'm wondering if my classmates had different experiences?
3. "Music Learning Theory advocates that students be taught songs in a wide variety of tonalities" (pg. 23). I agree with this statement, but find its inclusion somewhat superfluous. To me, this is like saying, "We advocate here that little Johnny have friends from a wide variety of racial backgrounds." Doesn't that sound ludicrous? Of course we should teach children songs from different tonalities, but we shouldn't focus our lesson plans in a way that we must include one from every mode in a given period of time. I find this to be too constricting. I also think that a mindset like this will ultimately take away from the music. Off the top of my head I can think of many wonderful songs for children, and they happen to be in four different modes. We teach the songs because they are good and because they have lasting value. We might point out that a particular song is in such and such a mode, but that should not be the focus. After all, the difference between modes is so incredibly small to begin with. Just teach them great music!
2. "The teaching process involved in Orff Schulwerk is its greatest strength" (pg. 15). After reading these pages I learned all the things an Orff teacher needs to be trained how to do. It is amazing to me that a trained Orff teacher can look at a piece of music, automatically write an accompaniment, assign different parts to each student, and be able to teach it so naturally and quickly. I have a feeling that this type of ability must come more natural to some than others. Still, it must take a lot of practice and concentration to be able to get to the level where composing accompaniments comes automatically. As I think back to my childhood, I don't think I ever had an Orff teacher. I had classes where we used "Orff" instruments, but I was never instructed in the exact manner that they teach in this book. I'm wondering if my classmates had different experiences?
3. "Music Learning Theory advocates that students be taught songs in a wide variety of tonalities" (pg. 23). I agree with this statement, but find its inclusion somewhat superfluous. To me, this is like saying, "We advocate here that little Johnny have friends from a wide variety of racial backgrounds." Doesn't that sound ludicrous? Of course we should teach children songs from different tonalities, but we shouldn't focus our lesson plans in a way that we must include one from every mode in a given period of time. I find this to be too constricting. I also think that a mindset like this will ultimately take away from the music. Off the top of my head I can think of many wonderful songs for children, and they happen to be in four different modes. We teach the songs because they are good and because they have lasting value. We might point out that a particular song is in such and such a mode, but that should not be the focus. After all, the difference between modes is so incredibly small to begin with. Just teach them great music!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
9/29/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 10
1. "Improvisation at a beginning level allows children to play with sounds and with musical syntax (or putting those sounds together)" (pg. 253). I strongly believe that whether they are aware of it or not, children are always improvising one way or another. It is a child's natural process to discover the world around him/her. What does the marimba sound like? What does the snare drum sound like? What do recorders sound like? I remember when I was a child, I used to play everything I could get my hands on. Even children who appear to be less musical find it enjoyable to have opportunities to play around on instruments. One of my first real musical instruments was this really cheap synthesizer (complete with two and one-half octaves). I would spend day after day coming up with my own melodies and discovering new beats and rhythm patterns. I even composed my very first pieces by listening to the sound I was creating. It was a marvelous experience, and as music educators, we need to make sure that all children get this same experience.
2. "Improvisation can play several valuable roles in the creative process" (pg. 255). In my experience with the synthesizer, I not only learned about the notes on the keyboard, I learned valuable concepts like melody, rhythm, timbre, meter, and harmony, just to name a few. Maybe I didn't know the name of these terms at such a young age. But somewhere deep in my brain and in my soul, I was completely aware of them. Whether children are improvising formally or informally, they will discover ideas from one another that will inspire them to be creative not only in music, but also in the other arts. Their brains might also develop to think about things differently in math and science. We know how valuable improvisation is because many of the greatest composers who ever lived were all well-trained in the art of improvisation. It is truly a tool that will help to develop the creative mind.
3. "Once children have a sense of the compositional process through creating aural plans, the use of notation can be introduced" (pg. 261). Although I strongly believe that the creation of aural plans can be an effective tool in getting students started to understand musical lines, I don't think that it's imperative that we teach them aural plans before the standard system of notation. I never learned about aural plans as a child. In fact, I can remember being taught the standard notation system at an early age, and I turned out okay. Please understand, I don't want to take away from their usefulness in the classroom. I've been very impressed with a lot of aural plans that I have seen. I just don't think we should delay teaching students about standard notation in favor of something completely abstract. Some of the youngest children may turn out to be all-stars in their Suzuki classes!
2. "Improvisation can play several valuable roles in the creative process" (pg. 255). In my experience with the synthesizer, I not only learned about the notes on the keyboard, I learned valuable concepts like melody, rhythm, timbre, meter, and harmony, just to name a few. Maybe I didn't know the name of these terms at such a young age. But somewhere deep in my brain and in my soul, I was completely aware of them. Whether children are improvising formally or informally, they will discover ideas from one another that will inspire them to be creative not only in music, but also in the other arts. Their brains might also develop to think about things differently in math and science. We know how valuable improvisation is because many of the greatest composers who ever lived were all well-trained in the art of improvisation. It is truly a tool that will help to develop the creative mind.
3. "Once children have a sense of the compositional process through creating aural plans, the use of notation can be introduced" (pg. 261). Although I strongly believe that the creation of aural plans can be an effective tool in getting students started to understand musical lines, I don't think that it's imperative that we teach them aural plans before the standard system of notation. I never learned about aural plans as a child. In fact, I can remember being taught the standard notation system at an early age, and I turned out okay. Please understand, I don't want to take away from their usefulness in the classroom. I've been very impressed with a lot of aural plans that I have seen. I just don't think we should delay teaching students about standard notation in favor of something completely abstract. Some of the youngest children may turn out to be all-stars in their Suzuki classes!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
9/22/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 9
1. "The auditory sense develops early and is remarkably keen in most children" (pg. 223). I think it is fascinating that the auditory sense develops so early in children. I also think it is remarkable that as children, all five senses (hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, and seeing) seem to develop at different rates. It is wonderful to think that we have so many ways of comprehending the world around us. And through the ability to hear sounds, our brains can begin to map out sounds that go together and eventually assemble the sounds as "music." I truly feel sorry for those who are not able to ever have the ability to hear. A lot of children are born deaf, or with decreased capacities to hear certain sounds. Other children can only hear at a certain volume. Many will one day lose their hearing until they can hardly hear at all. As someone who enjoys his hearing and respects the ear, I think that all of us who have been blessed with the ability to hear should protect our hearing. This means watching how loud we listen to music, and making sure we are doing all we can to use proper noise-reducing ear-plugs and other devices.
