Reading #1:
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.
In all honesty, I had a lot of mixed feelings about this article. I both agree and disagree with the authors and the points they make. I understand their viewpoint and why they stress the necessity of going beyond testing and academics when it comes to learning music because it strips out some of the ability to emote and enjoy music as it is - an undefinable, unmeasurable, diverse existence that can be related to by everyone. The authors also believe that the structural pedagogy that has been set in place limits individuality and diversity in music. I do agree with this partially, because I believe that often as musicians we become so accustomed to simply just reading notes as opposed to emoting when playing, because that is how we have been taught.
Yet at the same time, I do believe that academics, testing, and analysing are important in music. There are definitely benefits to it; knowing what cadences are and how they work can help make part of a piece more effective, like how knowing the context of the era that a certain piece was written in can help to emote and play with proper style, etc. and that is just in terms of expression, never mind the benefits of technique improvement and so on and so forth.
I was quite surprised to discover that less than 6% of high school seniors enroll in grade 12 music, especially considering the fact that this article states that most adolescents report that their favourite activity is listening to music. This begs the question of why so few students are pursuing music in their education - is it the type of music that is studied? Is it a failed system of education? Is it that students just do not like practicing/playing their instruments? Is it as a result of their inability to fit it into their timetable? Is it too much of a burden on top of other classes? With so many various possibilities, it is hard to pinpoint one source of issue and place the blame on simply the pedagogical approach to music when in reality it could be a result of so many other factors.
If I could say one thing to the author, it would actually be concerning their writing style. I found this article hard to follow at times because of the (what I consider) unnecessary ornamentation, "fancy" words, and made up words. I believe in speaking in a way that is concise and easy to follow, and not using bigger, more obscure words because I think it will make me sound smarter. As a result of this occurring in this article, at times, the author's points are hard to follow and seem to be "all over the place". The article brings up some good points, but that is meaningless if the reader requires a dictionary to understand most of the sentence for almost every sentence. Other than that, this article was a good read and made me question the art of education.
Reading #2:
Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24
From the first paragraph of this article, I was able to relate to exactly what the author was saying; I have also grown up in a musical world where I have always been told what to do.
Up until yesterday, I had never improvised, and I have only ever "composed" anything once. The one time I did compose something, I was in grade ten creating a composition for a percussion ensemble of four. When it came time to sitting down to create my composition, my mind was a blank slate. I had no idea where to begin - my teacher had done all he could to try and get the ball rolling and help us out. Yet despite all his efforts, I still struggled immensely with the project and in the end, I was not terribly successful. My rhythms were basic and boring and I was disappointed with the end product. I always say that I don't have a creative bone in my body and this assignment made that feel especially true.
Yesterday was my first time composing and again, I hated it. I had no idea where to start and even after being given a melody to work off of, I struggled to think of something and didn't stray far away from what was already given to me. I felt that I was given too much freedom - in many aspects of life, I prefer to have someone tell me what to do and how to do it because I have trouble being creative and imaginative.
The thing that surprised me the most about this article is how strongly I related to the author's musical experience and educational philosophy. The introduction to this article could almost be put into my own biography, as long as a few miniscule details were changed. We were "raised" in a musical world where we were told what to do as musicians and we thought that was best - I even enjoyed it. I still do, admittedly - it requires no thinking on my part. Personally, I know that I lack creativity and imagination, specifically in music, but that does not really bother me and it never has.
If I could speak to the author, I would ask them some questions regarding the "typical" system of teaching, my first being that do they feel like their school system failed them? Do they feel that lacking creativity makes someone a bad musician? Is there anything wrong with wanting to simply be told what to do, and if so, does that make someone a bad musician? If they hadn't had the traumatizing experience of grade eleven jazz band, would they still feel the way they do?
This was definitely a well-written article that I could relate strongly to.
Reading #3:
Serres, D. (2014). Think Everything's "Normal?" Then it's Time to Reconsider a New Narrative of Disability. Retrieved January 29, 2017, from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
This article was very interesting to read for a number of reasons. I love reading scholarly articles that challenge "normalcy" in the world and how our society operates, whether that be pertaining to sexism, ableism, racism, etc. While each of those subjects are important in their own way, for the most part, more light is shed on sexism and racism comparatively speaking. Ableism is very rarely spoken about in the news, in the classroom, and anywhere else, yet it has a large impact on how our society functions.
