One of the most interesting but also petrifying classes we've had this semester had to be our class with Dr. Watson. We learned about improvisation, especially in a jazz context, and it was a crazy time. As background, I am not a jazz musician at all. In fact, improvisation has always scared me! I'm a big 'stick-to-the-rules' type person, and I like to follow music not lead it.
Needless to say, Dr. Watson coming in to teach us about improvisation was definitely a time when I felt the least comfortable, and the most vulnerable. But thinking about it now, music and art in general really should make us feel vulnerable. Music is such a personal thing we choose to share with other people, if we didn't feel vulnerable sharing our music, wouldn't that mean that it doesn't really mean anything to us on a personal level? Regardless, I'm really glad that Dr. Watson slowly eased us into improv. I think of all my improvisation background, it was a lot of getting thrown into the middle of things and "pick a note, any note!" type of situation. I like how we first eased into it by analyzing different jazz music. I think by listening we were slowly integrating ourself into what we were going to be playing. Just having a sense of "jazz tunes" in my ear when we moved on to improvisation really helped guide my own improv, especially since before I had just been going in cold. I like how we slowly moved into improv by starting with only 1 or 2 notes and slowly adding in more. We also did a lot of call and response that was very helpful. As I mentioned above, it was nice to have some sort of base to start with when asked to improv. Later on in the class, we went around in a circle each having a chance to do some improv over a track. Had we started with that I would have been absolutely petrified! However, the slow ease of listening first, starting with few notes, and then adding more really eased some of my nerves and actually allowed me to have fun. I think often musicians forget that music is supposed to be fun. We worry a lot about tendency tones, cadences, tempo, rhythm, etc. but I think that things like improv remind us that in the end, all music is music. We don't always have to worry about all these things that classical musicians learn and sometimes we just have to let loose and have fun, something that until recently, I didn't notice had happened. I felt like music had become a chore and it was no longer fun. This workshop really perked me up, and was a definite pick me up!
0 Comments
Having Kelly in our class was such a joy! I definitely had a lot of fun in this guest lecture. I think that we talked about a very important issue: what to do with students that do not want to be in music class at all.
I think as music students we often don't understand why anyone would not want to come to music class. We think of it as something fun and enjoyable because it's part of our personality. However, what about those kids that think of music as just another class? Those students whose love for math or science or history is on par with music? What if it's "boring"? Kelly showed some real life examples of kids who didn't want to be in her music class. At the beginning of the year, she would have students write little letters to her. This is similar to something my own high school teacher did, where she asked "what do you want to accomplish by the end of the year?" I think this was a great tool for her to use, and I definitely want to incorporate that kind of activity in my classroom. She remarked that when looking back at what they had written, students often said what they wrote was hilarious or that they "weren't like that anymore". I think that seeing something palpable that shows how much a student has changed can be really encouraging for students. It gives them an idea as to how far they've come and how much progress they've made and still can make. Anyhow, it seems to be a common theme in the classroom lately that teachers are faced with students who don't want to learn, or don't engage with "classical" music. After all, many students in Kelly's class voiced not being interested in music class at all, yet in their ever day lives they were creating complex, beautiful rhythms with just pens and soda cans. The students assumed that music class wouldn't focus on "their" music, just the teacher's idea of what music is. However, that couldn't be more from the truth! The students said that the music they learn in school lacks a story, so Kelly made up an activity that taught that music learned in school can in fact do just that. We mimicked that activity she used in her classroom in ours, which was giving us a book that was written based on music. My group had the book "Giant Steps" by Chris Raschka. We didn't get to go through the whole activity since we were pressed for time, but having never heard that song, it was interesting to go through the book and try to imagine what it would sound like based solely on the illustrations of the novel. I think it would have been a lot of fun to create a composition based on what we could see, and compare it to how the actual piece sounded. Overall, I think it was really eye opening to see that not every student will come into class bursting with excitement to take music in school like so many of us were. I actually commend Kelly for taking those negative comments she received from students and using them to further better her classroom. I think that if a teacher is willing to put in the effort to engage the student, someway somehow the student will reciprocate. I truly hope that teachers who try to engage their students will be able to reach those who are at first unwilling to try, and hopefully they will learn skills that they can use for the rest of their lives. Dr. Ruth Wright came into the class to tell us about an organization she is part of called "Musical Futures". This program first began in the UK but has since expanded into Canada. It focuses primarily on an "informal learning experience", which caters to students aural skills, before their score reading skills. The program seeks to make use of informal learning processes typically found outside of school to teach music within the school in order to build off of a student's musical interests.
