This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
Section 1: Background and Learning outcomes
The Gordon Institute for Learning Music is the home of Music Learning Theory which attempts to explain “how we learn when we learn music” (giml.org). The institute was named for Edwin E. Gordon music researcher and developer of six musical aptitude tests.
Music Learning Theory is primarily focused on the term auditation. Audiation is “a cognitive process by which the brain gives meaning to musical sounds” (giml.org). Audiation is most certainly at the heart of this theory! Gordon had a LOT to say about it:
“Compared to what is often called music imagery, audiation is a more insightful process. Music imagery simply suggests a vivid or figurative picture of what sound of music might represent. It does not require assimilation and generalization of sound of music, as does audiation. Musicians may audiate while listening to, recalling, performing, interpreting, creating or composing, improvising, reading, or writing music. Listening to music with comprehension and listening to speech with comprehension involve similar processes”
-Edwin E. Gordon from his paper “Untying Gordian Knots”
This is a bit confusing! Even for musicians! Here’s some more information on “Audiation”
https://giml.org/mlt/audiation/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMqOOokv4TM
The learning outcome of this method is for students to cognitively understand what they are hearing. “Through development of audiation students learn to understand music. Understanding is the foundation of music appreciation, the ultimate goal of music teaching” (giml.org).
Also, check out this video to see this learning theory in action!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWbbVWrGNs4
Section 2: Direct Instruction or Discovery Learning?
The teaching of Music Learning Theory is structured into “Learning Sequence Activities” and “Classroom activities” (giml.org). From what I understand, the content of learning sequence activities are tonal and rhythm patterns-“sung, chanted or played” for five to ten minutes of class time. These sequence activities are how teachers promote audiation. How exactly, I am still unsure.
Classroom activities, at least in the context of instrumental music, are songs. Gordon states, “Songs are the primary content of classroom activities. Songs are musical stories, essential components of the aural/oral foundation upon which higher levels of audiation are built” (giml.org).
While interesting, this teaching style doesn’t appear to be aligned with discovery learning. To me it appears that Music Learning Theory is about teaching students HOW to audiate or understand cognitively what they’re hearing, not necessarily for them to determine that for themselves. It would seem it aligns more closely with direct instruction.
Section 3: Student autonomy and choice
As I mentioned above, I was unable to find any type of discovery learning present in this teaching style. That being said, improvisation is included in the discussions I researched about music learning theory. However, instead of freely promoting student choice, it is instead considered something that should be systematically taught. “To teach improvisation effectively, proper sequence is crucial. Learning is most efficient when it proceeds one step at a time” (giml.org). The website goes on to outline “guidelines that will help the teacher teach improvisation in accordance to Music Learning Theory principles” (giml.org).
Instead of a student centered autonomous activity, improvisation in this case is a directly instructed facet of the method. Student choice and autonomy don’t feature strongly in this learning style.
Section 4: Personal Experience or Testimony
I don’t personally have experience with this model. I conducted some research on the topic and found mixed reviews. Most positive feedback I found was tied to Gordon himself. I did find one paper of particular interest. It is called “Evaluating Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory from a Critical Thinking Perspective” by Paul G. Woodford of the University of Western Ontario. Woodford states, “In the end, and contrary to what Gordon asserts, his theory fails to explain what is most important of all, that is, how and why children should learn to think for themselves” (Woodford, 1996, p.85)
Section 5:
Similar to Paul G. Woodford, I feel that music is about the development of students’ musical individuality. Unfortunately the Gordon theory isn’t conducive to that personal development. As Woodford puts it, “having taught children conventional music practice, they fail to explain to them that the point is not to mindlessly replicate what others have done (although a certain amount of this is necessary) but rather to put their own “slant” on things and, thereby, to find their own musical answers” (Woodford, 1996, p.91).
Musical answers; I like that. That’s what we need. Our own musical answers. How can students learn to appreciate music using only someone else’s opinions and not their own?