One of the things that I admire the most about this article is that it creates the opportunity for every reader to gain the same benefit from reading this. In the beginning, the author makes a point to fully explain "normalcy" in many different ways to ensure that every reader understands, therefore creating an equal playing field between readers. They might not have had any previous knowledge of ableism or normalcy and therefore would not have understood as well. It is clear from the beginning that the author's intent is to educate the reader on the subject at hand.
Another thing that I admired was how concise it is and how it is specifically able to pinpoint exact the problems, explaining that they exist everywhere from the Medical Industrial Complex (which is ironic, considering that they should be the ones helping the most, yet they exploit people for their disabilities) to our educational system. These are things that most fully-abled people would never think of as oppressive by any means. Yet, as an able person, I am in no position to decide what is oppressive and what is not.
Another hugely important feature of this article was the fresh perspective and provided thoughtful insight on ableism and the recent attempts to create equality (that is almost entirely based off of abled people's opinions). One of my favourite parts of this reading is when it talks about abled people playing basketball in wheelchairs to make a person in a wheelchair feel "normal," but how that idea is done really just to make everyone else feel better and make them feel like they are helping instead of thinking of the person with the disability first.
There are a lot of things that I like about this article, but my favourite thing is the solutions that are provided at the end. After explicitly stating each of the institutionalised problems, it offers numerous solutions for each of these problems. I have read so many articles that have gotten as far as to point out the issues with our society, but offer no real solutions or maybe just the foundation of one.
Like always, I am left wondering about some unanswered questions such as: why is ableism almost never spoken about in the media, despite the rise of feminism and awareness of racism? Why is it not regarded as a critical issue? How can people and even the president of the United States get away with mocking people for their disabilities and face no punishment whatsoever? What is the one thing that is holding us back the most from eradicating the idea of "normalcy?"
Reading #4:
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
Another very well-written article. It is refreshing to read articles that focus on a more pressing matter than simply the elements of music.
Many teachers struggle to teach students who are disabled because it is out of their comfort zone and they do not have a lot of experience with disabilities such as autism and it is likely that they were never given any guidance on how to do so. That is not their fault, but every child should have the equal opportunity to learn no matter their living circumstances. It is a right, not a privilege, and therefore we must get to a point in our education system where it no longer is presented as an "obstacle", "burden", or "issue" of any sort.
What I like about this article that wasn't necessarily present in the last one is the total focus on education. In the last article, it covered a much broader spectrum and while it mentions education, it is not the article's primary focus. I am by no means saying that this is worse or better, rather that this is my interest. I also appreciate the focus on mental disability as opposed to physical disability because often mental disability is hard to see and not totally evident on how to accommodate accordingly; as the population of people with autism grows, we must learn how to adapt and treat them properly.
Speaking of which, I was surprised to learn that 1 in 150 children in the United States are diagnosed with autism and that diagnosis rates increase anywhere between 10 to 17 percent annually. I had no idea that the number was increasing at the rate that it was and it caused me to consider the fact that when I am teaching in the future, I will need to be flexible and prepared to teach with several students with autism.
I appreciate the step-by-step approach and examples of activities that this article presents as well, especially considering the fact that they are specific to music. As someone who has never spent a lot of time with people with mental disabilities, in the classroom I would probably be quite lost so this sort of information is helpful to me.
If I had the chance, I would definitely ask the author some questions regarding this article, the first one being: do these strategies still apply in a high school setting? They seem to be geared to elementary-aged children, or are many children with autism delayed in their learning? How do you appeal to both children with and without autism simultaneously without wasting time and/or leaving people frustrated? It says that even though children with autism are frequently interested in music, loud noises trigger them, so how could you deal with that in a high school instrumental music setting where there are constantly loud noises? How can I, as a teacher, prevent discrimination in my classroom towards students with autism or any other disability, whether it be physical or mental? How do you follow the curriculum and assess students with disabilities?
I would love to learn more about how to teach students with disabilities.
Reading #5:
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
This article was very interesting to read are gave me plenty of food for thought. Firstly, I realized that I never considered how much interaction "non-musicians" have with music in their daily lives and through all the various mediums and approaches. Music is everywhere and people interact with it in so many other ways than simply playing an instrument, singing a Baroque aria, etc. There are so many different approaches to music, whether it be popular/modern music or classical.
