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.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
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)