Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The Invisible Student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 95(4), 34-38.
This article relies heavily on the idea that our place in society (in this case specifically, how students fit into an ensemble) defines who we are. How we feel within a certain group affects our individual feeling of self worth and self identity. The article addresses the idea of "invisible" children. The children who do not quite "fit in" with the rest of their peers, such as new students, students with disabilities, shy students, etc. Personally, this article spoke to me a lot because there was a point in my life where I was the invisible child. When I was younger, I often felt ostracized from my peers because I went to a school of mainly white students, and was painfully shy. There was a long period of my life where I felt like I didn't truly belong somewhere. It wasn't until I really became engrossed with the music program at my high school that I started to feel part of something. I always credit music for being incredibly important to shaping the person I am. It gave me the courage to be loud and bold, to have confidence, and to make friends. This article unsettled me because it's possible that this isn't the case for lots of other "invisible" children. I can't imagine what it would be like to be doing something I love (like music) and still feeling so far away and disconnected from everyone else, especially in an ensemble, where it's possible to become so close, we feel like family. Most of all, I think that I assumed music was what brought people together. But according to this article, there are so many other factors. Just because a child is involved in their school music program doesn't mean that they get an instant ticket to friends and a booming social life. Looking back on it now, it's so naive of me to think that way. What I thought was really insightful were the ways that teachers can try to help push those invisible children to find a place in their ensemble. I remember dealing with very similar issues to those they discussed, such as who to hang out with on trips, who to sit beside on the bus, and the list goes on. I think it's an excellent idea to use peers, specifically older kids, to help bring in the invisible children. Teachers are not able to have the same relationship with children that other children have with each other because of the dynamic of a teacher/student relationship. However, an older student, a peer, is someone a child can look up to and admire, but also someone who can be their friend. I think it's important for older students to be involved in making younger students feel included. Not only because younger students definitely need to feel security in an ensemble, but also because older students will eventually have to leave an ensemble, and I think it helps engage both younger and older students when the older students feel as though they have a responsibility to help guide the new kids into the ensemble, as they one day will leave the ensemble in the charge of these new students. All in all, I believe that this article has been eye opening in showing me just how much a teacher can affect their students. Not only do they teach students what's laid out in the curriculum but also social skills. It was nice that the article acknowledged how important teachers are to a student's overall development. It really opened my eyes to how much I need to be aware of myself. As the article said, students learn from example, especially from the teacher. However, I also really appreciated how they acknowledged that it was a team effort. This article really helped me see how much of an affect I can have on shaping kids' lives, and how much there is to think about.
0 Comments
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. An Example of Good Teaching.I thought this video was a good, realistic example of what good teaching looks like. Because the video is so long, I will talk about approximately the first 4 minutes. This video is an example of what a "classroom observation" might look like, in which a teacher is observed by an administrator in their own classroom in order to assess whether a teacher is doing a good job or not. I believe that this is an example of what a good teacher's classroom observation might look like. About a minute into the video, the teacher begins to take up homework. I think the teacher does a really good job in giving clear instructions. She tells her class exactly what she wants them to do. What I appreciated the most about the teacher was she catered her teaching towards the needs of her students. She begins by taking up question 7 of their math homework because one of the students needed help with it. However, she doesn't simply just go through the problem with them. Before she jumps straight into it, she asks the student what exactly about the question they need help with so that she knows exactly what she needs to teach. I think this is really important because it is a clear example that the teacher should always listen to the needs of their students and should the cater their lessons to those needs. Not only that, but she allows for students to be in charge of their own learning. She uses a technique she calls "practise teaching" where students work in partners in hopes to teach and learn from their pupils. She claps her hands and says, "teach!" and all the students clap back and say, "okay!" This helps them stay focused and allows them to take ownership over their own education. But that doesn't mean that she allows them to do her job for her. She takes up the question with the students, but asks them for what they think are the answers, and guides them in the right direction. She doesn't do all the thinking for them and allows them to answer questions and learn by doing, not by watching. Finally, what I appreciate the most is the "10 finger woo" she implements in her classroom. When one of the students makes a mistake, another student says that it's okay to make mistakes, and the teacher makes sure to reward this kind of behaviour by having the class acknowledge it using the "10 finger woo". I think this is important because it helps foster a positive attitude in the classroom where: 1) Students treat their fellow classmates with respect and kindness. 2) Students feel safe to make mistakes, which allows them to learn. An example of problematic teaching.Though silly, I think this short film by Disney does a good job bringing to light some of the problematic behaviours of a teacher. While George, the main trouble making kid is responsible for a lot of the chaos in the video, I believe that the teacher (in this case, Goofy) could have done a better job at handling the students.
Firstly, at the beginning of the school day, George tries to throw something with a slingshot at Goofy. Goofy only exclaims his name and gestures him to put all of his toys in a drawer. I think that this is problematic because the interaction lacks communication. I believe that in disciplinary situations like this a teacher needs to communicate with a student why what they did is wrong and help them understand that there are consequences to their actions. Instead, without any communication, George could simply think Goofy is being mean and unfair, and doesn't learn anything. Similarly, when Goofy starts taking roll, he doesn't address (or is oblivious) to all the inappropriate behaviours going on in the classroom. His classroom lacks structure, which disallows the children to learn. This is further seen when he attempts to teach geography to the class. He doesn't have a prepared lesson, and instead attempts to teach the students from the daily newspaper. Because of that, he ends up burying his face in the paper, and does not engage with his students, who end up not listening, and therefore not learning. Finally, Goofy disables the children from learning through his own obliviousness and distractedness. During class, he's distracted looking out the window, which allows for the students to copy out answer from the sheet he's holding. Because of that, the students aren't able to learn anything as they aren't using their own knowledge to find the answers, and instead are just taking them without first thinking. All in all, the methods of teaching seen here disallow for students to engage and enjoy their time in school, and sadly they do not learn. As someone who deeply believes that children should feel empowered to tackle their own learning as motivated by a teacher, this was extremely sad to me. Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling towards vulnerability: Moving out of the familiar for music education’s sake. The Canadian Music Educator, 57(2), 22-24.