With small percentages of high school students participating in music and a general lack of interest in music across all ages, student engagement is crucial. As a future music educator, it worries me to hear of the diminution of the students' participation. I of course want student involvement and engagement, but the methods in which this is presented intimidates me a little. These methods seem to mainly appeal to popular music, not classical. While learning about popular music is definitely valid, I worry about the decline of interest in classical music. I believe that having appreciation for classical music is incredibly important (although I am aware that this point of view is biased). My main area of interest is classical music, and while I am open to integrating aspects of pop music, I was planning and hoping to teach prominently classical material. Thinking of teaching mainly pop music seems frightening and quite frankly, a little undesirable because it is so unfamiliar to me. I find this troubling because I want to appeal to as many students in whatever way I can, but I also want to centre around classical music - I could be flexible in a band setting with a piece or two, but I would find it extremely difficult to let my students mainly do movie scores, TV show themes, etc. Part of this problem is that I am so particular in my traditional type-A ways. Although I am able to recognise this, I don't know if I would enjoy teaching in a classroom setting where the main focus is around pop music. Therefore, I am caught in the middle between wanting to be an amazing, engaging educator and my own musical perspective and wants.
Is that selfish? Quite possibly. It could also just be a general fear of the unknown and straying away from what I was taught in my own musical upbringing. I loved my experience and I suppose I want the exact same for my future students.
Questions I have for the author are related to my inquiries and fears surrounding classical music: would these strategies work with solely classical music? Is popular music crucial for student engagement? If yes, what percentage of music education would have to be centered around pop music? Is there anything we can do to keep the love of classical music or is it naturally on the decline due to the times changing?
I hope that there can be a healthy balance of both in the future.
Reading #6:
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective - The iPad is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98.
This is another article that I have mixed feelings towards - while the author's points are thorough and well-conveyed, it is more the idea itself that puts me off.
What I like about using iPads as instruments is that it offers a different style of music education; one that appeals to a wider number of students. Whether they be students who are abled or disabled, it is irrelevant. As the times change, we have to be open to changing our pedagogical styles and philosophies with it. And if students are able to engage better through technology and develop their love music that way, who are we to deny them that opportunity? "New" does not mean worse nor better. It just means new.
There is a plethora of research regarding the relationship between people with disabilities and how they respond to music, and it all points to positive interaction that benefits the person in some shape or form. Of course, most of this research is on the receiving end of music, rather than being the active music maker, as sometimes disabilities can interfere with that. If someone who is disable is able to experience of creating music and being an active musician, they should have the right to do so. Having a medium that provides them with that opportunity is incredibly important and should not be swept under the rug.
I also admire the emphasis on the aural aspect of this system. Dictation is a very useful skill to have as a musician, and so approaching the quintet's music in the way they do is appropriate and definitely has its benefits.
Another thing is that this is definitely cost-friendly; iPads are definitely a lot cheaper than instruments that can be thousands and thousands of dollars, and considering that public school music departments are losing more and more funds, it is a smart replacement.
The part that gets me is that for students who are fully able, they lose the merit that playing a physical instrument brings. As a musician, specifically an instrumentalist, there are so many incredible cognitive benefits that come from playing an instrument. On an iPad, there are no fingerings to be learned, no tone to produce, no tuning to be executed, etc. which are all very important skills to learn as a musician. While you can still be musical and produce a similar product, a large portion of the process is lost (which is just as important, if not more important than the product).
In summary, I think there is a time and a place for the iPad as a musical instrument. While it is difficult for me to admit, being the traditional person I am, I do think that the iPad can be classified as an instrument, but it should be used to help those who struggle with engaging in "typical" music education practices and need something else to put them on an equal playing field. It would also be completely acceptable to do a unit on the iPad as an instrument in addition to physical instruments to provide variety. I do not intend to sound like a luddite, but for the most part I find it to be a little unnecessary and not as valuable as the traditional system.
Reading #7:
Thibeault, M. D. (2012). The power of limits and the pleasure of games: An easy and fun piano duo improvisation. General Music Today, 1048371311435523.
I was very impressed with this article - it was very well-written and presented a lot of great ideas. If I were asked how to teach improvisation, I wouldn't have the slightest clue, especially considering the fact that I myself am not really an improvisor. It was really interesting to see Dr. Thibeault's method to teach improvisation and every step that it included.