Sources
http://library.sc.edu/music/gordon/499.pdf
https://giml.org/docs/GordianKnots.pdf
Section 1: Background and Learning Outcomes
The Suzuki method is named for its founder Shinich Suzuki, a Japanese violinist and educator who dedicated his life to the development of the method he called “Talent Education.” Dr. Suzuki felt strongly that “Musical ability is not an inborn talent but an ability which can be developed. Any child who is properly trained can develop musical ability, just as all children develop the ability to speak their mother tongue. The potential of every child is unlimited” (suzukiassociation.org).
The main facets of Suzuki method are: parent responsibility, loving encouragement from both teacher and parents, constant repetition, and beginning students on an instrument as early as possible (suzukiassociation.org).
Suzuki felt that parents should be “home teachers” and often parents learn to play some songs on the chosen instrument to “motivate and guide” their child at home. That way parents can relate to their child and understand what they need to do to help them learn.
Graded Repertoire and delayed note reading are also important elements in this style. “Pieces in the Suzuki repertoire are designed to present technical problems to be learned in the context of the music rather than through dry technical exercises” (suzukiassociation.org). Students are expected to develop a high level of skill before note reading is introduced.
“Dr. Suzuki’s goal was not simply to develop professional musicians, but to nurture loving human beings and help develop each child’s character through the study of music” (suzukiassociation.org)
Here’s a great collection of Suzuki Method videos!
https://suzukiassociation.org/media/tags/video/
Section 2: Direct Instruction or Discovery Learning
Unlike the other teaching styles I’ve covered so far, this one is hard to determine. That being said, I feel that there are elements of both direct instruction and discovery learning present in the Suzuki method.
On the direct instruction side, there is the emphasis on constant repetition and memorization. For example, the Suzuki Association of America makes the following recommendations for teachers wishing to incorporate the method into their teaching curriculum:
- Use a common sequenced repertoire for each instrument
- Memorize the repertoire
- Teach small step instruction of each skill
- Teach and reinforce mastery of each skill (suzukiassociation.org)
There is no mention of any discovery type learning in these recommendations. The teacher instructs and the students memorize the skills through constant repetition.
On the discovery side of things, there is a group learning portion of Suzuki method. Maybe it is a stretch to call it discovery learning? The approach does encourage group lessons and performances where students can “learn from and motivate each other”(suzukiassociation.org).
Other than that I think this approach is mainly aligned with direct instruction.
Section 3: Student autonomy and choice
The student choice portion of the Suzuki Method comes from the desired learning environment. Parents are encouraged to “not force” their children to practice and “loving encouragement” are some of the buzz words associated with the method. So, technically children choose to play or not to. They can choose how much effort they put into learning an instrument (ideally).
As far as students’ choice and autonomy about how and what to learn…let’s be real. There isn’t any. Students learn music through a series of graded repertoire, namely ten volumes (books 1-10). In the group lesson portions Suzuki pupils play mainly in unison and there isn’t much in the way of originality. Students are not encouraged to compose or even to improvise on their learned pieces. Technicality is also often more strongly sought after than individual musical expression.
Section 4: Personal Experience or Testimony
I studied violin using the Suzuki method from the time I was five until I graduated from high school. I learned a lot of technical skills. Enough to say I was a pretty technically solid violinist when I left for college. I have fond memories of my mom and dad being really involved when I was little. Actually my dad went with me to my first violin lesson. It is one of my strongest memories because it was unique; my father worked constantly so it was really important to me that he went with me. They never really did force me to practice. So I guess the decision to keep playing was mine autonomously. They did drag me to group lessons every Saturday morning, which I despised. Strangely, I didn’t find a lot of motivation from the other students. My competitiveness led to a poor image of myself sometimes. I did learn a lot and I have nothing but fondness for my teachers growing up, there were a lot of things I didn’t know when I left the Suzuki world. Like how to make my own musical choices and decisions. I’d never been able to interpret things my own way or play with expression really. My technical skills were there, but my musicality didn’t exist.
Section 5: Reflection
I think there are valuable aspects of this method; however I don’t think I would prefer to teach students in this style. I think there is WAY more to music than being technically skilled at an instrument. Other methods are more effective in teaching musicianship in my personal opinion.
