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.

Music for Exceptional Children (Reflection on Ch. 16)

p. 404 "Children who are classified as mentally retarded (MR)..."

Okay, seriously. Are we using this word or not? This is something that really frustrates me, because I can't seem to get a concrete answer. I understand that this stems from the fact that there really isn't a concrete answer to the question "how do we refer to children who are __(insert chosen term here)__?" I do not mean to be offensive in any way - quite the contrary - I want to be as sensitive and kind as possible, but I just don't know what to say here. Frankly, I wonder if at least part of the reluctance to talk about special needs education is because many people aren't even sure how to do so without accidentally hurting feelings or being insensitive.

p. 409 "The term emotional or behavior disordered is increasingly used to apply to children who might have previously been labeled emotionally disturbed, socially maladjusted, or psychotic. Schizophrenic and autistic children and those with affective disorder and anxiety disorder are also included in this category. The behaviors may have either a biological or a psychological cause."

While reading this section, I kept thinking of specific people I have known and worked with. I think this is the area of exceptionality (as defined by the book) I have personally encountered most often, possibly because it encompasses such a wide range of situations. I struggle with this because I am personally affected and influenced by own experiences with several of my relatives who struggle with anxiety-withdrawal related disorders. I hope that I am able to take that experience and draw positive insight from it, rather than relate my future experiences to the frustration and anxiety I have experienced in the past. I think I owe it to my future students that this is something that I try to work on personally.

p. 417 "Children who are gifted (who show advanced, natural abilities, usually in the preschool years) or talented (who have a disposition toward something that they work hard to develop)..."

I had no idea that there was a difference between "gifted" and "talented." It makes complete sense that there would be, though, because it would be redundant to have two words to describe the same thing. I don't remember my schools having a "gifted and talented" program specifically, but that they offered different levels of instruction through specific classes (honors and AP levels), although that opens up and entirely different can of worms (around the idea of "tracking") as we happened to be discussing last week in Intro to Education...

Motivation and Management (Reflection on Ch. 11)

There are so many things in this chapter that I think are interesting... but here's 3.

p. 282 "Cooperative Learning (CL) is a system developed by David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, E. J. Holubec, and P. Roy (1984) to improve student learning of subject matter and help students become more interdependent, better self-managers, and more effective problem solvers."

I thought the Cooperative Learning method was really interesting - my first reaction was surprise that someone would advocate the "team captain" method of choosing groups, but further reading revealed that this was a specific choice to identify leadership capabilities in specific students, which makes sense (and the groups would be changed every six or seven weeks).

p. 287 "Another technique to motivate appropriate student behaviors is designing a 'Special Person.' In each music class, a Special Person is elected every two weeks."

Again, I was really surprised that students were given so much authority (not that I think giving students control of their own situations is in any way a bad thing, but the idea of students electing the "Special Person" brought up concerns of a popularity contest, bargaining, etc.), but on further reflection, the process is controlled enough that it seems like each student would get the opportunity to be praised and rewarded for his or her strengths. Especially notable was the idea that "The Special Person designation is a highly coveted award, because students' peers elect them, not the teacher" (p. 288). This makes complete sense, because the students naturally value the opinion of their peers (which they see as unbiased) in a different way than that of the teacher (which they see as being biased - the students see that the teacher has to treat everyone equally, which could have a negative effect on praise to some degree).

I don't have a specific quote for this last point of interest, but I'd like to comment on the "Judicious Discipline" system developed by Gathercoal (1993), "based on the principles established in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution" (p. 291). I like this system specifically because it's something that the children can easily understand and (for the most part) hopefully learn how to function successfully in. It is intrinsically fair, which appeals to students sense of wanting to control their own environments, and allows them to understand the rules (expectations and procedures) by which the game (the classroom) is going to be played (run). This method advocates gathering information and deeper thinking without undermining self-esteem in the process of improving and understanding inappropriate behavior. Having grown up in very strong school communities where respect is possibly the most highly emphasized value, I can feel confident in thinking that this method is probably very effective. I would also imagine that this system is probably effective in situations where students are feeling out of control in other areas of their lives, because they can come to school and know what behavior is expected of them, what consequences and rewards they can expect based on the choices they make, but also feel safe in the environment provided for them and by their peers.

The Moving Child (Reflection on Ch. 6)

"Movement balances the academically passive parts of the school day with the children's characteristically active nature" (p. 121).

I like that our textbook so strongly encourages us to incorporate movement into the music classroom. I can remember sitting in some music classes that were just as dry as several of my non-music classes... movement would have made an enormous difference in my perception of the environment and my participation in the experience. I'm even surprised by how much difference just getting up and moving around makes in the energy level of the classroom - even in college.

"Children enjoy discovering the capacity of their bodies to move as suggested and to act on command; such exercises are inherently motivating" (p. 127).