How do you teach something that is based solely on the individual's ability, creativity, and requires them to think totally independently? I wouldn't have the slightest clue, but Dr. Thibeault seems to have a good system in place, allowing students to focus on one area of musicality at a time. I found this to be especially important because my personal problem with improvisation (and probably something that a lot of people struggle with as well) is that there are far too many possibilities. I can't think of a dynamic, articulation, rhythm, and melodic figure to play all at once on the spot. Being consistent with all of these things except for one must help to create a feeling of familiarity with each individual aspect of improvisation, and I have a major appreciation for that. I also appreciate how each step is progressively more difficult than the last. Improvising rhythm is a lot more simple than adding chromaticism.
I also think it is very smart that Dr. Thibeault refers to this activity as a game rather than a test, because for students like me who are very stressed out by the idea of improvising, adding the word "test" on top of everything does not make it feel any easier (rather the opposite). Presenting this as an activity, especially one that is done with a partner relieves some of the stress and pressure that a student might feel. In addition to this, the feedback given by the teacher/supervisor would help to push them in the right direction, no matter how successful/unsuccessful their attempt was.
The only thing that irked me about this article was when this line came up: "as well as those hampered by too much of the wrong kind of music education." I think that is an unfair thing to say - is there truly a "wrong" kind of education? Everyone learns differently and wants a different style of education. Just because I was never given any instruction on how to improvise does not mean I was failed by my music education, or that there was anything wrong with it. I was completely satisfied with how I was taught, so does that still make it "wrong"? It just seems like to much of a biased opinion to be in this article, and generally an unfair statement.
So that being said, if I had the chance to speak to the author, I would ask him to elaborate on that statement and inquire as to if there truly is a "wrong" kind of music education, and why he believes it is wrong.
Other than that, I found this article very interesting and insightful.
Reading #8:
Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. doi:10.1080/10632910903455785
This was a very interesting, well-written article. Creativity in music and in general feels like an abstract, unfamiliar concept as I regard myself as a systematic, logical person. While the two are certainly not mutually exclusive, I feel like I am more of a "left-brain" thinker. Yet as a future educator, I want to provide a well-rounded program that allows students to explore music in whatever way that appeals to them. Therefore I am open to less-traditional styles of music education that allow for creativity.
I took particular interest into the list of traits associated with creative people, including (but not exclusively): willingness to take risks, tolerance of ambiguity, inherent motivation, a sense of humor, a wide range of interests, and persistence. This caused me to think a lot, as I consider myself to possess all except one of these traits (I am not very tolerant of ambiguity). This could mean a few things: 1. I am more of a creative individual than I perceive myself to be, or maybe I am creative in a less conventional and obvious way. 2. These traits are not simply a result of being creative or exclusive to creative individuals. 3. I have an altered perception of myself. I doubt that the last one is true, and while I believe that the second one is true, it's a moot point in the grand scheme of things, therefore making the first point very likely. It was an interesting realisation that I had.
My next point is related not so much to the content of the article but rather the structure - I appreciated how the structured and organised each of the points were, especially having the itemised lists which made each point easy to follow. I believe that the structure of an argument is critical and that in order to really sell it, not only do you have to have a solid foundation, your points must be well-organised and showcased in a professional manner. I think the author has done just that,
Something else that I appreciated about this article was its regard to large-size classroom settings (somewhere that I will find myself in my future) and real-life situations that are found there, because often we talk about how to address issues in a one-on-one situation where it is easier to customise your style of teaching. In a larger setting, it is difficult to appeal to each student's learning style and create an efficient, effective class. It was interesting that the author brought up the scenario of having a lack of trumpets and too many percussionists, considering my music teacher faced a very similar issue in our senior band in my grade twelve year. Her solution was similar to some of those provided.
The only thing that I am a little unsure about is the notion against uniformity in ensembles. In Western culture, it is desirable to have a uniform, blended, and balanced sound in an ensemble setting, which is why directors look for the same vowel shape/step style in marching band/same tone quality etc. While I understand that each student is different and no one plays exactly the same, part of the Western ensemble experience is to create one wholesome sound. Is this denying students some of their creativity? Possibly, but I think there are ways to approach this without sounding so obviously like a dictator. In both my high school and university bands, my directors have told us to "put your sound in the pocket of the person next to you," which I think is a very interesting phrase because it causes students to think about uniformity without saying "play like so-and-so" or something of the sort. In my university band, my director also will let us have discussions on style of certain parts and allow us to change our articulation style from what she initially imagined it to be.
Overall, I was impressed with this article and am open to learning more about creativity in the classroom.