2. "Young children from preschool through the age of eight are usually remarkably open to all kinds of music" (pg. 224). I think that there is a lot of truth in this statement. I remember being open to a lot of music during this period of my life. However, I strongly favored music that had a strong beat and was fun to listen to. I tended to shy away from classical music and really all of western concert music. I simply thought it was boring and was for older, intellectual people. I didn't really discover or like classical music until I was in high school. However, once I was old enough, I found this to be the more pleasing music (though I still love popular music). I think children in general will react to music that is fun, and easy to listen to.
3. "Active listening to recorded music means involving more than the ears and the mind" (pg. 228). I know that this is true, especially for the younger student just being introduced to music. For example, teaching aids always seem to be helpful to teach children music, especially if the music is hard or complex. For example, I really liked what Vanessa did at "The Music Settlement" the other day. I liked the "road map" she used to teach the students the main melody from "The Moldau." The kids really responded well to this activity, and they learned more about the phrasing of music. The kids even used movement to respond to the "peaks" and "valleys" of the music. Using these "active" techniques really helped the children to learn the music at a faster pace. I think it also will help them to recall the music in the future.
2. "Young children from preschool through the age of eight are usually remarkably open to all kinds of music" (pg. 224). I think that there is a lot of truth in this statement. I remember being open to a lot of music during this period of my life. However, I strongly favored music that had a strong beat and was fun to listen to. I tended to shy away from classical music and really all of western concert music. I simply thought it was boring and was for older, intellectual people. I didn't really discover or like classical music until I was in high school. However, once I was old enough, I found this to be the more pleasing music (though I still love popular music). I think children in general will react to music that is fun, and easy to listen to.
3. "Active listening to recorded music means involving more than the ears and the mind" (pg. 228). I know that this is true, especially for the younger student just being introduced to music. For example, teaching aids always seem to be helpful to teach children music, especially if the music is hard or complex. For example, I really liked what Vanessa did at "The Music Settlement" the other day. I liked the "road map" she used to teach the students the main melody from "The Moldau." The kids really responded well to this activity, and they learned more about the phrasing of music. The kids even used movement to respond to the "peaks" and "valleys" of the music. Using these "active" techniques really helped the children to learn the music at a faster pace. I think it also will help them to recall the music in the future.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
9/20/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 13
1. "Music teachers who anticipate a formal evaluation of their program and teaching need to be proactive in communicating their vision and clear goals to their administrator early in the school year" (pg. 328). Since I have never been a licensed teacher, this is a difficult one for me to respond on primarily because I lack practical experience. All I can comment on is what I have heard other (more experienced) colleagues say on the matter. There is a lot of chatter when it comes to a basic "disconnect" between teachers and their administrators. This disconnect has become quite apparent to me because so many teachers are always talking to one another and arguing about it! I'm almost pessimistic about my future experiences with administrators. This pessimism has been forged by years of overhearing students and teachers complain that the administration is "out of touch" with students' needs and with various visions certain teachers have from time to time. This is really something I could use your feedback on, and I look forward to discussing it in class.
2. "In many ways, music educators have always used authentic assessments, particularly of performance" (pg. 330). I have no problems with authentic assessments of performance, as long as they are done in private. In every level of band, (grade school, middle school, high school, college), teachers love to test students in front of their peers. I know for sure that many of these students were not able to perform as well as they would have liked due to the added pressure that was placed on them. But maybe there is something to be said for this method of assessment? After all, don't students need to be able to perform in front of their peers because part of being able to succeed in music revolves around one's ability to play effortlessly in front of people? I think this is a valid point, but I also think that they start testing kids in class too early. As a matter of fact, my 5th grade band teacher used to say, "After you are done with your test, come up to the grade book and see what grade you received. In fact, look and see what all the other kids got as well!" I found that to be a little much for 5th grade.
3. "Another way to involve students in real-world assessment in music is to have them critique the work of their peers. Teachers are often afraid to open to this possibility because they do not want children to be negative" (pg. 337). I think that, generally speaking, this is a positive way to assess students. It is always great to receive feedback from your peers, and I don't think that children are generally hurt by what others have to say. From time to time, there might be a negative comment here and there, but most mature children know how to be nice and give positive feedback that doesn't destroy an individual's self-esteem. This is a practice that I would use sparingly, however. I would also wait until the later years to employ it in the classroom. Younger students aren't as mature and more likely to say whatever is on their mind. This can often present a difficult situation for everyone involved because even though children are usually very honest, brutal honesty can be hurtful at a young age. I would try to teach my students to make positive, constructive statements. I would also teach them how to critique each other in positive, uplifting ways. (They do exist after all!)
2. "In many ways, music educators have always used authentic assessments, particularly of performance" (pg. 330). I have no problems with authentic assessments of performance, as long as they are done in private. In every level of band, (grade school, middle school, high school, college), teachers love to test students in front of their peers. I know for sure that many of these students were not able to perform as well as they would have liked due to the added pressure that was placed on them. But maybe there is something to be said for this method of assessment? After all, don't students need to be able to perform in front of their peers because part of being able to succeed in music revolves around one's ability to play effortlessly in front of people? I think this is a valid point, but I also think that they start testing kids in class too early. As a matter of fact, my 5th grade band teacher used to say, "After you are done with your test, come up to the grade book and see what grade you received. In fact, look and see what all the other kids got as well!" I found that to be a little much for 5th grade.