Sources
Section 1: Background and Learning Outcomes
The Orff Schulwerk approach to music learning combines singing, playing instruments, speech, and movement. Developed by German composers Carl Orff Gunild Keetman in the 1920’s, this method has become extremely widespread in the United States as it, “offers a potential for active and creative music making by all children, not just the musically talented” (aosa.org). Active learning is the central theme of Orff Schulwerk. The philosophy is built on the concept that, “active learners develop more thorough and better long term understanding of the material and ideas involved” (aosa.org).
The movement encourages child development in four main areas: intellectual, social, emotional, and aesthetic claiming that the music and movement skills taught “have a wider application and value in many areas” (aosa.org). Improvisation and creation of music and movement are crucial pieces of this approach that support critical thinking skills that can be applied to other aspects of students’ lives. After reviewing this information I’d say the primary learning outcome of the Orff Schulwerk method is to “support the conceptual and affective development of children” (aosa.org) through active music making and creative improvisation.
Watch these cool videos for more information!
https://www.youtube.com/embed/O7ZIUWyOLOs?rel=0&autoplay=1
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GIg57hqBYqY?rel=0&autoplay=1
Section 2: Direct Instruction or Discovery Learning?
Because Carl Orff and Gunild Keetman felt strongly that “imitation, experimentation, and personal expression occur naturally and unconsciously” in spontaneous play, they used that play as the foundation for their teaching method (aosa.org). Instead of lecturing students on musical terms and technique, “aspects of play are developed consciously to involve learners with the elements of music and movements” (aosa.org).
The teaching process is very natural. Using percussion instruments, speaking, body percussion, speaking patterns, or movements students are first given time to “spontaneously explore the materials under focus” (aosa.org). In other words the students participate in a time of unstructured experimentation. They have the freedom to create their own sounds or movements and observe those of their classmates. Next in the process is a call and response time. Usually the teacher will introduce a specific pattern and the students listen or watch and imitate the pattern by rote. At this time no notation is used as Orff instructors support the idea that, “learning to read music notation is a logical extension of being able to make music” (aosa.org). So the music making happens first. Following the imitation portion is an exploration time where the class “applies suggested ideas” brought forth by the members of the class. It is similar to the call and response of the previous step, except this time the students are imitating each other’s original patterns. Finally, the last segment of the teaching process is pure improvisation. Using the materials explored throughout the class, students or the entire class creates a piece of music or dance.
Clearly, this is a discovery model of learning. I don’t really see a direct instruction piece except maybe the patterns the teacher introduces in the call and response section.
Section 3: Student autonomy and choice
I think this quote sums it up better than I could:
“It is not intended to develop highly accomplished performers. The emphasis is on process rather than performance; on participation by all, each at his or her own level; and on the cultivation of skills for creating and developing ideas within music and dance rather than reproducing set forms. Learning results from the mutually stimulating interaction of instructor and students, the freedom and opportunity to take risks, and the accomplishment of creative tasks appropriate to
-Carl Orff, 1977
The phrases “participation by all” and “each at his or her own level” speaks volumes to me. This method definitely is rife with student autonomy and choice. The beginning, middle, and end of each class taught in Orff style is dedicated to what students have chosen to create.
Section 4: Personal Experience or Testimony
I participated in many Orff style classes in my elementary school education. I remember them pretty well (considering it was SO long ago). The things I remember most are the cacophony of the initial “experimentation time” and how much fun it was to create a piece of music that belonged to our class and no one else. My music teacher always reminded us that no one could ever make a piece exactly like we did during that class time. I thought that was really cool!
In college I also had the opportunity to observe many Orff classes taught by other educators around Greeley. Coming at it from a teaching standpoint, I was always surprised at how easy it was to teach musical concepts this way WITHOUT the use of notation. For example, I once observed a class of very young students (I think they were in kindergarten) learn and truly understand the concepts of “beats” and “rests” without their teacher ever once writing anything on the board.