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.
In all honesty, I had a lot of mixed feelings about this article. I both agree and disagree with the authors and the points they make. I understand their viewpoint and why they stress the necessity of going beyond testing and academics when it comes to learning music because it strips out some of the ability to emote and enjoy music as it is - an undefinable, unmeasurable, diverse existence that can be related to by everyone. The authors also believe that the structural pedagogy that has been set in place limits individuality and diversity in music. I do agree with this partially, because I believe that often as musicians we become so accustomed to simply just reading notes as opposed to emoting when playing, because that is how we have been taught.
Yet at the same time, I do believe that academics, testing, and analysing are important in music. There are definitely benefits to it; knowing what cadences are and how they work can help make part of a piece more effective, like how knowing the context of the era that a certain piece was written in can help to emote and play with proper style, etc. and that is just in terms of expression, never mind the benefits of technique improvement and so on and so forth.
I was quite surprised to discover that less than 6% of high school seniors enroll in grade 12 music, especially considering the fact that this article states that most adolescents report that their favourite activity is listening to music. This begs the question of why so few students are pursuing music in their education - is it the type of music that is studied? Is it a failed system of education? Is it that students just do not like practicing/playing their instruments? Is it as a result of their inability to fit it into their timetable? Is it too much of a burden on top of other classes? With so many various possibilities, it is hard to pinpoint one source of issue and place the blame on simply the pedagogical approach to music when in reality it could be a result of so many other factors.
If I could say one thing to the author, it would actually be concerning their writing style. I found this article hard to follow at times because of the (what I consider) unnecessary ornamentation, "fancy" words, and made up words. I believe in speaking in a way that is concise and easy to follow, and not using bigger, more obscure words because I think it will make me sound smarter. As a result of this occurring in this article, at times, the author's points are hard to follow and seem to be "all over the place". The article brings up some good points, but that is meaningless if the reader requires a dictionary to understand most of the sentence for almost every sentence. Other than that, this article was a good read and made me question the art of education.
Reading #2:
Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24
From the first paragraph of this article, I was able to relate to exactly what the author was saying; I have also grown up in a musical world where I have always been told what to do.
Up until yesterday, I had never improvised, and I have only ever "composed" anything once. The one time I did compose something, I was in grade ten creating a composition for a percussion ensemble of four. When it came time to sitting down to create my composition, my mind was a blank slate. I had no idea where to begin - my teacher had done all he could to try and get the ball rolling and help us out. Yet despite all his efforts, I still struggled immensely with the project and in the end, I was not terribly successful. My rhythms were basic and boring and I was disappointed with the end product. I always say that I don't have a creative bone in my body and this assignment made that feel especially true.
Yesterday was my first time composing and again, I hated it. I had no idea where to start and even after being given a melody to work off of, I struggled to think of something and didn't stray far away from what was already given to me. I felt that I was given too much freedom - in many aspects of life, I prefer to have someone tell me what to do and how to do it because I have trouble being creative and imaginative.
The thing that surprised me the most about this article is how strongly I related to the author's musical experience and educational philosophy. The introduction to this article could almost be put into my own biography, as long as a few miniscule details were changed. We were "raised" in a musical world where we were told what to do as musicians and we thought that was best - I even enjoyed it. I still do, admittedly - it requires no thinking on my part. Personally, I know that I lack creativity and imagination, specifically in music, but that does not really bother me and it never has.
If I could speak to the author, I would ask them some questions regarding the "typical" system of teaching, my first being that do they feel like their school system failed them? Do they feel that lacking creativity makes someone a bad musician? Is there anything wrong with wanting to simply be told what to do, and if so, does that make someone a bad musician? If they hadn't had the traumatizing experience of grade eleven jazz band, would they still feel the way they do?
This was definitely a well-written article that I could relate strongly to.
Reading #3:
Serres, D. (2014). Think Everything's "Normal?" Then it's Time to Reconsider a New Narrative of Disability. Retrieved January 29, 2017, from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
This article was very interesting to read for a number of reasons. I love reading scholarly articles that challenge "normalcy" in the world and how our society operates, whether that be pertaining to sexism, ableism, racism, etc. While each of those subjects are important in their own way, for the most part, more light is shed on sexism and racism comparatively speaking. Ableism is very rarely spoken about in the news, in the classroom, and anywhere else, yet it has a large impact on how our society functions.