3. "Another way to involve students in real-world assessment in music is to have them critique the work of their peers. Teachers are often afraid to open to this possibility because they do not want children to be negative" (pg. 337). I think that, generally speaking, this is a positive way to assess students. It is always great to receive feedback from your peers, and I don't think that children are generally hurt by what others have to say. From time to time, there might be a negative comment here and there, but most mature children know how to be nice and give positive feedback that doesn't destroy an individual's self-esteem. This is a practice that I would use sparingly, however. I would also wait until the later years to employ it in the classroom. Younger students aren't as mature and more likely to say whatever is on their mind. This can often present a difficult situation for everyone involved because even though children are usually very honest, brutal honesty can be hurtful at a young age. I would try to teach my students to make positive, constructive statements. I would also teach them how to critique each other in positive, uplifting ways. (They do exist after all!)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
9/15/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 8
1. "Children of all ages are players of musical instruments, or they would like to be" (pg. 190). I have not found this to be true in my life. I would say that every child I have ever met certainly likes some kind of music. But liking music and having sincere aspirations to play musical instruments are two different things. I have three younger brothers, and none of them were ever inclined to learning an instrument (much to my dismay). I even tried to introduce them to various kinds of instruments and encouraged them to choose one, but they had no desire to learn. My brothers were always very athletic, and even though they liked music very much, none of them had any special passion for learning an instrument. My brothers are not alone. There are many children who simply do not want to learn how to play a musical instrument. I'm completely okay with this because I would rather spend my time teaching those who are interested in music, then spending my time trying to force someone to do something that they have little or no interest in.
2. "The recorder is among the most common melody instruments played by children in the elementary grades today" (pg. 209). I love the fact that students begin to learn how to play the recorder around third grade. I remember when I was in third grade and began to play the recorder. I was very excited to get a special musical instrument of my very own. I was also comforted by the fact that all the kids in my class seemed to enjoy playing the recorder as much as I did. The recorder is fairly easy to play and master, and it is a perfect instrument to start children on. They can master the basic rudiments of music such as melody, rhythm, time signature, key signature, meter, dynamics, and range. They can also develop dexterity in their fingers and muscle memory by learning the correct fingerings and learning how to properly blow into the tone hole. I think that the recorder was a great precursor to the saxophone, which I learned in fifth grade.
3. "Checklists of exercises and specific phrases, scales, and songs learned can be posted to the classroom wall or stapled to the back of the instrumental manuals, to be filled in by the teacher for each individual student as he or she meets the requirements" (pg. 218). I'm not a huge advocate of checklists, especially those posted in the classroom for everyone to see. Children are sensitive and if a child is struggling to master a piece of music or even play basic tones on an instrument like the recorder, it can be traumatic to see your name on a list with no "stickers" or "stars." This is precisely what happened to me. I came from a very non-musical family, and I had very little help by way of instruction on the recorder. It seemed like I was always behind in general music, and there were definitely no "stickers" or "stars" next to my name. I just became frustrated with music and wanted to quit. If it weren't for experiences I had later on in life, I would have never become a musician. I know the "checklist" backfired for me, and I don't like teaching tools that openly compare a student's private progress to another.
2. "The recorder is among the most common melody instruments played by children in the elementary grades today" (pg. 209). I love the fact that students begin to learn how to play the recorder around third grade. I remember when I was in third grade and began to play the recorder. I was very excited to get a special musical instrument of my very own. I was also comforted by the fact that all the kids in my class seemed to enjoy playing the recorder as much as I did. The recorder is fairly easy to play and master, and it is a perfect instrument to start children on. They can master the basic rudiments of music such as melody, rhythm, time signature, key signature, meter, dynamics, and range. They can also develop dexterity in their fingers and muscle memory by learning the correct fingerings and learning how to properly blow into the tone hole. I think that the recorder was a great precursor to the saxophone, which I learned in fifth grade.
3. "Checklists of exercises and specific phrases, scales, and songs learned can be posted to the classroom wall or stapled to the back of the instrumental manuals, to be filled in by the teacher for each individual student as he or she meets the requirements" (pg. 218). I'm not a huge advocate of checklists, especially those posted in the classroom for everyone to see. Children are sensitive and if a child is struggling to master a piece of music or even play basic tones on an instrument like the recorder, it can be traumatic to see your name on a list with no "stickers" or "stars." This is precisely what happened to me. I came from a very non-musical family, and I had very little help by way of instruction on the recorder. It seemed like I was always behind in general music, and there were definitely no "stickers" or "stars" next to my name. I just became frustrated with music and wanted to quit. If it weren't for experiences I had later on in life, I would have never become a musician. I know the "checklist" backfired for me, and I don't like teaching tools that openly compare a student's private progress to another.
Monday, September 13, 2010
9/13/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 16
1. "Also, although it is tempting to focus on the possible therapeutic values of musical involvement for exceptional children, general music teachers are rarely trained as music therapists" (pg. 400). I don't think that music teachers necessarily need to be trained as music therapists to be able to assist children with disabilities. The general music teacher will have to be in control of the entire classroom, and will have many responsibilities relating to all the students. If they are trained in the basic rudiments of how to teach, nurture, and encourage exceptional students to do the best they can despite their disabilities, then they will be effective teachers. Additional training may be beneficial, but I don't think it is necessary to be a good, well-rounded teacher.
2. "The key to success is the willingness of the teachers to adapt instruction to meet the needs of exceptional children" (pg. 403). I think that this is a very important thing for teachers to do, but not at the expense of the other students. Sometimes I have been in a classroom when the teacher will direct all of their attention to the students with special needs. This was frustrating to me, and I quickly became bored and lost interest and excitement in the class. I have needs too. I think the best scenario would be a teacher who structured the class for the average student, and then focused on specific lesson plans for exceptional students. Teachers also have an obligation to provide special lesson plans for gifted and talented students.
3. "As with learning disabilities, many children with ADHD have normal intelligence" (pg. 407). I don't understand why more people don't accept this fact as being true. There are many disabilities that children, teenagers, and adults have that have nothing to do with their intelligence or capacity to do well in the course. The book mentions ADHD and other disorders, but teachers should know about these and other disabilities that children suffer from. Many children also suffer from depression, anxiety disorder, OCD, and social autism. These children are clearly as intelligent as the rest of the students, if not more intelligent. Teachers, in general, should not try to treat these students any differently, unless the student specifically asks for extra help. They will be able to be great students on their own. Some of them might even be the most talented in the class.
2. "The key to success is the willingness of the teachers to adapt instruction to meet the needs of exceptional children" (pg. 403). I think that this is a very important thing for teachers to do, but not at the expense of the other students. Sometimes I have been in a classroom when the teacher will direct all of their attention to the students with special needs. This was frustrating to me, and I quickly became bored and lost interest and excitement in the class. I have needs too. I think the best scenario would be a teacher who structured the class for the average student, and then focused on specific lesson plans for exceptional students. Teachers also have an obligation to provide special lesson plans for gifted and talented students.