It truly is an “active” learning style. There is a lot going on at once and some teachers I think might get a little stressed out with managing a class in this style. Also, I’ve never seen it used with older students. It is typically an elementary general music approach.
Section 5: Reflection
I like the ideas behind this philosophy. I believe students do learn better by being able to explore and create in a discovery type setting. I would very much like to apply the teaching process (or a variety of it) to an older age group class. I feel it would be very interesting to see what would happen in an Orchestra or Band class; to see what students would create. It is typically also used with younger children, so applying it in middle school might be challenging. As I mentioned above the classroom does get very loud and wild, but I like this methods focus on the process instead of performance. As music teachers we sometimes get so focused on the product and forget that there is WAY more to music than just playing concerts!
Sources
Carl Orff, “Orff-Schulwerk: Past and Future,” in Orff Re-Echoes, ed. Isabel McNeill Carley (Cleveland, OH: American Orff-Schulwerk Association, 1977), 6.
Section 1: Background and Learning Outcomes
Little Kids Rock was started in 1996 by David Wish, a teacher frustrated by his school’s lack of music funding. It began with Wish offering afterschool guitar lessons to interested students and has grown into a national non-profit and teaching methodology that reaches thousands of students. While the primary goal of Little Kids Rock is to “transform lives by restoring, expanding, and innovating music education in our schools” (littlekidsrock.org), the innovation piece is the most connected to the major learning outcome of the program. David Wish spent most of his career as an ESL teacher and in turn Little Kids Rock utilizes a revolutionary teaching method called MSL or “Music as a Second Language.” It is a “unique approach to teaching music that utilizes the deeply interconnected nature of language and music” (littlekidsrock.org).
David Wish believes, “just as all kids are natural language speakers, they are also natural music makers. Not just some kids; all kids” (littlekidsrock.org). The most important learning outcome of this method is that ALL students have access to music and learn it in a natural way that parallels the way they learn to speak.
Again, here are some great videos about this method!
Section 2: Direct Instruction or Discovery Learning?
To be honest, Little Kids Rock and its association with Discovery Learning is the reason I became interested in other music teaching methods.
(See my other blog: https://wordpress.com/post/rebeldreamsblog.wordpress.com/118)
This program is all about creation. Not so much about delivering information to students, but instead having students gain skills and information in the process of creating music. Contrary to the traditional instruction of teaching students to read and write music before they play it, Little Kids Rock does the exact opposite.
When asked why, founder David Wish answered:
“Why did I teach kids to “play” music first and not to read it? Because we learn to speak our native language before we learn to read or write it. The same approach is best applied to the acquisition of a second language. Playing music while unencumbered by the conscious knowledge of rules and theory is the equivalent of speaking” (Wish, p. 19).
Learning language is the ultimate form of discovery learning if you think about it. We listen and try it out and eventually get the hang of it…THEN we add reading and writing. Can you imagine if the process was reversed? It feels unnatural doesn’t it?
Section 3: Student autonomy and choice
Under “Methodology” on the organizations’ website this statement is present, “This student-centered approach to music education teaches children to play the music they know and love including rock, reggae, hip-hop pop, and also how to improvise and compose their own music” (littlekidsrock.org).
Little Kids Rock employs “modern band” style. These style classes feature guitar, bass, keyboard, drums, vocals technology and computers (littlekidsrock.org). Often students pick their own small groups or “bands” in addition to whole class ensemble playing. Also, the program encourages trying all the instruments and switching around groups to find different sounds.
Additionally, students perform a lot of their own work without the stress of having to formally write it down. Wish said, “I was floored. These little guys were composing and improvising, but I had never shown them how. I had never asked them to write or improvise. It just happened” (Wish, p. 19).
When it comes to student choice and autonomy, Little Kids Rock is a textbook example of it working like a charm!