One of the things that I admire the most about this article is that it creates the opportunity for every reader to gain the same benefit from reading this. In the beginning, the author makes a point to fully explain "normalcy" in many different ways to ensure that every reader understands, therefore creating an equal playing field between readers. They might not have had any previous knowledge of ableism or normalcy and therefore would not have understood as well. It is clear from the beginning that the author's intent is to educate the reader on the subject at hand.
Another thing that I admired was how concise it is and how it is specifically able to pinpoint exact the problems, explaining that they exist everywhere from the Medical Industrial Complex (which is ironic, considering that they should be the ones helping the most, yet they exploit people for their disabilities) to our educational system. These are things that most fully-abled people would never think of as oppressive by any means. Yet, as an able person, I am in no position to decide what is oppressive and what is not.
Another hugely important feature of this article was the fresh perspective and provided thoughtful insight on ableism and the recent attempts to create equality (that is almost entirely based off of abled people's opinions). One of my favourite parts of this reading is when it talks about abled people playing basketball in wheelchairs to make a person in a wheelchair feel "normal," but how that idea is done really just to make everyone else feel better and make them feel like they are helping instead of thinking of the person with the disability first.
There are a lot of things that I like about this article, but my favourite thing is the solutions that are provided at the end. After explicitly stating each of the institutionalised problems, it offers numerous solutions for each of these problems. I have read so many articles that have gotten as far as to point out the issues with our society, but offer no real solutions or maybe just the foundation of one.
Like always, I am left wondering about some unanswered questions such as: why is ableism almost never spoken about in the media, despite the rise of feminism and awareness of racism? Why is it not regarded as a critical issue? How can people and even the president of the United States get away with mocking people for their disabilities and face no punishment whatsoever? What is the one thing that is holding us back the most from eradicating the idea of "normalcy?"
Reading #4:
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
Another very well-written article. It is refreshing to read articles that focus on a more pressing matter than simply the elements of music.
Many teachers struggle to teach students who are disabled because it is out of their comfort zone and they do not have a lot of experience with disabilities such as autism and it is likely that they were never given any guidance on how to do so. That is not their fault, but every child should have the equal opportunity to learn no matter their living circumstances. It is a right, not a privilege, and therefore we must get to a point in our education system where it no longer is presented as an "obstacle", "burden", or "issue" of any sort.
What I like about this article that wasn't necessarily present in the last one is the total focus on education. In the last article, it covered a much broader spectrum and while it mentions education, it is not the article's primary focus. I am by no means saying that this is worse or better, rather that this is my interest. I also appreciate the focus on mental disability as opposed to physical disability because often mental disability is hard to see and not totally evident on how to accommodate accordingly; as the population of people with autism grows, we must learn how to adapt and treat them properly.
Speaking of which, I was surprised to learn that 1 in 150 children in the United States are diagnosed with autism and that diagnosis rates increase anywhere between 10 to 17 percent annually. I had no idea that the number was increasing at the rate that it was and it caused me to consider the fact that when I am teaching in the future, I will need to be flexible and prepared to teach with several students with autism.
I appreciate the step-by-step approach and examples of activities that this article presents as well, especially considering the fact that they are specific to music. As someone who has never spent a lot of time with people with mental disabilities, in the classroom I would probably be quite lost so this sort of information is helpful to me.
If I had the chance, I would definitely ask the author some questions regarding this article, the first one being: do these strategies still apply in a high school setting? They seem to be geared to elementary-aged children, or are many children with autism delayed in their learning? How do you appeal to both children with and without autism simultaneously without wasting time and/or leaving people frustrated? It says that even though children with autism are frequently interested in music, loud noises trigger them, so how could you deal with that in a high school instrumental music setting where there are constantly loud noises? How can I, as a teacher, prevent discrimination in my classroom towards students with autism or any other disability, whether it be physical or mental? How do you follow the curriculum and assess students with disabilities?
I would love to learn more about how to teach students with disabilities.
Reading #5:
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
This article was very interesting to read are gave me plenty of food for thought. Firstly, I realized that I never considered how much interaction "non-musicians" have with music in their daily lives and through all the various mediums and approaches. Music is everywhere and people interact with it in so many other ways than simply playing an instrument, singing a Baroque aria, etc. There are so many different approaches to music, whether it be popular/modern music or classical.