3. "As with learning disabilities, many children with ADHD have normal intelligence" (pg. 407). I don't understand why more people don't accept this fact as being true. There are many disabilities that children, teenagers, and adults have that have nothing to do with their intelligence or capacity to do well in the course. The book mentions ADHD and other disorders, but teachers should know about these and other disabilities that children suffer from. Many children also suffer from depression, anxiety disorder, OCD, and social autism. These children are clearly as intelligent as the rest of the students, if not more intelligent. Teachers, in general, should not try to treat these students any differently, unless the student specifically asks for extra help. They will be able to be great students on their own. Some of them might even be the most talented in the class.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
9/8/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 6, and 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 11
Chapter 6
1. "Teachers with years of successful experience assume that movement is the means for leading children to singing and playing instruments more musically, to composing and improvising in meaningful ways, and to showing evidence of listening with a clear understanding of music's structures and sonic flow" (pg. 120). If all this is true, then I would certainly like to see the evidence of it. How can the author say something so objectively and then have no research to back up these assertions? Perhaps one or more of these statements are true, but the author is insinuating that just based on "movement," all children will sing, play, compose, improvise, and listen at a higher level. I think that such a theory is absurd and ludicrous. Why are we having little children composing and improvising based solely on movement anyway?
2. "How does movement teach a musical concept? How does a musical concept motivate movement" (pg. 125)? These are fascinating questions, especially for someone like myself who doesn't have any background in eurhythmics or dance. I think of my experiences in elementary music education when the teachers would demonstrate high notes and low notes by getting taller and getting shorter. My best conductors have always been able to associate some type of movement with the type of sound they are looking for. I know that this has been a very effective means of communication. I even know of some conductors who have studied with mimes to learn different expressions they could use on the podium.
3. "At times, recorded music can be used to stimulate movement, but the live and partly spontaneous music played by the teacher on piano or percussion instrument is best" (pg. 137). I completely agree with the spontaneous act of creating music. It is altogether more captivating and inspiring than some old recording. However, I must take issue with the fact that only the piano and other percussion instruments are the best. I remember when I was about 3 or 4 years old, and in preschool. There was a woodwind player who came into the classroom to put together and play for us the flute, the oboe, the clarinet, and the saxophone. I remember that this experience had a huge effect on me, and I was never quite the same afterward. But the piano, for instance, never did a whole lot for me inside or outside of the classroom.
Chapter 11
1. "The ability to motivate and manage students is one of the most necessary skills of good teachers" (pg. 273). I know this to be true from the limited amount of teaching experience that I have. No matter the age or grade level, students will look to be inspired and motivated either inside the classroom or outside the classroom. How infinitely important than is it to have good, qualified teachers who are passionate and excited about what they do. Sure, they will not reach everyone in the class. But they will do a world of good for the vast majority of the students. Student management is also very important. The best teachers really don't have to try very hard to manage their students because their students are naturally inclined to participate. When teachers are prepared for class and generally excited about what they do, they tend to have a certain glow about them. This glow is contagious, and the students will naturally respond in a positive manner.
2. "Competition can sometimes be a source of motivation, but it can also backfire" (pg. 279). I think some healthy competition can often be a good thing for teachers and students alike. But when the competition becomes the main focus rather than the music itself, it not only can backfire, it will. I tend to like self-competition a lot better than competing one against another, but this too can backfire. In high school I always loved preparing for "Solo & Ensemble" competition in the winter. This was a chance for me to do an independent project, get performance experience, and then have the chance to be evaluated. In a sense it wasn't competitive because I was competing against myself. This was a healthy way to see what kind of job I was doing on my instrument. But if this was to ever become an obsession for me, I wouldn't have gained anything from it. Likewise if I started to compare myself to others playing the same piece as me, I might lose the spirit of what I was doing.
3. "There are many ways to divide the class into groups" (pg. 283). When I was a kid, almost every teacher I had let the class members divide themselves into their own groups. This almost always backfired for me, as I was frequently the "odd man out." I personally don't like putting kids in this position. Sure, I'm obviously biased and sensitive to this subject, but any student in a similar situation will feel awkward, shy, embarrassed, unsure of themselves, and ultimately, unhappy. As the book suggests, I highly recommend picking groups by chance or by using simple mathematics. Creative teachers will no doubt find endless ways of creating meaningful groups. When "chance" methods are employed, children are more likely to be exposed to people outside of their heritage, culture, race, and background. If nothing else, it is a good way to meet new friends.
1. "Teachers with years of successful experience assume that movement is the means for leading children to singing and playing instruments more musically, to composing and improvising in meaningful ways, and to showing evidence of listening with a clear understanding of music's structures and sonic flow" (pg. 120). If all this is true, then I would certainly like to see the evidence of it. How can the author say something so objectively and then have no research to back up these assertions? Perhaps one or more of these statements are true, but the author is insinuating that just based on "movement," all children will sing, play, compose, improvise, and listen at a higher level. I think that such a theory is absurd and ludicrous. Why are we having little children composing and improvising based solely on movement anyway?
2. "How does movement teach a musical concept? How does a musical concept motivate movement" (pg. 125)? These are fascinating questions, especially for someone like myself who doesn't have any background in eurhythmics or dance. I think of my experiences in elementary music education when the teachers would demonstrate high notes and low notes by getting taller and getting shorter. My best conductors have always been able to associate some type of movement with the type of sound they are looking for. I know that this has been a very effective means of communication. I even know of some conductors who have studied with mimes to learn different expressions they could use on the podium.
3. "At times, recorded music can be used to stimulate movement, but the live and partly spontaneous music played by the teacher on piano or percussion instrument is best" (pg. 137). I completely agree with the spontaneous act of creating music. It is altogether more captivating and inspiring than some old recording. However, I must take issue with the fact that only the piano and other percussion instruments are the best. I remember when I was about 3 or 4 years old, and in preschool. There was a woodwind player who came into the classroom to put together and play for us the flute, the oboe, the clarinet, and the saxophone. I remember that this experience had a huge effect on me, and I was never quite the same afterward. But the piano, for instance, never did a whole lot for me inside or outside of the classroom.