We've talked about this in other classes - setting up a situation for learning in which children will be faced with both challenging and easily attainable goals (and a range in between) to give varied opportunities for success and hard work.

"The Socratic method should be used prominently as the teacher guides children's movement through such questions as the following: "How do squirrels scamper?" "What parts of the squirrel's body move?" "Can you swing like a puppet blowing in the wind?..." (p. 139).

As a student, I've always like the Socratic method, and I can see how it would be especially useful in guiding children in creative movement. As the textbook mentions, questions allow for "individual solutions," allowing for creativity in finding an answer to "How do squirrels scamper?" One child may interpret the scampering of a squirrel in an entirely different manner than another child; neither is wrong, both are interpretations. I think creative movement would be a great way to foster an environment in which "mistakes" are acceptable - mostly because there are not "mistakes" in creative movement. It gives children an opportunity to observe the fact that sometimes people see things differently.

Pitch and the Child (Reflection on Ch. 5)

p. 102 "At about six months, children develop a sense of their own culture's ways of constructing melodies, probably in the same way that they develop a sense of the syntax in their native language."

As we have been learning about children's musical development, I am repeatedly amazed by how rapidly and how much children's musical senses develop. The table (5.1) on p. 104 lists percepts and concepts by age group - I am curious as to how it's possible to measure an infant's response to differences in pitch.

p. 110 "Around the age of six or seven, children begin to develop a clear sense of tonality, or that a piece of music is centered within a logical system and moves within that system to a final point of resolution or rest."

Again, I'm surprised to learn how early this concept is understood - however, contextual information seems to indicate that while children may, for example, develop a clear sense of tonality, they likely do not have the words or ideas fully formed enough to actually express that concept.

p. 117 "Research in pitch perception shows that people develop sensitivities to pitch and pitch structures as a natural part of responding cognitively to the music that surrounds them."

This is related to the idea on p. 102 (see first quote). It makes perfect sense that we form our ideas about pitch based on what we hear around us - same as language, but I hadn't ever thought of it in that way... my idea of pitch is based entirely on what I've grown up hearing. In last year's class (World Music in Education), we talked about this a little bit in reference to exposing students to music of other cultures - how it will initially sound "weird," and how that's partially because different cultures have different systems of tonality. I think it's so cool how we all have a unique musical "language" based on our culture, just as we have our own spoken language, learned from our parents and our culture.

The Singing Child (Reflection on Ch. 4)

p. 67 (sidebar) "Recall your earliest singing experiences. What did you sing? With whom and for whom? What did you sound like?"

I was thinking about this question the entire time that I was reading this chapter, specifically because I clearly remember some of my early singing experiences. My favorite movie was "Mary Poppins," and my first exposure to singing was singing along with Julie Andrews. I think that her sound had a great deal to do with my own vocal development - for years, that was the sound I used as a "model" (and, believe me, I count myself incredibly lucky to have ended up with such a wonderful and tremendously talented person to have modeled my singing after). My mom tells stories of me singing myself to sleep as a preschooler and kindergartner... singing all sorts of songs, but often songs from Mary Poppins.

p. 83 "Unless children have physiological conditions (such as damaged vocal cords or severe hearing deficits) or the rare condition known as amusia, they can learn to sing accurately."

According to Wikipedia, amusia is "a musical disorder that appears mainly as a defect in processing pitch, but it also encompasses musical memory and recognition. Two main classifications of amusia exist: acquired amusia, which occurs as a result of brain damage, and congenital amusia, which results from a music processing anomaly at birth." I've always been curious about the idea of "tone-deafness," because I strongly believe that all people are musical - that idea is most often challenged when confronted with someone who is apparently "tone-deaf," such as my very intelligent, but seemingly non-musical, sister. Oliver Sacks devotes an entire chapter to this phenomenon (and other related issues) in his book "Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain," which I keep meaning to read... the issue of tone-deafness with my sister (interestingly) arose when she did not wish to be a member of the church choir with my other sister and myself. I'm reasonably sure she intentionally sang "out-of-tune" at the time as an excuse to get out of choir, but I'm curious now as to what effect that had on her musical development (she was probably about 8 at the time). Since we know that a definite change occurs in the brain of children around age 9 with regard to musical aptitude, I wonder if her maneuver to get out of choir had anything to do with that. She did go on to play percussion in middle and high school, but never returned to singing or other instruments which require a more accurate sense of pitch.

p. 97 "When children show signs of distraction or inattention, a physical exercise or rhythmic pattern can be introduced to restore focus and energy."