With small percentages of high school students participating in music and a general lack of interest in music across all ages, student engagement is crucial. As a future music educator, it worries me to hear of the diminution of the students' participation. I of course want student involvement and engagement, but the methods in which this is presented intimidates me a little. These methods seem to mainly appeal to popular music, not classical. While learning about popular music is definitely valid, I worry about the decline of interest in classical music. I believe that having appreciation for classical music is incredibly important (although I am aware that this point of view is biased). My main area of interest is classical music, and while I am open to integrating aspects of pop music, I was planning and hoping to teach prominently classical material. Thinking of teaching mainly pop music seems frightening and quite frankly, a little undesirable because it is so unfamiliar to me. I find this troubling because I want to appeal to as many students in whatever way I can, but I also want to centre around classical music - I could be flexible in a band setting with a piece or two, but I would find it extremely difficult to let my students mainly do movie scores, TV show themes, etc. Part of this problem is that I am so particular in my traditional type-A ways. Although I am able to recognise this, I don't know if I would enjoy teaching in a classroom setting where the main focus is around pop music. Therefore, I am caught in the middle between wanting to be an amazing, engaging educator and my own musical perspective and wants.
Is that selfish? Quite possibly. It could also just be a general fear of the unknown and straying away from what I was taught in my own musical upbringing. I loved my experience and I suppose I want the exact same for my future students.
Questions I have for the author are related to my inquiries and fears surrounding classical music: would these strategies work with solely classical music? Is popular music crucial for student engagement? If yes, what percentage of music education would have to be centered around pop music? Is there anything we can do to keep the love of classical music or is it naturally on the decline due to the times changing?
I hope that there can be a healthy balance of both in the future.
Reading #6:
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective - The iPad is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98.
This is another article that I have mixed feelings towards - while the author's points are thorough and well-conveyed, it is more the idea itself that puts me off.
What I like about using iPads as instruments is that it offers a different style of music education; one that appeals to a wider number of students. Whether they be students who are abled or disabled, it is irrelevant. As the times change, we have to be open to changing our pedagogical styles and philosophies with it. And if students are able to engage better through technology and develop their love music that way, who are we to deny them that opportunity? "New" does not mean worse nor better. It just means new.
There is a plethora of research regarding the relationship between people with disabilities and how they respond to music, and it all points to positive interaction that benefits the person in some shape or form. Of course, most of this research is on the receiving end of music, rather than being the active music maker, as sometimes disabilities can interfere with that. If someone who is disable is able to experience of creating music and being an active musician, they should have the right to do so. Having a medium that provides them with that opportunity is incredibly important and should not be swept under the rug.
I also admire the emphasis on the aural aspect of this system. Dictation is a very useful skill to have as a musician, and so approaching the quintet's music in the way they do is appropriate and definitely has its benefits.
Another thing is that this is definitely cost-friendly; iPads are definitely a lot cheaper than instruments that can be thousands and thousands of dollars, and considering that public school music departments are losing more and more funds, it is a smart replacement.
The part that gets me is that for students who are fully able, they lose the merit that playing a physical instrument brings. As a musician, specifically an instrumentalist, there are so many incredible cognitive benefits that come from playing an instrument. On an iPad, there are no fingerings to be learned, no tone to produce, no tuning to be executed, etc. which are all very important skills to learn as a musician. While you can still be musical and produce a similar product, a large portion of the process is lost (which is just as important, if not more important than the product).
In summary, I think there is a time and a place for the iPad as a musical instrument. While it is difficult for me to admit, being the traditional person I am, I do think that the iPad can be classified as an instrument, but it should be used to help those who struggle with engaging in "typical" music education practices and need something else to put them on an equal playing field. It would also be completely acceptable to do a unit on the iPad as an instrument in addition to physical instruments to provide variety. I do not intend to sound like a luddite, but for the most part I find it to be a little unnecessary and not as valuable as the traditional system.
Reading #7:
Thibeault, M. D. (2012). The power of limits and the pleasure of games: An easy and fun piano duo improvisation. General Music Today, 1048371311435523.
I was very impressed with this article - it was very well-written and presented a lot of great ideas. If I were asked how to teach improvisation, I wouldn't have the slightest clue, especially considering the fact that I myself am not really an improvisor. It was really interesting to see Dr. Thibeault's method to teach improvisation and every step that it included.