Chapter 11
1. "The ability to motivate and manage students is one of the most necessary skills of good teachers" (pg. 273). I know this to be true from the limited amount of teaching experience that I have. No matter the age or grade level, students will look to be inspired and motivated either inside the classroom or outside the classroom. How infinitely important than is it to have good, qualified teachers who are passionate and excited about what they do. Sure, they will not reach everyone in the class. But they will do a world of good for the vast majority of the students. Student management is also very important. The best teachers really don't have to try very hard to manage their students because their students are naturally inclined to participate. When teachers are prepared for class and generally excited about what they do, they tend to have a certain glow about them. This glow is contagious, and the students will naturally respond in a positive manner.
2. "Competition can sometimes be a source of motivation, but it can also backfire" (pg. 279). I think some healthy competition can often be a good thing for teachers and students alike. But when the competition becomes the main focus rather than the music itself, it not only can backfire, it will. I tend to like self-competition a lot better than competing one against another, but this too can backfire. In high school I always loved preparing for "Solo & Ensemble" competition in the winter. This was a chance for me to do an independent project, get performance experience, and then have the chance to be evaluated. In a sense it wasn't competitive because I was competing against myself. This was a healthy way to see what kind of job I was doing on my instrument. But if this was to ever become an obsession for me, I wouldn't have gained anything from it. Likewise if I started to compare myself to others playing the same piece as me, I might lose the spirit of what I was doing.
3. "There are many ways to divide the class into groups" (pg. 283). When I was a kid, almost every teacher I had let the class members divide themselves into their own groups. This almost always backfired for me, as I was frequently the "odd man out." I personally don't like putting kids in this position. Sure, I'm obviously biased and sensitive to this subject, but any student in a similar situation will feel awkward, shy, embarrassed, unsure of themselves, and ultimately, unhappy. As the book suggests, I highly recommend picking groups by chance or by using simple mathematics. Creative teachers will no doubt find endless ways of creating meaningful groups. When "chance" methods are employed, children are more likely to be exposed to people outside of their heritage, culture, race, and background. If nothing else, it is a good way to meet new friends.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
9/1/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 4 and 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 5.
Chapter 4
1. "Another means of directing children's attention to individual pitches and their relationships is through the use of a hand sign system first developed by Sarah Glover and John Curwen in England in the middle of the nineteenth century, and is often referred to as Kodaly hand signs" (pg. 78). As I mentioned once in class, I was required to learn these hand shapes as part of my solfege training in college. To be completely honest, I didn't really benefit from it at this stage in my professional career. Maybe it was because I was too old. Maybe it was because I was having a difficult time mastering the solfege itself. But I always thought it was a nuisance and completely unnecessary. However, I may very well be a strong advocate for the use of this system for younger students and students with audio disabilities. I just don't know enough about how this system has helped others. I think it would be very interesting to conduct research with a control group that learned solfege without the Kodaly hand signs, and an experimental group that learned solfege with the Kodaly hand signs. It would be interesting to see if the Kodaly hand signs made a significant impact in the learning of both young and old students alike.
2. "Children tend to sing a song in the manner and style in which it was presented to them" (pg. 83). I completely agree with this statement and wish that others appreciated this more. Just as we learn English, German, or a native language the way our parents speak it, we will learn how to sing a song, play an instrument, or improvise the way our teachers teach us. I immediately thought of a quote that Dr. K shared with us in the last class: "Students teach more like their professors taught, and less like their professors taught them how to teach." I think this speaks volumes of truth. We learn mostly from observation and not from ideology. I have never liked the phrase, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." I think this is a cop-out way of trying to teach students to do something that you yourself would not do. Kids, students, and others see right through this. I want to see my teacher "walk the walk," and not just "talk the talk." Teachers that "walk the walk" are the ones who truly leave a lasting impression on the student.
3. "Two- and three-part songs for children in the intermediate grades are increasingly available from publishing companies that specialize in choral music" (pg. 92). I wish that they would advocate the best companies instead of having us guess or use the trial and error method. Perhaps it's a publishing/copyright/preference issue, but it's still very frustrating. There are many books today in existence that will list the best companies based on experience and feedback. I'm lucky that I know good companies to go to that I know and trust, because there are many companies out there selling music that isn't authentic, challenging, and for lack of a better word, good. I know there will be many future educators that will read this book not having the background that I have in music publication. I know that they will be lost and not have the benefit of good advisers to lead them in good directions. Just as an instrumentalist isn't afraid of advocating their favorite line of instruments, music educators should not be afraid to list their favorite publishers.
Chapter 5
1. "The words high and low or up and down, when applied to pitch, are confusing to young children" (pg. 107). This is for good reason. Today, most cultures associate "low" pitches with those keys at the bottom of the piano, and "high" pitches with those keys at the top of the piano. This phenomenon is theorized to exist because large animals associated with big, "heavy" noises were on the ground while smaller animals with tiny, "small" voices were high in the sky. But this concept is not intuitive to children, and it is something that is learned from experience. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, thought the exact opposite about "high" and "low" pitches. "Low" pitches were associated with the gods, and thought to be far away in the distance, whereas "high" pitches were closest to the earth, and thought to be more "temperate" and "ennobling." Children learn to associate these words with certain pitches because that is what they are taught.
2. "Grow taller or shorter in response to glissandi played on a slide whistle" (pg. 110). I don't know exactly what the point of this exercise is. If we want to indoctrinate our students into the false concepts of "high" or "low" that I just talked about in my previous "point of interest," then fine. But otherwise, I think that children will naturally learn that most if not all people in western culture use terms like "high" or "low" in the same way. I don't have a problem with this; I have always thought that the bottom part of the piano was associated with low notes, and the top part of the piano was associated with high notes. After living in the United States of America for 28 years, I get it. But I didn't need an obscure exercise to teach me that concept at the age of six or seven. My musical training came at a much later time and I always thought terms like these were common sense. I understand why children don't automatically think this way. I know that their brains are not fully developed yet. I also know that we assign terms like "high" and "low" to mean certain things. It is purely a psychological phenomenon. But do kids really benefit from exercises like this? Maybe they do. I'm not a fan, but I'll remain open the research.