The program is defined through 6 main branches: Entitlement: Engaging ALL students in the program. Relevance: Connecting between in and out of school experiences. Empowerment: Students having control over the direction of their education. Practical/Hands-on: Learning to explore music and becoming musicians in a practical way. Personalization: Meeting the individual needs of students -> allowing them to set their own goals. Aural: Music is learned through predominantly aural learning. Sustainability: Creates music learning experiences students can use moving forward in life. I think this program really tied into what I was talking about with my last annotated bibliography, in terms of the idea of an "elitist" hierarchy between classical art music and "popular" music. I like how the program doesn't put an emphasis on needing to force "classical" music on students. Instead, it seeks to build on the musical interests students have already been exposed to before coming into the classroom. I think this is important because often I feel as though students are treated like "blank slates", even when they have prior music knowledge that isn't considered "the curriculum" and they're expected to just forget about that and focus on learning music a certain way. Most importantly, what I really enjoyed from this ideology is the fact that students are in charge of their own learning. I think students often take music because it's a "mark booster" or "bird course", and then they don't end up trying or enjoying the class. However, I think if students get to set their own goals and map out their own goals of what they would like to get out of music class, it creates such a great dynamic in classrooms where students are motivated and willing to learn, as they are interested in what they are learning. Not only that, but the program still teaches important musical skills, but by incorporating them into a student's own agenda, which can prove very useful for students who have trouble engaging. We put this kind of learning into practise by splitting into groups to learn a song we all thought was fun to play and learning it by ear on instruments that we don't normally play. I have to admit, it was really quite daunting, and I realized how much I rely on sheet music to learn music! However, it was a lot of fun, and really rewarding, as everyone in the group was all basically on the same level (aka, having never played their instruments before). The most interesting thing I believe would be how different everyone's songs turned out, despite having all having the same instructions. I think that really goes to show that people come with so many different backgrounds with different musical experiences and that manifests in so many different ways. I think in all, that's what the Musical Futures program is all about, and it's incredible to see. Waking up on Saturday morning was not my ideal way to spend the beginning of the weekend. However, the longer I was in the workshop the more fun I began to have, and the more energized I felt.
We started when Dr. Allsup played a piece of music for us and asked us "what do you hear?" The most interesting part about this was we used a lot of musical terms such as "dynamics", "harmony", and "timbre". Someone described the different instruments involved as having different "textures". In response, Dr. Allsup asked, "What do we mean by texture? How would you describe it to someone who doesn't know music?" This stumped the entire room. I think the most interesting thing about musicians is how there are a lot of things we just "know" but can't explain to someone else. I feel like musicians live in this sort of bubble when with other musicians and we forget that not everyone knows what we're talking about. I think this is especially problematic when people go to teach students for the first time, especially when some students will walk into their class without any prior knowledge on music at all. I'm glad that Dr. Allsup challenged us to think about what our "musical" vocabulary would mean to anyone else, and asked us to really think about how we would approach that type of abstract idea. Another thing I really appreciated from Dr. Allsup's workshop was when he talked about a teacher "modelling" something to their students. After we created ostinatos and put them together, he brought to our attention how he never directly modelled what we were supposed to do. He said, if a teach doesn't model, students don't think there is a "right" way to do something, and suddenly there are no limits! I think this idea is really interesting because it fosters that creativity that I believe is really important for music education. However, I felt like because he didn't model the activity, I found myself confused as to what he was asking for. Perhaps this idea would be better demonstrated if there were more clear instructions? Finally, after the ostinato activity was done, Dr. Allsup asked, "How do you extend a basic activity?" For me, it promoted an idea of further learning, and asked that "so what?" factor that allows for an activity to become more than just something we do, but something to learn from. To me, that is a very important idea. Altogether, I had a lot of fun at the workshop. I was a bit disappointed I had to leave early for my recital! The last thing that really spoke to me was when Dr. Allsup said, "Find something and try it and try it and try it." It was a nice reminder never to give up doing something you love, which was motivation I really needed for the next coming weeks. It was really fun getting to talk to Lesley Dawe in class on January 25th. I've read countless articles and journals, but this is the first time I've ever matched a name to a face. Lesley was very much what I expected her to be. She was very friendly and eager to answer questions posed by the class.
