Curriculum Design (Reflection on Ch. 12)

p. 303 " A quality formal curriculum establishes large goals, competencies, and outcomes, leaving teachers free to develop an instructional curriculum for their own classroom and a personal method for attaining the goals. "

This actually clears up a question I've had for a while... I've heard teachers refer to "the curriculum" in many ways, and I haven't actually had a clear picture of what "the curriculum" really means. The formal curriculum might (I imagine) be dictated more strongly by the district or state, while the instructional curriculum is left more to the digression of the teacher (or district in some cases). I'm really looking forward to Curriculum Design next year... I think it will help me make more sense of this entire situation, which seems to vary so greatly depending on what situation one lands in.

p. 312 "How much can realistically be accomplished will depend on the contact time the teacher has with the children. An ideal would be thirty minutes daily with each class. Much more common is two to three times a week for thirty to forty minutes each. An inadequate program is thirty minutes per week or less."

Thinking back to my own music education experience, I remember in upper elementary school having music two or three times a week (though I was also a member of the handbell choir which met once a week during lunchtime). In middle school, I was in the choir, which was separated male-female. The girls met during the music period on MWF, with study hall during that time on Tu/Th, and the boys vice versa. I think that actually worked out pretty well, with the exception of the fact that our study hall was supervised by an art teacher who was in the middle of a nervous breakdown. We also had the opportunity to audition for the school musical in middle school, which rehearsed for two hours after school 4 or fewer days per week. In high school, I was a member of the women's choir which met every day for 45 minutes, which was great. I was also a member of a women's ensemble which met before school for 45 minutes twice a week, and participated in a music theory class which met daily for 45 minutes during my senior year. Senior year, I had music for a over two hours twice a week, not counting my private piano lessons, voice lessons, and church music experiences (which were extensive). As someone who is considering the possibility of working in a church setting (as an organist and/or choir director), I also think about what I am learning in my music education classes in that context - how would I apply what I am learning to teaching a group of children once a week (rehearsal) for bi-monthly performances (the service itself)?

p. 323 "Units have the advantage of allowing students to become deeply immersed in a topic over a period of time."

I like the idea of units because of this reason. As a student, I've always appreciated the contextualization of skills. I remember we did a unit on Lewis and Clark/Westward Exploration in 5th or 6th grade that was tied into literature, history, geography, and other classes I'm forgetting. We were completely immersed in the topic as our teachers created experiences for us that put us in the position of explorers in the early 1800s. I still remember the experience of eating the mystery food (which turned out to be cold oatmeal) given to us by "friendly Native Americans," played by some of our 6th grade classmates. I wonder what the experience would have been like if the entire school had been involved instead of just our teaching team. I don't know if that would be realistic for a public school, but I'm still a big fan of the cross-subjects curricular unit (or just a unit within a single class), because it gives context for the information and skills being learned.

"Remember, the highest form of fun is to gain a feeling of competence, because confidence emerges from knowing you have achieved something and can use it for the rest of your life." (p. 322) I wanted to add this as a side note... because it made me laugh out loud when I was reading.

"Fun and failure. They both start out the same way." - Arrested Development

Reflection on Kodaly and Dalcroze Readings

Kodaly Reading:

p.10 "To use a subject-logic approach in teaching music to young children is to expect them to intellectualize about something that does not exist in their own experience."

Earlier in the chapter, it is stated that "in a subject-logic approach, there is no relationship between the order of presentation and the order in which children learn easily. The subject matter is simply organized in a fashion that seems reasonable in terms of content." It makes perfect sense to want to reorganize the sequence of teaching to reflect the way in which children can most easily learn. It makes far more sense to first give children an experience to introduce them to a concept, then explain that experience in new terminology (which elaborates on or "intellectualizes" the topic), rather than giving children new terminology then trying to create an experience which gives that terminology meaning. It's so counterintuitive when you think about it, yet that's the way we've been educating children for years. It's not how people learn things naturally... Kodaly clearly recognized that this called for a restructuring of the way music education is sequenced.

p. 15 "Kodaly insisted that the materials used for teaching music to young children could come from only three sources: 1) authentic children's games, nursery songs, and chants; 2) authentic folk music; and 3) good composed music, that is, music written by recognized composers."

I can understand why Kodaly did this, but I don't know that I would completely agree... Does Kodaly take into account improvisation and composition? This chapter doesn't specifically refer to that, but does child-composed music fall into his 3 sources (would that be #1)? I think children can learn from what they themselves compose as well as the inventions of their peers, especially if (as the chapter does state) children are likely to use the intervals they are most comfortable with anyways - minor thirds, major seconds, and perfect fourths.