3. "A well-developed series of strategies involves a variety of modes: singing, moving, playing, listening, reading, and creating" (pg. 117). I think that this is true, but mostly for younger children. Since children are still growing in a multitude of ways, it is important for them to learn musical concepts in as many ways as they can. This will strengthen neural connections in the brain, and help them to transform formal operations into concrete operations. The more ways students can become involved with music, and the greater variety of things students can actively do to participate in creating music will help them grow into mature musicians. However, I believe that it becomes less and less important for teaching plans to include a variety of modes. At a certain age, too much emphasis on variety can become aggravating to students and have a reverse effect. The student might find the variety of modes to be superfluous and start to become easily bored. Such a student would then be in danger of loosing interest in music, and music related activities. Teachers need to be aware of the age group they are teaching regardless of the content matter.
1. "Another means of directing children's attention to individual pitches and their relationships is through the use of a hand sign system first developed by Sarah Glover and John Curwen in England in the middle of the nineteenth century, and is often referred to as Kodaly hand signs" (pg. 78). As I mentioned once in class, I was required to learn these hand shapes as part of my solfege training in college. To be completely honest, I didn't really benefit from it at this stage in my professional career. Maybe it was because I was too old. Maybe it was because I was having a difficult time mastering the solfege itself. But I always thought it was a nuisance and completely unnecessary. However, I may very well be a strong advocate for the use of this system for younger students and students with audio disabilities. I just don't know enough about how this system has helped others. I think it would be very interesting to conduct research with a control group that learned solfege without the Kodaly hand signs, and an experimental group that learned solfege with the Kodaly hand signs. It would be interesting to see if the Kodaly hand signs made a significant impact in the learning of both young and old students alike.
2. "Children tend to sing a song in the manner and style in which it was presented to them" (pg. 83). I completely agree with this statement and wish that others appreciated this more. Just as we learn English, German, or a native language the way our parents speak it, we will learn how to sing a song, play an instrument, or improvise the way our teachers teach us. I immediately thought of a quote that Dr. K shared with us in the last class: "Students teach more like their professors taught, and less like their professors taught them how to teach." I think this speaks volumes of truth. We learn mostly from observation and not from ideology. I have never liked the phrase, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." I think this is a cop-out way of trying to teach students to do something that you yourself would not do. Kids, students, and others see right through this. I want to see my teacher "walk the walk," and not just "talk the talk." Teachers that "walk the walk" are the ones who truly leave a lasting impression on the student.
3. "Two- and three-part songs for children in the intermediate grades are increasingly available from publishing companies that specialize in choral music" (pg. 92). I wish that they would advocate the best companies instead of having us guess or use the trial and error method. Perhaps it's a publishing/copyright/preference issue, but it's still very frustrating. There are many books today in existence that will list the best companies based on experience and feedback. I'm lucky that I know good companies to go to that I know and trust, because there are many companies out there selling music that isn't authentic, challenging, and for lack of a better word, good. I know there will be many future educators that will read this book not having the background that I have in music publication. I know that they will be lost and not have the benefit of good advisers to lead them in good directions. Just as an instrumentalist isn't afraid of advocating their favorite line of instruments, music educators should not be afraid to list their favorite publishers.
Chapter 5
1. "The words high and low or up and down, when applied to pitch, are confusing to young children" (pg. 107). This is for good reason. Today, most cultures associate "low" pitches with those keys at the bottom of the piano, and "high" pitches with those keys at the top of the piano. This phenomenon is theorized to exist because large animals associated with big, "heavy" noises were on the ground while smaller animals with tiny, "small" voices were high in the sky. But this concept is not intuitive to children, and it is something that is learned from experience. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, thought the exact opposite about "high" and "low" pitches. "Low" pitches were associated with the gods, and thought to be far away in the distance, whereas "high" pitches were closest to the earth, and thought to be more "temperate" and "ennobling." Children learn to associate these words with certain pitches because that is what they are taught.
2. "Grow taller or shorter in response to glissandi played on a slide whistle" (pg. 110). I don't know exactly what the point of this exercise is. If we want to indoctrinate our students into the false concepts of "high" or "low" that I just talked about in my previous "point of interest," then fine. But otherwise, I think that children will naturally learn that most if not all people in western culture use terms like "high" or "low" in the same way. I don't have a problem with this; I have always thought that the bottom part of the piano was associated with low notes, and the top part of the piano was associated with high notes. After living in the United States of America for 28 years, I get it. But I didn't need an obscure exercise to teach me that concept at the age of six or seven. My musical training came at a much later time and I always thought terms like these were common sense. I understand why children don't automatically think this way. I know that their brains are not fully developed yet. I also know that we assign terms like "high" and "low" to mean certain things. It is purely a psychological phenomenon. But do kids really benefit from exercises like this? Maybe they do. I'm not a fan, but I'll remain open the research.
3. "A well-developed series of strategies involves a variety of modes: singing, moving, playing, listening, reading, and creating" (pg. 117). I think that this is true, but mostly for younger children. Since children are still growing in a multitude of ways, it is important for them to learn musical concepts in as many ways as they can. This will strengthen neural connections in the brain, and help them to transform formal operations into concrete operations. The more ways students can become involved with music, and the greater variety of things students can actively do to participate in creating music will help them grow into mature musicians. However, I believe that it becomes less and less important for teaching plans to include a variety of modes. At a certain age, too much emphasis on variety can become aggravating to students and have a reverse effect. The student might find the variety of modes to be superfluous and start to become easily bored. Such a student would then be in danger of loosing interest in music, and music related activities. Teachers need to be aware of the age group they are teaching regardless of the content matter.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
8/29/10 - 3 Points of Interest on "Introduction to Music," and 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 3.
Introduction to Music - Development and Music Play
1. "Nonetheless, if adults devote the necessary time to the musical development of young children, and if they do not underestimate the children's comprehension, these young children will become comfortable with all types of music at an early age and will develop positive attitudes toward music that will persist throughout their lives" (pg. 3). I am not sure where the author has the research to support such a statement, and these assertions seem to be ludicrous. To me this says, "If I can do everything within my power to support children musically at an early age, then they will magically become 'comfortable with all types of music.'" Objectively speaking, I don't think that even the most gifted musicologist in the world will come to know all types of music in their lifetime. It is quite another thing to suppose that children will automatically be comfortable with ALL types of music. "ALL" is a very BIG word. It means "everything." This is a bold assertion, and one that is very dangerous to make especially in the world of early music pedagogy.