Section 4: Personal Experience or Testimony
Again, I (unfortunately) have no personal experience with Little Kids Rock. I hope to change that as soon as I can! I have a very close friend/former colleague who is extremely involved in the program. She actually led parts of their conference last month in New York City! In the past two or so years she has become one of the Colorado leaders of Little Kids Rock. Not surprisingly she is quoted on their website! She has this to say:
“The strength of Little Kids Rock lies in its ability to take absolutely any student, at any time, at any level and give them a chance to succeed with music. When I look around my classroom and see students leading rehearsals, composing songs and having fun all at the same time – I know there’s something special happening.”
-Mary Claxton, music teacher at Polaris Expeditionary Learning School
Section 5: Reflection
The element that draws me the most to Little Kids Rock is how much fun it seems. Kids (and teachers for that matter) love making music when it is enjoyable. Little Kids Rock really uses that notion to get students hooked on music without the stress and anxiety of “traditional” learning how to read and notate everything. Students achieve success on instruments right away and in turn become more motivated learners! I can’t wait to get more involved in this! One thing that is daunting for me is that I never studied how to teach a “rock band.” That might be difficult, but also exciting for me to explore!
Sources
http://www.littlekidsrock.org/
http://www.littlekidsrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Methodology-MSL.pdf
Section 1: Background and Learning Outcomes
Mark O’Connor is a Grammy award winning violinist and composer. In response to what O’Connor calls “our identity problem” (in reference to American music education mainly using European style music) he claims, “Conservatory instructors and other music educators nationwide must incorporate traditional American musical styles into their curricula” (O’Connor, 2011, p. 2). Here’s what it comes down to. String Orchestra is historically influenced by all things Europe. Traditional direct instruction teaching methods and the majority of what is considered “important repertoire” comes directly from European composers and educators. O’Connor argues that we, as American educators, need to utilize the wealth of music and ideas coming from this country and its people.
The O’Connor Method is a string teaching method with traditional American music at its core. That being traditional folk songs and music written by only American composers. The method also contains eight clearly established learning outcomes called the “Eight Principles of the O’Connor Method. Those principles are: listening, practice, progression, exercising, performance, relevance, creativity, and expression.
After reading all of the eight principles, it appears to me that creativity is the most important. O’Connor mentions in his paper entitled 20 Points of Creativity for The O’Connor Method book one, “ foundational groundwork for creativity for very young people is inherent in The O’Connor Method book one and therefore doesn’t need to be taught so much as presented” (O’Connor, 2012, p. 1). He goes on to extensively explain how creativity is inherent, how it’s not being taught in traditional string teaching methods, and twenty ways that The O’Connor Method promotes creativity.
So, the main learning outcome of The O’Connor Method is to “provide students with a creative musical foundation upon which they can build and grow into fully realized musicians” (O’Connor, 2012, p. 15).
Here is an awesome collection of videos about this method!
http://www.oconnormethod.com/Videos.html
Section 2: Direct Instruction or Discovery Learning?
This method is an attempt to move away from the direct instruction that Mark O’Connor deems “technique oriented.” He states, “ I believe that the technique-oriented (left brained) musical training so prevalent in today’s string world is responsible in large part for the paucity of string playing composers, arrangers, improvisers, and band/ensemble leaders in the United States” (O’Connor, 2012, p. 15). His thoughts are that traditional technique oriented methods are killing creativity in string education today.
So, the O’Connor method takes an alternate approach. I think it is a more discovery based approach. A noted string educator Pam Wiley has this to say about the method. “In this system , music is a shared experience and a communally creative one…Students learn rhythmic groove and a sense of harmonic movement (chord progressions) way before they learn theory, counting, spelling, isolated techniques etc” (Wiley, 2012, p. 5).
Section 3: Student autonomy and choice
As “individuality” and “creativity” are at the heart of this method I feel it is safe to say student choice and autonomy are important considerations. In the “eight principles of the O’Connor Method” one element that incorporates student choice is creativity. The opening sentence of that section is, “Individual creativity is encouraged from the very earliest stages of development by the inclusion of improvisation suggestions/exercises on the learning pages” (O’Connor, 2009, p. 2). Students are provided opportunities to explore their own musical ideas through the use of improvisation. Another key way that student autonomy is present in this teaching system is through the emphasis on expression. In the first volume of the book, a character named “Fiddle Boy” is introduced. According to O’Connor, “Fiddle Boy wants to help you discover the emotions of pieces so you can eventually express your own feelings in music you have learned” (O’Connor, 2009, p. 2). While the use of a character might be a corny way to introduce students to the concept of expression, at least the students gain an understanding of how to use their own voices in the music they’re making.