Dalcroze Reading:

p. 46 "There is a general sequence of musical concepts to be developed in the Dalcroze method; however, one cannot say what constitutes a year's curriculum. All students, no matter what age, must travel through the same skills and understandings, and these are continually improved and refined, even in the professional musician."

I really like this idea - I think it's very democratic. Relating to something we've been talking about in Intro to Education (tracking), I think the Dalcroze method goes beyond any need for the idea of tracking: everybody moves at their own pace, regardless of their age and innate abilities. The idea of continuous improvement and refinement emphasizes the idea that learning is a continuous process, and the most basic ideas are always applicable to what is being experienced, even if more advanced concepts have been covered (it's not like experienced musicians don't occasionally struggle with keeping a steady beat). I also think it's very important that Dalcroze's ideas can be applied not only to music, but also to dance, acting, therapy, and education. Who couldn't benefit from "the development of heightened concentration, keen mental discipline, a sharpening of the senses, and the development of the creative self?"

Reflection on "Together in Harmony" (p. 9-39)

p. 13 "Body percussion should be taught sequentially using the Orff process. It should be taught in body order, from top down (snap, clap, pat, stamp) or from the bottom up (stamp pat, clap, snap) to ensure success of the performance."

I would not have guessed that the order in which body percussion is taught (top down or bottom up) would have a significant influence on the success of the performance. I'm a little unclear on what this actually means, though - do you teach children the movements in that order, then use them as necessary in learning/performing music? Or is it that when you are performing music, you include the body movements in that particular order (moving from top to bottom or bottom to top)? The example given in the book (Fig. 2 "Body Percussion for 'Little Miss Muffet'") shows the snapping, clapping, and patting coordinated to specific rhymes. "Muffet" rhymes with "Tuffet" and both words get a snap. "Whey" and "away" rhyme, and each word gets a clap. "Spider" and "beside her" each get a pat. Regardless of the complexities of actually teaching body percussion, I would agree with the book that it's a really effective way of physically performing music before transferring it to instruments or singing.

p. 19 "It is imperative for musical independence that students learn to think in language, or audiate, prior to reading and writing."

I think it's really interesting that Gordon's Music Learning Theory draws such a complete parallel between the language and musical learning. One thing that occurred to me, though, is how oddly we attempt to teach second languages to older students. I took 6 years of Latin and a year of Italian, and (though Latin is not generally a spoken language) we didn't really learn the way a child learns. We memorized hundreds of words, practiced putting them into sentences (written), and studied a tremendous quantity of grammar.* My experience in Italian was much closer, as we conducted class IN Italian as soon as we had enough of a vocabulary to do so (probably a week or so into the semester). Back to music though - like in language, "immersion in a listening, speaking, and thinking environment" really does seem like the most successful introduction for teaching children to read music (which really is just another language).

*Latin grammar is awful. I would rather learn another language with an entirely different alphabet than try to remember them all (like Russian - I would love to learn Russian - I think it's such a gorgeous language). My middle school Latin teacher came up with the "drunken Roman theory" to explain the ludicrous number of exceptions to every single rule there was.

p. 34 "... returning to songs from previous lessons is what facilitates the retention of skills and allows concepts to develop... 'you should never leave a tune.'"

I think this is an idea which is far under-utilized in many musical situations. In all the music classes I had in elementary, middle, and high school, I don't remember ever revisiting a piece for the sake of learning something new about it (or even simply enjoying it for its own sake). However, returning to previously learned pieces is something my piano teacher stressed on a regular basis. I had a practice schedule for previously learned pieces (starting probably about 4 years after I had began piano) so that I would revisit at least one piece I already knew each week. I think this greatly informed my musicianship, as I was able to play the pieces much more easily, fluidly, and with more expression than I was capable of even at the point at which I left the piece previously. It was a very rewarding experience to look back on a piece which had seemed tremendously challenging at the time and discover the ease with which I could play it after several weeks, months, or years had passed. After several more years of playing, I discovered that some pieces required a little more work to get them back to the level at which I had been able to play them before, but that still even provided me for more opportunities for learning - often I would notice things I had not before, or be able to work through difficult sections in a different way, providing me with a deeper understanding of something which had challenged me. As I study music education strategies, I am always impressed with my piano teacher... I really ought to thank her for the wonderful foundation I now see that she provided for me.