2. "Gordon (1997) has identified at least two categories of music babble. One category is tonal babble, and the other is rhythm babble" (pg. 7). I find this theory to be most fascinating. I like how Gordon's experience with the children helped shape his own beliefs on the possibility of different kinds of babbling. I would be interested in seeing more research done in this area, particularly with a larger sample of children from all around the world. For example, would children in Africa and South America be more inclined to rhythm babble? Would Bach's children, having lived around the Church and the Organ be more inclined to tonal babble? After reading this section, I really have the desire to listen to young children and babies. What are they saying? Could they possibly be trying to say something musically? Or is it just part of normal brain development? Very fascinating.
3. "Children must use the tool of imitation as they babble, play, and experiment with music in order to begin to master the syntax of music" (pg. 9). I think that this is basically true, especially since a great deal of cognition comes from repetition and imitation. I like to think of television shows that are very popular with children. One doesn't have to think very hard before one realizes that shows like "Sesame Street," "Barney," "Wiggles," and other shows like them are very appealing to children of all ages. What do these programs have in common with each other? There is music and movement together almost throughout the entire course of the show. While this may be less true in "Sesame Street," music and movement are a main force that keep children engaged and happy. Something remarkable must be happening in the brain as these Children listen to their favorite character and move with them to the beat. There is also something very "human" about this type of behavior, and it all seems very natural to children all over the world. While some of these programs may be annoying to teenagers and adults alike, children love them and cannot get enough of them. I would also like to see more research on this topic.
Chapter 3 of "Music in Childhood"
1. "Jaques-Dalcroze reasoned that children develop absolute pitch as the sense of C is impressed on the ear, the muscles, and the mind. He believed that the interrelationship of the scales would become clear, with children able to aurally determine the order of tones and semitones that constitute each scale" (pg. 46). This may seem logical and pass for good reasoning, but there is absolutely no research to support this idea. I know we do not understand absolute or perfect pitch perfectly, but it makes me upset when people offer "reasoning" without any justification or research to prove their theories. It ends up sounding like just another "good idea." When one makes a claim as serious as an ability to "aurally determine the order of tones and semitones that constitute each scale," I would hope that they had some research and validity to back that up. Is there any research on this theory? If so, why does the book not include it? Just curious.
2. "The most basic of Kodaly's ideas, that the use of good music is vital to the life of every person, is a challenging one for American teachers" (pg. 51). I understand that Kodaly viewed "good" music as European art music, especially European art music that contains pentatonic melodies and a cappella vocal music. But I don't think that we need to limit ourselves to Kodaly's definition of what "good music" is. I think he was just speaking from the vantage point of his own culture. Living in Hungary, certainly this music would have been most appealing to him, and thus the perfect music for children to learn. I think that American teachers should get the spirit of what Kodaly was trying to say and adapt his philosophy for Americans living in America! In other words, never mind what music was important to Kodaly. We have our own music and our own traditions which have been proven to be "good." If we use Kodaly's ideas and adapt them to the music of our own culture, we will be getting the spirit of what Kodaly really meant.
3. "The Schulwerk advocates extensive musical experience before literacy can become a truly musical, instead of mechanical, tool and a means for children to preserve the music they create" (pg. 53). I think that this is common sense. We need to learn the alphabet before we learn how to spell, and we need to learn to count before we can do multiplication. The same ideas apply for getting a solid foundation in music education. We cannot expect children to have authentic experiences if they are not properly paced according to the capacities of their brain. They need building blocks; here a little and there a little. It is foolish to suppose that children can have true musical experiences at a young age. We learn that even many famous composers were childish in their youth and were not capable of thinking on a scale similar to the one that they eventually would. Just as a young composer matures, and his work becomes increasingly intricate and authentic, so too must children learn to develop their skills in a safe, timely manner.
1. "Nonetheless, if adults devote the necessary time to the musical development of young children, and if they do not underestimate the children's comprehension, these young children will become comfortable with all types of music at an early age and will develop positive attitudes toward music that will persist throughout their lives" (pg. 3). I am not sure where the author has the research to support such a statement, and these assertions seem to be ludicrous. To me this says, "If I can do everything within my power to support children musically at an early age, then they will magically become 'comfortable with all types of music.'" Objectively speaking, I don't think that even the most gifted musicologist in the world will come to know all types of music in their lifetime. It is quite another thing to suppose that children will automatically be comfortable with ALL types of music. "ALL" is a very BIG word. It means "everything." This is a bold assertion, and one that is very dangerous to make especially in the world of early music pedagogy.
2. "Gordon (1997) has identified at least two categories of music babble. One category is tonal babble, and the other is rhythm babble" (pg. 7). I find this theory to be most fascinating. I like how Gordon's experience with the children helped shape his own beliefs on the possibility of different kinds of babbling. I would be interested in seeing more research done in this area, particularly with a larger sample of children from all around the world. For example, would children in Africa and South America be more inclined to rhythm babble? Would Bach's children, having lived around the Church and the Organ be more inclined to tonal babble? After reading this section, I really have the desire to listen to young children and babies. What are they saying? Could they possibly be trying to say something musically? Or is it just part of normal brain development? Very fascinating.
3. "Children must use the tool of imitation as they babble, play, and experiment with music in order to begin to master the syntax of music" (pg. 9). I think that this is basically true, especially since a great deal of cognition comes from repetition and imitation. I like to think of television shows that are very popular with children. One doesn't have to think very hard before one realizes that shows like "Sesame Street," "Barney," "Wiggles," and other shows like them are very appealing to children of all ages. What do these programs have in common with each other? There is music and movement together almost throughout the entire course of the show. While this may be less true in "Sesame Street," music and movement are a main force that keep children engaged and happy. Something remarkable must be happening in the brain as these Children listen to their favorite character and move with them to the beat. There is also something very "human" about this type of behavior, and it all seems very natural to children all over the world. While some of these programs may be annoying to teenagers and adults alike, children love them and cannot get enough of them. I would also like to see more research on this topic.
Chapter 3 of "Music in Childhood"
1. "Jaques-Dalcroze reasoned that children develop absolute pitch as the sense of C is impressed on the ear, the muscles, and the mind. He believed that the interrelationship of the scales would become clear, with children able to aurally determine the order of tones and semitones that constitute each scale" (pg. 46). This may seem logical and pass for good reasoning, but there is absolutely no research to support this idea. I know we do not understand absolute or perfect pitch perfectly, but it makes me upset when people offer "reasoning" without any justification or research to prove their theories. It ends up sounding like just another "good idea." When one makes a claim as serious as an ability to "aurally determine the order of tones and semitones that constitute each scale," I would hope that they had some research and validity to back that up. Is there any research on this theory? If so, why does the book not include it? Just curious.