Section 4: Personal Experience/Testimony
I personally don’t have any experience with this method. I haven’t been to any training, observed, or taught any classes using this system. All I know is what I’ve read. I mentioned Pam Wiley above in section two. While I don’t know her personally, I have had the honor of hearing her speak at the Colorado Music Educators conference in Colorado Springs. She is a prolific string educator who has taught in many styles. She has this to say about the O’Connor Method:
“Mark O’Connor has done many incredible things. Many look up to him as a “hero” because of his incredible technique and creative genius. Many credit him with keeping the violin alive in recorded country music. Many revere him for elevating American musical language to its rightful place in complex classical compositions. Many believe that his compositions are a leading influence in the saving of American string music in general. Yes, to all. But I believe, however, that giving us a way to teach orchestral music to young children in a holistic, organic-yes musical!-way may be his greatest contribution to society. The O’Connor Method is a truly a gift we should not ignore” (Wiley, 2012, p. 6).
Section 5: Reflection
I think this method combines discovery learning, student autonomy, and American musical themes in one comprehensive method. I am definitely interested in learning more about it and trying out in a music classroom! I think there are benefits from a cultural standpoint. Maybe students will connect more with composers who are alive and from the same country as them. As far as challenges, well I think straying away from the hundreds of years of instruction for this new method might take some getting used to, but I’m up for it! I’ll conclude this blog with a quote that struck a chord with me (haha!)
“I believe that the natural creativity that every child is born with can be nurtured in the realm of music and that the foundation for further creativity can be established and enhanced through a new understanding and teaching of the basic underlying groundwork of creativity at an early age”
-Mark O’Connor
Sources
http://www.oconnormethod.com/Orch_Article_FINAL.pdf
http://www.oconnormethod.com/index.html
http://www.oconnormethod.com/A_Reemerging_American_Classical_Music.pdf
http://www.oconnormethod.com/20_Points_of_Creativity_1_10_12.pdf
Hello everyone and welcome to my blog series! This series is designed to explore several music teaching methods both being used historically and today. This series will investigate and reflect on the following methods: Little Kids Rock, Orff Schulwerk, The Suzuki Method, The Gordon Institute for Music Learning, and The O’Connor Method. Each blog will contain five sections: background and learning outcomes, direct instruction or discovery learning, student choice and autonomy, personal experience or testimonials, and finally a personal reflection.
To begin, let me give you some background about me and my interest in this particular subject. My name is Sarah and I’m a music educator. I began playing the violin at age five. My grandfather was in a country band and sent my parents a violin and told them to get me started on lessons. Needless to say, I didn’t have a say in the matter. I often claim the violin chose me instead of the other way around. I learned violin using the Suzuki method, which I will discuss in depth later in this series.
I didn’t particularly love playing the violin growing up. I would have much rather been playing outside with my friends than being forced to practice hours a day. My real love for playing emerged in middle school when I became a member of the school orchestra. Middle school is a unique time (as we all know) an orchestra became “my place.” The place where I could shine and feel like a part of something worthwhile.
That feeling of belonging continued to flourish in high school and led me to the University of Northern Colorado to a degree in music education. My undergrad was a whirlwind. Music method classes and education classes filled my head with what I thought would prepare me for my teaching career. As with every new teacher, I learned quickly there was still a lot to learn about actually having your own classroom. Now, here I am again realizing there is still so much I have to learn about being an effective educator. Even after five plus years of doing it every day!
This series is an attempt to analyze music teaching methods through the lens of direct instruction vs. discovery learning. It is an attempt to ascertain whether or not student choice and autonomy play a part in the methodology. And finally it is an opportunity for me to grow as an educator in understanding which, if any, of these methods are a “good choice” for students learning to be musicians. As I’m in a period of transition (not teaching music at this time) I’m also using this blog as a tool of reflection on my past teaching and an inspiration for my future teaching. Thanks for coming with me on this journey!