The Creating Child (Reflection on Ch. 10)

p. 248-249 "Teaching music without having children compose would be like teaching art without having children draw or paint, or teaching writing by having children copy other people's work... All children, however, can benefit, both musically and cognitively, from active involvement in the creation, not just the re-creation, of music."

I think I disagree with this statement. I definitely believe that composition, improvisation, and arranging are extremely important parts of any music education program, but I think it's unfair to compare composition to the copying of other people's work. I think this devalues the performance of music by describing it as merely the reproduction of something which already exists. Like dance, music exists in the moment in which it is being performed - visual art does as well, but it continues to exist before and after that point. If music is written down, it continues to exist, but not in the same way in which it does when something is able to perceived aurally. I know this is a really abstract concept, but the nature of music is distinct because of this fact. Is performance simply the re-creation of music? How are they defining music? Side thought: this would be a really great discussion to have with a high school level general music class - what is music?

p. 254 "The possibilities for improvisation are endless."

I like how improvisation is discussed in this chapter - I think it's something that seems a little scary, even though it really isn't when you think about it. Because so often we associate improvisation with virtuosic jazz musicians (as is mentioned in the book), I think it's assumed that improvisation is a skill available only to a talented few, when really we do it all the time, and could do so more purposefully and with a better educational focus.

p. 262 "Children are natural inventors of song."

Earlier this year, I spent a day hanging out with my cousins (ages 5, 7, 9, and 11) during which we played with GarageBand and iMovie, creating songs and videos together. The 5 and 7 year olds worked collaboratively, as did the 9 and 11 year olds. With the younger group, I used the pre-made clips from GarageBand, allowing them to choose whichever sounds they liked in whatever arrangement sounded good to them (the one guidance I provided here was in pitch - I made sure that the clips were all in the same key...). With the older group, they picked out some rhythm clips, arranged them into a specific order, then played guitar and sang over the percussion and bass clips. We were having a great time (and that was the fastest 6 hours I've ever spent with four children under 12...) and I wasn't even thinking of this as an educational experience, even though it was (though highly unstructured). I wondered later whether they would have the opportunity to have similar experiences (composition, using musical technology, etc.) in any of their future music classes. I would hope that they do. All four live in households which value music and music education (and at least one of each of their parents are musicians). Who knows... maybe I could end up as one of their music teachers in the future!

The Listening Child (Reflection on Ch. 9)

p. 224 "Music, in many ways, is a thread connecting the different periods of one's life, marking special moments... music [people] associate with certain times or events may continue to appeal to them throughout a lifetime."

I really struggled with feeling homesick my freshman year of college... after a really difficult fall semester, spring semester bordered on feeling impossible much of the time. Music really helped me get through that feeling - specifically, listening to jazz. My dad's been playing jazz guitar since he was 16, and for as long as I can remember, that's most of what my family listens to when we have music playing during dinner, parties, or just everyday music. I've also been hearing my dad play since I was born, and I can sing you most of the songs he can play. I brought Oscar Peterson, Vince Guiraldi, and Nat King Cole CDs back to school with me, and in a way brought a big feeling of family and home along with that. Music's capability to comfort, inspire, excite, etc. is something that I think is really important to stress to students - often we spend so much time talking about what the music itself sounds like we forget to talk about how it makes us feel, which is a HUGE part of experiencing music for every person, and for many of us, why we enjoy it so much in the first place.

p. 229-231 "Deep-Listening"

This semester I'm required to do a large amount of music listening for two music history classes. I think I'm going to start trying to move beyond the "Attentive Listening" phase into the "Engaged Listening" (which is theoretically what we're supposed to be doing, I would imagine, but it's tempting to stay in the "Attentive" phase). Going all the way to "Enactive" for every piece would be extremely time consuming, but who knows - maybe I could learn to perform one or two... I would certainly remember them. And, as is discussed at the end of this chapter, it is so important for teachers to continue listening to new music as well.

p. 239 "Music teachers who see children only once or twice a week may with to enlist the help of classroom teachers in reinforcing listening experiences with children."

While this makes sense, I'm a little confused as to how this might help children do too much more than becoming familiar with a piece. If that's the goal, then this would be a valuable use of time. BUT - my question is, would the classroom teacher be working with the children in a way which promotes deep-listening? As part of a listening sequence? What is the objective of having the classroom teacher continue the listening experience? If the point of listening is to move beyond music as simply background, then I think it would be really important to stress this outside of the music classroom as well. Would be confusing for the children to have a specific piece of music that requires focus in the music classroom and that same piece of music playing in the background during the regular classroom teaching time? Or would that be helpful? I'm not sure... the book is vague on the procedural aspect of this, which seems really important.