First and foremost, I really appreciated the author, Dawe, for how she wrote this paper. She had such a strong narrative voice that really allowed me to relate to what she was saying. As she told her own personal story, I found myself feeling more and more uncomfortable with the fact that I could relate to so many things that she said. She speaks of her time with music education, and how "[she] was able to get by and be successful as long as [she] did exactly what [she] was told to do." (Dawe, 2016, pp. 22). And I feel that I relate to that sentiment so personally. When I first started voice lessons, I was singing through a piece that I had learned when my teacher stopped me. According to her, I had no sense of phrasing or musicality. Of course, this took me aback. Before that point, just singing the right notes and rhythms had been the only thing asked of me. But now, there was so much subjectivity and artistry involved in conveying music, it made me uncomfortable. My teacher would tell me to try and figure out the phrasing and "feel" the music, although I longed for her to just tell me how to do it, so I could do the "right" thing. But what exactly is the "right" thing? Who decides what the "right" thing is? This article challenged that idea for me. Dawe goes on to explain that her comfort zone has always been in the teacher telling the students what to do. When she started teaching, she realized that she was always the person directing everyone else on how they were going to learn, which didn't feel right. However, doing it any other way would put her in a vulnerable, uncomfortable place, as this was the only way she had ever been taught music. Yet, despite these vulnerabilities, she began to tweak the framework of her teaching, which allowed for her students to foster their creativity and have some autonomy over their own learning, all for the benefit of the students, and even her as a teacher. What I love the most about this article is that the overall conclusion Dawe reaches isn't that there is a "right" way to teach music. She has a good overall grasp on balancing both the traditional and modern music education techniques. Not only that, but she allows herself to become vulnerable to her insecurities in a way that allows her to grow as an educator, which is something I truly admire. I'm glad she concluded that change doesn't happen through the students, it happens through the teacher and how they support their students. This willingness to take on responsibility really spoke to me, and I can only hope that I can be a teacher that receives the same amount of respect as I have for her. 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. Rose, L. S., Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘the elements’: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education. 12(3), 45-64. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/RoseCountryman12_3.pdf
There were many things about this article that perplexed me. It was a very difficult read, in the sense that I had many things to say about it, and often they did a poor job in convincing me to agree with their argument. However, I will begin my unpacking of this article with the positives. I do appreciate the fact that they challenged the societal norms of what should be taught in music education. I agree that as a creative subject matter, music shouldn't be brutally compartmentalized as it is meant to be an art form. It was interesting to think of trying to teach music without the go-to list of musical terms, such as tempo, dynamics, etc. However, I think the biggest problem I had with this article was it's inability to convert me over to their side. I felt as though the article was a lot of opinion without actually backing up anything relevant. They used many citations, but they never fully went into depth to unpack the information they were stuffing into the article in order to deeply root themselves in their argument. I felt like a lot of information was being thrown at me, but none of it was being talked about. It felt as though all they kept saying was "my opinion is that the elements of music are bad, and... I'm right because this is wrong." The facts they tried to debunk didn't work in their favour, as I agreed more with the scholars they were challenging than with them. This ultimately led to a dry article that frankly felt like an opinion piece rather than a fact based research paper. Most of all, I think what bothered me the most was the article's denial to address the overlying issues in society that cause discrepancies in music education. The article suggests that the elements of music are the cause for lower enrolment in senior level music and the Eurocentrism of the curriculum. However, I disagree. I think there is a much larger issue that trickles down to effect music education. Lower enrolment is not solely because of the elements of music and the "bizarre misfit between classical skills and conventions taught... in music education institutions and the 'real worlds of music'." (Rose & Countryman, 2013, pp. 50). There is a much larger societal issue in that music education is not treated as a subject as important as science, or math, etc. Is it really fair to place blame on a music curriculum based on the foundations of what music is, for a problem created by our society? Nothing of that really has to do with music, and for me, I am uncomfortable with the elements of music being used as a scapegoat to this problem. The same is true of their handling of Eurocentric music. How can you blame the elements of music for creating an elite, discriminatory learning of music, when the elements of music (such as tempo, dynamics, etc.) can be used in the context of non-Western art music? The article suggests that it is impossible to do so, but it is definitely possible. Or is it that because it's not Western art music, we can't describe the music with words that fall under the large encompassing umbrella of the music elements? Not only that, but how can we blame Eurocentric music teaching on the elements of music when all education is painfully Eurocentric? Why is "history" class about European cultures and there are separate specific classes for "Middle Eastern History" or "Chinese History"? Surely, we can't blame the elements of music for that, can we? The authors seem to ignore the obvious societal problems that bleed into education in order to try and prove their point, which is dysfunctional from the start. I would urge them to consider the societal implications about what they're saying before they start pointing fingers at who to blame. They've painted a small picture I don't appreciate, when there are so many more complex ideas that go beyond music in their argument. It is quite ironic, since they want music to be so much more than a standardized list. |
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 |