I truly hope that this series can help other curious music educators as well! Please enjoy!
Before I moved to Japan I had the opportunity to teach beginning and advanced guitar classes at the middle school level. It was one of those moments where the interviewers ask you, ” you can teach guitar, right” and you say, “definitely! I can do that! Absolutely no problem!”
Meanwhile, at that time, I had barely any guitar experience what so ever. My grandfather had taught me a few chords and I’d messed around with them a bit, but nothing formal. I hadn’t taken any classes in college or on my own.
Needless to say, my beginning guitar classes were how I learned guitar. I would prep a lesson by learning the material myself the night before. Thankfully, that first year I only taught beginning guitar and by fourth quarter I was feeling alright about it.
The next year brought a new challenge…advanced guitar. I went into the class knowing the students were going to come to class much more skilled than I am. So, what was I to do? Well, I thought about how I learned guitar in those late night prep sessions. I watched YouTube tutorial videos!
The first project I ran in advanced guitar class was “make your own guitar tutorial video.” Students had pretty much complete control over how they completed this task. All I really did was facilitate a timeline for completion, show students example tutorials, and help filming videos.
I was nervous. Before this I had never really done a project where students had total control over what they did. What I found out was…give students some freedom to do something they like and are interested in…plus add technology they are really familiar with…and they’ll make something amazing!
I was blown away by what they did. These tutorials were amazing and extremely helpful teaching tools for the rest of the students in class and me! I never imagined approaching advanced guitar with the students teaching the class, but that is basically how it went down. Teaching, it turns out, helped the young guitarists to learn in different and more complex ways than simply learning new songs.
At the end of advanced guitar I ran another student led project. In this one, students had to compose an original song. They only guidelines concerned the song structure and in that it was merely a suggestion. I recommended each song have an introduction, verse, chorus, and an outro. Again, students went above and beyond my expectations. Not only did they create well structured pieces…they were funny, sometimes emotional, and really allowed for creative expression.
This felt like music teaching to me.
Throughout this semester I’ve really thought about how education is changing or not changing. I think music education needs to shift too.
Here’s an interesting article I found on the subject:
http://theconversation.com/why-music-lessons-need-to-keep-up-with-the-times-58268
At the end of the article the author says 21st century music teaching should mainly focus on students creating their own music. My experience in this supports this claim.!
I can’t wait to find more ways to move music teaching into the future in my classes!
Reading about education reform these past few weeks has left me feeling a bit bewildered! Especially concerning the “Finnish Way”and how it relates to “Foreign Innovations.”
Going into Finnish Lessons, I anticipated reading about some revolutionary new ideas. I expected ideas so radical from those I know that my mind would be changed right away. I expected to form a brand new concept of what is needed to correct the struggles facing our country’s education system right now.
I was surprised to read this:
“Many foreign observers have been surprised that they see only a few originally Finnish innovations practiced in classrooms. A closer look at the origin of Finland’s current pedagogical models, school improvement practices, and education innovation in general reveals another intriguing characteristic of Finland’s schools: Many of the innovations that have made Finnish schools blossom can be traced back to other countries, often to the United States. This is surprising given Finland’s strong position as one of the most innovative societies and knowledge economies in the world” (Stahlberg, p. 3296).
This paragraph blew me away. I had no idea that Finland’s success is due in large part to the ideas of other countries, especially the one I’m currently living and teaching in.
Stahlberg goes on to say, “so common is the reliance on U.S ideas in Finland that some have come to call the Finnish school system a large scale laboratory of American education innovation.” (p.3309) and also “many visitors from the United States often note that what they see in Finish schools reminds them of practices they had seen in many schools in the United States in the 1970’s and 1980’s” (p. 3369).