Assessment and Evaluation (Reflection on Ch. 13)

p. 332: Box 13.1 Measuring Covert Behaviors

I'm not going to re-type the entire chart here, but after reading it, all I kept thinking was "lesson plan words! lesson plan words!" because the box offers ways to create "overt response[s]" (ways which show) covert responses. For example, to show whether or not a child is perceiving something (covert response), the child "could identify, discuss, shape, draw, diagram, notate, point to, circle, order, sing, play conduct, or move to what they perceive." Super helpful!!

p. 335 "Rubrics provide a set of scoring criteria that can help to determine the value of a student's performance on a task... [and] can be limited to a specific task, or it can be stated in terms of benchmarks that measure student progress toward a standard... A well-designed rubric will not only help establish performance standards for students; it can also help provide feedback as to what must be done in the future to improve their performance."

No wonder it's so hard to write a good one. Not entirely true - but, as we were also talking about in Intro to Education, oftentimes teachers end up creating things that vaguely resemble rubrics, but are decidedly less helpful and effective. From what I can tell, what makes a rubric special is that it includes a progression of skills and knowledge indicated in specific categories.

p. 340 "Systems for gathering and recording data may vary from simple to elaborate, depending on the teachers preference, how many students are in each class, student contact time per week, what reporting system(s) are used, and how much technical and physical support the teacher gets in accomplishing this important task."

I bet someone could teach an entire class on just "tracking student growth"... it seems like such a tremendously important part of teaching, but we spend so much time learning how to impart knowledge to students that we are left with very little time for the "behind-the-scenes" stuff (or so it seems sometimes). I know we do incorporate a lot of that into each class we take, but I know for me it can easily get lost in everything else that we do, because it's not a skill that we practice quite as much (seeing as we don't actually have regular students of our own).

On a slightly unrelated note, I came across a blog of a friend of mine who is teaching for Teach for America this year. He's still in his first couple of days of teaching and clearly feeling WAY over his head. Classroom management is a big issue for him - as is to be expected for a first year teacher with minimal training in teaching in a high-need, urban environment. I can't help but feel tremendous empathy. And be scared for him, and myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in being excited about education that I forget about how scary it's actually going to be that first day. I try to be sobered by it, but not discouraged, but sometimes it's just too easy to think "sure, I'll have been in school for a couple of years, but what on EARTH makes me qualified to do this!?" Thinking about all the fantastically amazing teachers I've had in my own education, I know that they all had to have had their time to "figure it out," make mistakes, maybe even fail miserably sometimes. But it's so much more intimidating imagining myself in that situation...

The Playing Child (Reflection on Ch. 8)

p. 192 "... Suzuki's method: (1) begin early with listening at birth and lessons from about two-and-a-half years onward; (2) delay music reading until musical skills and performance techniques have developed; (3) involve parents in lessons and home practice; (4) use excellent music literature that is developmentally appropriate; (5) balance private lessons (for attention to technical skills) and group lessons (for motivation and socialization); (6) repeat, review, and reinforce the performance of previously learned music; and (7) accentuate self-development while de-emphasizing competition."

Reading this section was really cool, because I realized that my piano teacher (with whom I studied for 10 years) followed most of these seven principles. (1) and (2) don't apply so much - I didn't begin studying until I was 8 or 9, and she believed that reading music should come along with learning musical skills and performance techniques. I really liked her teaching style and her influence is some of what led me to want to become a music teacher.

p. 198 "Some of these instruments can be made by a teacher or a parent, or by children as an art project, although their musical quality may be questionable."

As part of the promotional efforts for "Waiting for Superman," a documentary/film on America's educational system, www.donorschoose.org gave away $5 donation "gift cards" to people who pledged to see the film. I pledged, and received a $5 donation to put towards a classroom project of my choice. The project I chose was this one, The Incredible DIY Musical Instrument Project!, in which children were building their own electric guitars. I think DonorsChoose.org is a really awesome idea and I would love to continue to support them in some way...

p. 212 "The Autoharp is a zither, commonly equipped with twelve, fifteen, or twenty-one chord bars that are depressed by pressing on buttons."

I've seen an Autoharp played in movies (one in particular comes to mind - Christopher Guest's 'A Mighty Wind') but never had the opportunity to play myself. I think it looks like a really cool instrument with a lot of possibilities for students and teachers. I'd be interested in getting the chance to play around with one.