How do you teach something that is based solely on the individual's ability, creativity, and requires them to think totally independently? I wouldn't have the slightest clue, but Dr. Thibeault seems to have a good system in place, allowing students to focus on one area of musicality at a time. I found this to be especially important because my personal problem with improvisation (and probably something that a lot of people struggle with as well) is that there are far too many possibilities. I can't think of a dynamic, articulation, rhythm, and melodic figure to play all at once on the spot. Being consistent with all of these things except for one must help to create a feeling of familiarity with each individual aspect of improvisation, and I have a major appreciation for that. I also appreciate how each step is progressively more difficult than the last. Improvising rhythm is a lot more simple than adding chromaticism.
I also think it is very smart that Dr. Thibeault refers to this activity as a game rather than a test, because for students like me who are very stressed out by the idea of improvising, adding the word "test" on top of everything does not make it feel any easier (rather the opposite). Presenting this as an activity, especially one that is done with a partner relieves some of the stress and pressure that a student might feel. In addition to this, the feedback given by the teacher/supervisor would help to push them in the right direction, no matter how successful/unsuccessful their attempt was.
The only thing that irked me about this article was when this line came up: "as well as those hampered by too much of the wrong kind of music education." I think that is an unfair thing to say - is there truly a "wrong" kind of education? Everyone learns differently and wants a different style of education. Just because I was never given any instruction on how to improvise does not mean I was failed by my music education, or that there was anything wrong with it. I was completely satisfied with how I was taught, so does that still make it "wrong"? It just seems like to much of a biased opinion to be in this article, and generally an unfair statement.
So that being said, if I had the chance to speak to the author, I would ask him to elaborate on that statement and inquire as to if there truly is a "wrong" kind of music education, and why he believes it is wrong.
Other than that, I found this article very interesting and insightful.
Reading #8:
Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. doi:10.1080/10632910903455785
This was a very interesting, well-written article. Creativity in music and in general feels like an abstract, unfamiliar concept as I regard myself as a systematic, logical person. While the two are certainly not mutually exclusive, I feel like I am more of a "left-brain" thinker. Yet as a future educator, I want to provide a well-rounded program that allows students to explore music in whatever way that appeals to them. Therefore I am open to less-traditional styles of music education that allow for creativity.
I took particular interest into the list of traits associated with creative people, including (but not exclusively): willingness to take risks, tolerance of ambiguity, inherent motivation, a sense of humor, a wide range of interests, and persistence. This caused me to think a lot, as I consider myself to possess all except one of these traits (I am not very tolerant of ambiguity). This could mean a few things: 1. I am more of a creative individual than I perceive myself to be, or maybe I am creative in a less conventional and obvious way. 2. These traits are not simply a result of being creative or exclusive to creative individuals. 3. I have an altered perception of myself. I doubt that the last one is true, and while I believe that the second one is true, it's a moot point in the grand scheme of things, therefore making the first point very likely. It was an interesting realisation that I had.
My next point is related not so much to the content of the article but rather the structure - I appreciated how the structured and organised each of the points were, especially having the itemised lists which made each point easy to follow. I believe that the structure of an argument is critical and that in order to really sell it, not only do you have to have a solid foundation, your points must be well-organised and showcased in a professional manner. I think the author has done just that,
Something else that I appreciated about this article was its regard to large-size classroom settings (somewhere that I will find myself in my future) and real-life situations that are found there, because often we talk about how to address issues in a one-on-one situation where it is easier to customise your style of teaching. In a larger setting, it is difficult to appeal to each student's learning style and create an efficient, effective class. It was interesting that the author brought up the scenario of having a lack of trumpets and too many percussionists, considering my music teacher faced a very similar issue in our senior band in my grade twelve year. Her solution was similar to some of those provided.
The only thing that I am a little unsure about is the notion against uniformity in ensembles. In Western culture, it is desirable to have a uniform, blended, and balanced sound in an ensemble setting, which is why directors look for the same vowel shape/step style in marching band/same tone quality etc. While I understand that each student is different and no one plays exactly the same, part of the Western ensemble experience is to create one wholesome sound. Is this denying students some of their creativity? Possibly, but I think there are ways to approach this without sounding so obviously like a dictator. In both my high school and university bands, my directors have told us to "put your sound in the pocket of the person next to you," which I think is a very interesting phrase because it causes students to think about uniformity without saying "play like so-and-so" or something of the sort. In my university band, my director also will let us have discussions on style of certain parts and allow us to change our articulation style from what she initially imagined it to be.
Overall, I was impressed with this article and am open to learning more about creativity in the classroom.