So, the ideas that are proving extraordinarily beneficial in Finnish schools are originally from America. The ideas are coming from here. They were prevalent in the seventies and eighties. My question now is, what happened? What happened to using those successful ideas like cooperative learning, multiple intelligences, and alternative classroom assessments? Why did we stop focusing on those notions and start down a completely opposite path?
I’m sure finding the exact answers to when and why are impossible. As with everything, multiple factors have contributed to this 180 degree switch in procedure.
In my preliminary search for the answers, I came across an interesting timeline of educational articles spanning from the eighties to today. If you’re reading this and you’re curious you should give it a look:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/30-years/timeline.html
Looking at the timeline confirms what Zhao talks about in World Class Learners. In the late eighties school choice became a hot topic in regards to adding competitiveness to schools. “Standards” also became a large topic of conversation and debate around that time frame. As time has gone on more and more elements of schooling have become regulated by federal programs.
It doesn’t seem to be working for us. I really wonder what it will take to turn us back to the ideals of the seventies and eighties? Hopefully we can use Finland as an example and come to realize OUR ideas are what are successful there. Maybe WE should use them!!!!
Sources:
K-12 America since 1981. (2011, August 22).Education Week. doi:http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/30-years/timeline.html
Sahlberg, P., Ravitch, D., & Hargreaves, A. (2015).Finnish lessons 2.0: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland?(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Zhao, Y. (2012).World class learners: educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lately I”ve been thinking a lot about learning music. I’ve been reflecting on the way I learned music, the way I was taught to teach music, and the methods I’ve used in my classrooms.
Looking back, I learned a lot of what I know now from “Direct Instruction”. My teachers told me exactly what to do andBey exactly how to do it. There were fingering drills, note reading drills, musical terminology drills and so forth. The amount of memorization was intense. In the early days I would memorize whole pieces, play them with good technique, but perform them exactly the way I was instructed they “should sound”. I was replicating and giving back what the instructor wanted to hear. There was no personal connection…none of my soul in my playing.
When I got to college, I’d been playing the violin for a long time. I felt like I was pretty good at it. Why was it then that I was stopped in my tracks when a professor asked me to make my playing “more my own”? I didn’t understand what he meant by that. He explained I was performing with good technique and all the notes were correct, but it didn’t have any elements of my personality. He said I was playing like a robot, not like a human with her own ideas and expression. Needless to say, it was very difficult for me to grasp this concept. I didn’t know how to develop my own sound. I wasn’t taught to think that way. I never had to improvise growing up or do anything that deviated from “memorizing and playing the right notes.”
Thankfully, I learned a lot in college and I’m continuing to learn now in my masters degree! Focusing on the idea of Problem Based Learning (PBL) has made me curious about what methods are out there that connect PBL and music.
I came across a 2011 article in the New York Times called Beyond Baby Mozart, Students Who Rock. The author David Bornstein expressed some of the same concerns that I have about the way music is taught. He asked, “Why do schools teach music in a way that turns off so many young people rather than igniting their imagination?” I think that is a really good way of putting it. Bashing kids over the head with endless memorization of notes and correct technique isn’t doing anything to promote creativity or imagination. Bornstein went on to introduce a program called Little Kids Rock that is changing the way music is approached in the classroom. He explained, “The key to Little Kids Rock is that it teaches children to play music…not by notation, but by listening, imitation, and meaningful experimentation.”
The Little Kids Rock approach seems to align with PBL methods. Instead of delivering information to students, they are required to create something themselves. Creating something. To me, that is a really crucial part of music education that is not being taught effectively. At least I don’t think I learned how to do it effectively. Mainly because I wasn’t aware of it or given a chance to try.
Bornstein hit the nail on the head, I think. He claimed, “Making music is as much a physical act as it is a cognitive act. We don’t begin with theory when we want to teach a child to play tee-ball. We just bring the kid up to the tee, give them a bat, and let them swing.”
Moving forward I want to explore more methods like Little Kids Rock. I want to find more ways to allow my students to actually make music. Not just robot music!
Bornstein, D. (2011, September 8). Beyond Baby Mozart, Students Who Rock. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/beyond-baby-mozart-students-who-rock
Rebel Dreams 