2. "The most basic of Kodaly's ideas, that the use of good music is vital to the life of every person, is a challenging one for American teachers" (pg. 51). I understand that Kodaly viewed "good" music as European art music, especially European art music that contains pentatonic melodies and a cappella vocal music. But I don't think that we need to limit ourselves to Kodaly's definition of what "good music" is. I think he was just speaking from the vantage point of his own culture. Living in Hungary, certainly this music would have been most appealing to him, and thus the perfect music for children to learn. I think that American teachers should get the spirit of what Kodaly was trying to say and adapt his philosophy for Americans living in America! In other words, never mind what music was important to Kodaly. We have our own music and our own traditions which have been proven to be "good." If we use Kodaly's ideas and adapt them to the music of our own culture, we will be getting the spirit of what Kodaly really meant.
3. "The Schulwerk advocates extensive musical experience before literacy can become a truly musical, instead of mechanical, tool and a means for children to preserve the music they create" (pg. 53). I think that this is common sense. We need to learn the alphabet before we learn how to spell, and we need to learn to count before we can do multiplication. The same ideas apply for getting a solid foundation in music education. We cannot expect children to have authentic experiences if they are not properly paced according to the capacities of their brain. They need building blocks; here a little and there a little. It is foolish to suppose that children can have true musical experiences at a young age. We learn that even many famous composers were childish in their youth and were not capable of thinking on a scale similar to the one that they eventually would. Just as a young composer matures, and his work becomes increasingly intricate and authentic, so too must children learn to develop their skills in a safe, timely manner.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
8/25/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Chapter 2 of "Music In Childhood."
1. "Consistent with a belief in the child as an active player in the shaping of knowledge, the constructivist theory of learning explains knowledge as a result of the process by which the child creates meaning from his or her experiences" (pg. 22). I completely agree with the significance of the "Constructivist Theory" when it comes to children and music. Since I was a child, music was always something that I was constantly creating in my mind. It was something that I was quite conscience of at an early age, and it was completely a private act of learning. Humming tunes, whistling phrases, composing melodies in my young brain, picking out notes on the keyboard: these were all methods by which I was learning about music by constructing the music itself. I believe that the highest form of learning is when we take on the active role of creator. Isn't it wonderful and altogether fascinating that music allows most all children to do this quite easily?
2. "The Skinnerian technique of successive approximation, or the shaping of behavior by reinforcing each progressive step toward an ideal , is one of the most common used by teachers" (pg.26). While this may be one of the most common methods of shaping behavior currently used by teachers, I think there is always an inherent danger present when a teacher becomes increasingly fixated on an ideal to the point where the expected result is more important than the student(s) in question. In high school I was enrolled in a musical course that was supposed to enrich my passion for marching band. However, I had a band director that was too fixated with his own vision of what he thought was "aesthetically pleasing," that he lost the respect, admiration, and finally the control of his students. So bad was the trauma that to this day I have no desire to be associated with marching bands. While it is admirable to be idealistic, we cannot forget about the students.
3. "The discovery method is a type of learning that involves problem solving, requiring the learner to manipulate materials and to cope with incongruities from which information is derived" (pg. 33). Not only do I believe this to be a fascinating and enriching form of learning, I believe it is essential for students to be "undercover detectives" in their pursuit of knowledge. I remember my undergraduate years at Brigham Young University when we were learning the rudiments of chromatic harmony. Simple harmonic rules were given, simple chord progressions were memorized, and simple instructions of musical form were studied. Life seemed grand. Music theory and analysis was going to be easy! But then we were given a sonata by an actual composer, like Beethoven, Schubert, or Chopin. In an instant, ideas we thought were grounded on simple principles turned out to be illogical at best and incomprehensible at worst. Simple rules we thought to be unchangeable were manipulated to the point of no recognition. And musical form that made so much sense before now seemed to be non-existent. In short, we learned by first-hand experience that music theory and analysis wasn't going to be that easy! We were given the basic tools to succeed, but we had yet to use them in the real world. Nevertheless, as we took the plunge into the musical abyss, we learned something of what makes Beethoven, Schubert, and Chopin so special. We learned to think for ourselves and to always expect the unexpected. We learned to manipulate materials! We learned to discover!
2. "The Skinnerian technique of successive approximation, or the shaping of behavior by reinforcing each progressive step toward an ideal , is one of the most common used by teachers" (pg.26). While this may be one of the most common methods of shaping behavior currently used by teachers, I think there is always an inherent danger present when a teacher becomes increasingly fixated on an ideal to the point where the expected result is more important than the student(s) in question. In high school I was enrolled in a musical course that was supposed to enrich my passion for marching band. However, I had a band director that was too fixated with his own vision of what he thought was "aesthetically pleasing," that he lost the respect, admiration, and finally the control of his students. So bad was the trauma that to this day I have no desire to be associated with marching bands. While it is admirable to be idealistic, we cannot forget about the students.
3. "The discovery method is a type of learning that involves problem solving, requiring the learner to manipulate materials and to cope with incongruities from which information is derived" (pg. 33). Not only do I believe this to be a fascinating and enriching form of learning, I believe it is essential for students to be "undercover detectives" in their pursuit of knowledge. I remember my undergraduate years at Brigham Young University when we were learning the rudiments of chromatic harmony. Simple harmonic rules were given, simple chord progressions were memorized, and simple instructions of musical form were studied. Life seemed grand. Music theory and analysis was going to be easy! But then we were given a sonata by an actual composer, like Beethoven, Schubert, or Chopin. In an instant, ideas we thought were grounded on simple principles turned out to be illogical at best and incomprehensible at worst. Simple rules we thought to be unchangeable were manipulated to the point of no recognition. And musical form that made so much sense before now seemed to be non-existent. In short, we learned by first-hand experience that music theory and analysis wasn't going to be that easy! We were given the basic tools to succeed, but we had yet to use them in the real world. Nevertheless, as we took the plunge into the musical abyss, we learned something of what makes Beethoven, Schubert, and Chopin so special. We learned to think for ourselves and to always expect the unexpected. We learned to manipulate materials! We learned to discover!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)