This particular section reminded me of some of my own experiences in a church choir... the director often struggled with classroom management-type issues, to the detriment of the choir's performance and morale (as well as his own). The director was (and is) an extremely talented musician, but the issues arose from a lack of knowledge in how to most effectively instruct young children in singing. The church choir tradition often suffers from this problem, I would imagine, where children are expected to sit quietly and patiently until they are called upon to sing, at which point they are expected to sing in tune and follow careful instruction given by the director - a format which most educators will recognize is destined for difficulty (if not flat-out failure).

Methods of Teaching Music to Children (Reflection on Ch. 3)

Assignment: Choose 3 points of interest from this chapter (quotes & a brief reflection)

p. 50 "An adaptation of the French Cheve system of rhythmic mnemonics is also a critical technique, particularly for younger children, in learning rhythmic values and their relationships in a patter. The chanting of 'ta ti-ti's' is well known as a technique to be used by students of every level for mastering difficult rhythms."

I remember using the "ta ti-ti" rhythms in middle and high school (I had the same teacher who worked in both schools). I would be interested in learning more about the different systems of rhythm mnemonics... I wonder what the advantages of one system over another would be? Disadvantages of some systems? Something I noticed about this chapter is that it seems like it's all about the different paths you take to get to the same goal.

p. 52 "Orff believed children to be naturally musical, uninhibited in their expressive movement, and more receptive to his brand of musical training than adults. The collaborative efforts of Orff and Keetman resulted in the establishment of the Schulwerk method and the publication of five volumes of chants, songs, and instrumental pieces called Music fur Kinder (Music for Children)."

I mention this section because it reminded me of a program that I used to participate in when I was (I think) pre-school and/or kindergarten aged, though possibly I was older - the program was called "Kindermusik." I just looked up Kindermusik, and (according to Wikipedia), Kindermusik is "is a method of early childhood education in music and movement. It combines the early learning music methods of Carl Orff, Zoltan Kodaly and Suzuki method with early childhood development research. The Kindermusik philosophy is founded on the following fundamental beliefs: every parent is the child's most important teacher, every child is musical, the home is the most important learning environment, music nurtures a child's cognitive,emotional, social, language, andphysical development." So, it seems to be a combination of some of the music learning theories we've studied so far... cool. In the concluding section of the chapter, the following sentence occurs:

p. 64 "All teachers make choices in the techniques and musical materials they select for use with children, and most might conceivably be judged as showing an inclination toward one or another known method. Still, the personalization of these techniques and methods following training is the true test of the teacher's in dependent musicianship and ability to lead children in their own musical development."

Kindermusik seems to be simply a selection of choices from various methods, combined to form a new venue for musical instruction. It is somewhat daunting at this point to imagine that I will be faced with the choice of what method to use in instructing children in my own classroom in the future, but it's also encouraging to know that I have as many choices (and more) as are presented in this particular text. I suppose the only way to discover what works is simply to trysomething. I'm glad we have so many opportunities here for teaching our peers and others. I think that helps... a lot.

From Theory to Practice... (Reflection on Ch. 2)

Assignment: Choose 3 points of interest from this chapter (quotes & a brief reflection)

p. 21 "Musical play and socialization through music (and for the sake of music learning) can be bona fide means for children to gain information about the world around them. Various schools of child psychology have supported play as a natural process and a part of child development. G. Stanley Hall and Sigmund Freud were in agreement that young children are in training for adulthood through the games they play."

I think this information is strong support for early childhood music education, especially as incorporated into general play in pre-school and primary school. Musical play is easily interspersed in the less-structured environment of pre- and primary school, and would, ideally, strengthen a child's interest in continuing music in a more structured fashion in upper elementary school.

p. 28 "Musical intelligence is balanced by processes of both hemispheres, for it allows sequential (left-brain) processing through its perception of durational and pitch patterns and phrases, and simultaneous (right-brain) processing through its perception of various polyphonic textures, including harmony... the exercise of children's subjective, affective, and divergent qualities can be greatly served through lessons in music and the arts."

I'm always looking for evidence to support music education in schools - here's more! If I have evidence to prove that studying music exercises both hemispheres of a child's brain, that strengthens my argument that music should be included in the curriculum. I'm definitely interested in learning more about this particular fact (in this text, it's related to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences).

p. 35 "Gordon's Music Learning Theory is a comprehensive model of skill development, founded on the principle of audiation, or inner hearing: the ability to "hear" notation and to notate what one hears... His music learning sequence is a prescribed succession of music skills (or performance behaviors), music content, and tonal and rhythm patterns, and it is intended to develop musical audiation and understanding."

I had a private teacher once (for keyboard), who would always tell me to "activate my ear." At the time, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what she meant by this. After an additional 2 years of study, I now understand what she was asking me to do, though she never explained it in a way that "clicked" for me at the time... Music in Childhood explains the Gordon's theory is "hierarchical in nature." It would seem that the process to audiation is similarly hierarchichal, in that you can't skip any particular step towards the ability to audiate clearly and effectively.