She first elaborated a bit more on her article, and the kind of teaching she's putting into practise at an elementary school at the Peel District School Board. What really interested me was how her music classes were split into the "band" stream and a more free-reign stream. I really admire her willingness to focus on what the students want to do, rather than what she thinks would be best for them. I know for me personally, it's really hard for me to relinquish control to someone else. I feel like that would especially be hard to do when you're giving choice to students. How do you successfully give your students control of their learning, while also establishing yourself as the authority figure? She did answer a question similar to this. She establishes rules and proper behaviour in her classroom before anything else in order to create a safe space for her students, but she doesn't inhibit them from using their creativity. I remember I wanted to ask her how she can cover musical "theory" per say in her classroom if she allows the students to pick the kinds of things they want to learn. It was interesting to see how despite not specifically "planning" to teach certain elements of music, they would come up in class anyway. Her class explored the elements of music organically, learning about them as they needed to when they were completing tasks, such as analyzing pop music. This was really comforting to me because it was a real life example of how even if we relinquish control and don't plan step by step what is going to happen, as long as we have a direction (which the students help choose), the end goal will still be met, and in a way that is exciting and engaging for kids. What I appreciated most of all of Lesley was she truly wanted to make music an enjoyable experience for the kids in her class. All too often, I find that the joy behind music gets sucked out of the class because everyone is just too focused on learning the technicalities that make up music. However, I'm glad that there are teachers out there like Lesley that continue to foster love and passion for music. I can only hope to do the same. In our guest lecture with Dr. Hopkins, we touched based on developing a curriculum that would allow for teachers to better suit the creative minds that come pouring into music classes.
Traditionally, music has been taught since approximately the 1970s, using the "spiral" curriculum using the elements of music such as rhythm, melody, harmony, form, etc. in which music is viewed through these same lenses with more complexity each year that passes. This was done in the hopes that music could be taught in a less linear way. This curriculum is based on the idea that music should be taught as a process to people in order to produce a product. However, people in today's society would argue that this is still is a too linear way of thinking. We compared this to the use of method books. We discussed why they are both good and bad resources for a beginner's music class. On one hand they set a standard that unifies everyone in the class's experience and simplifies a lot of complexity. However, there's a lot of emphasis on what music looks like and it doesn't allow for personal expression, growth, or creativity. The idea of the "method book" teaching approach follows a similar structure to this old method of teaching the same musical elements over and over with newer "complexities". There isn't much room for creativity in an incredibly creative subject matter. How then are we supposed to tackle music education in a cohesive way that doesn't inhibit creativity? Dr. Hopkins posed an essential question to us, "Is music a language?" We came to a conclusion that music is not a language, but it behaves very much like one. Therefore, when Dr. Hopkins aided in writing the new music curriculum for Nova Scotia they based their approach on the acquisition of language through 3 strands: 1. Creating, Making, Presenting 2. Understanding/Connecting Contexts of time, place, and community. 3. Perceiving, Reflecting, Responding And split into four units: 1. Foundations of Band Music Instruction 2. Introduction to Melody 3. Taking Ownership of Performance 4. Canvas and Colour There's not enough time or space both within the lecture and here in my reflection to completely unpack all the information inside the curriculum, but I will debrief my own thoughts of what I heard. First and foremost, I was really excited to hear a new opinion on music curriculum. In my experiences, I've heard the same things about music education over and over again. I feel as though the Ontario curriculum hasn't really changed in the span of my life. I really appreciated hearing about the advances other provinces in the country are taking, and I really hope Ontario follows suit. The most interesting thing to me was that Dr. Hopkins lecture challenged a lot of the teaching I have the most experience with. When I was in middle school we used the very method books that Dr. Hopkins challenged. I believe that my interaction with music class in the public school setting has been very deeply set in an old way of learning music. We discussed in class different ways to promote the creativity of students through improvisation and without sheet music being in front of students. Though exciting, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable, knowing that this way of learning "wasn't how I was raised". Through high school, there were many occasions where I was challenged to create music without having written it down, but to use what I could create and hear on my own. Yet, this brought me so much discomfort. I would have much rather had sheet music given to me and for me to learn that. That leads me to question, would I be a different musician if I had learned in a different way? If I had learned music similar to a language instead of in a more linear, sheet music based way, would anything about my journey as a musician have changed? More troubling, will the way I learned music affect the way I teach students? I would hate to think that I could deny students the ability to foster their creativity because of my inability to engage with them in this newfound way of education that I wasn't brought up in. Dr. Hopkin's lecture challenged me to rethink the way I approach education. While I don't want to completely abandon how I was brought up in music, I don't want to completely go the other way either and do the exact opposite of how I learned. I am perplexed to try and find that balance between order and creativity. But it's quite the idea to wrestle with, and hopefully when I find my answer, it will allow me to be a good teacher to all the students that I will meet in my lifetime. |
Carole PalattaoI'm an 18 year old studying classical voice at Western University. I'm also a hardcore mental health advocate, and I do creative writing on the side for fun!
Archives
April 2017
Categories |