Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. doi:10.1080/10632910903455785
I really appreciated the obvious emphasis on creativity in this article. I feel that throughout the semester we talked around creativity, but never specifically about it, so it was exciting to finally hear a professional opinion on creative teaching! The author wrote about "big C" vs. "little c" creativity, describing people like Bach or Beethoven to be "big C" creators, and "little c" creations to be small things like adding a new spice to a recipe or a new interpretation of familiar pieces of music. While I agree that there is larger-scale creativity and smaller-scale creativity, I thought that this article made one to be "better" than the other, which I disagree with. Composing a symphony is on a larger-scale than adding a spice to a recipe, but each action is creative in its own way, especially when you consider the person physically doing the action. It's a well known fact that some people are naturally more creative than others, so the simple action of doodling in a notebook may feel like a huge burst of creativity to one person, but something tiny to another. I believe that creativity is all relative, and all acts should be appreciated. I recognize that the aim of this article is not to downplay certain acts of creativity, but rather, to increase creativity in the classroom, however, I think there are better ways to do this than give labels to "big C" creativity and "little c" creativity. One aspect of this article that I definitely agree with is that we should be encouraging more creativity in the classroom, and that what is currently being done is not enough. Yes, the occasional composition assignment or improvisation class is a step in the right direction, however, there is so much more to be done before we can consider ourselves to be teaching creatively. Most teachers draw directly from curriculum and teach an improv class only when the curriculum states that it is necessary, and while the actual act of improvising is creative, I think that teachers lose sight of the point of the exercise and use too much structure, almost to the point of where it's no longer improvising. In order to really teach creativity, we must find new ways to teach and be creative ourselves. Something else I read that really caught my eye was the idea to "resist the notion that standardized testing will answer all our problems in education" (Brinkman, 50). There are so many other ways to brighten the future of education, and like Brinkman says, the beauty of arts is that there is almost always more than one right answer. I believe that creativity is a necessary element in teaching not only the arts, but also other subjects as well. I was never someone who did well in areas like math and science, but thrived in music, drama, and English classes because I was given opportunities to be creative. If we can find creative ways of teaching math and science, then perhaps students like me will find ways to thrive in those areas as well. Creativity is such an important aspect of teaching and learning, and I look forward to learning more about how I can teach creatively with my students.
0 Comments
Thibeault, M. D. (2012). The power of limits and the pleasure of games: An easy and fun piano duo improvisation. General Music Today, 1048371311435523. Truthfully, I found this article to be rather boring, which was disappointing. I assumed that when the author said he had created a “game” for his students to learn improvisation that it would be more… game-like. Instead, it seemed more like an exercise, with one student playing a C major scale and another improvising around it. The majority of this article explained the “rules” and variations upon which this game can be played. While it isn’t a “game” in my view, presenting it this way is probably effective with the students, as it makes the activity appear to be more playful and makes the students more likely to follow the “rules”. It is probably smart to start off with something easy to improvise around, like the C major scale, is that it is my belief that you should not introduce improvisation with a set of rules- that defeats the purpose. Although, it’s difficult, because you want to make sure that your students are improvising in the correct key, and so you might have to explain that to them first (which would be considered “rules”, I suppose). What I enjoy about this activity is that its very open-ended, so there are countless variations you could try to make the activity more challenging or different. You could try having the bass line player improvise while the treble line player plays the scale, or you could have both improvise at the same time, etc. I think this is an interesting way to teach improvisation, however, I think the lecture we had with Dr. Watson was more effective. Listening and repeating short melodies made it easier to come up with our own improvisations because it provided a basic structure to go off of, whereas in this activity by Thibeault, the students are almost thrown into the deep end and forced to come up with melodies on the spot. I think that improvisation is in this weird grey area where it’s so easy that it’s hard. There are so many options, that it can be overwhelming to improvise on the spot. If Thibeault were to combine these two activities (start with a listen and repeat and then move into the game he created) he could have an extremely effective way of teaching improvisation to his students. I found this to be quite an interesting article. I expected it to be an article promoting “electronic” music, and was surprised to see that this “iPad ensemble” actually performs a mixture of many types of music. I would be very curious to see this ensemble perform, as I would love to see how they perform pieces like Für Elise (as mentioned in the article) or even their own compositions. Being able to take a classical piece like Für Elise and remix it takes a lot of creativity, and I think that it would be inspiring to watch.
In the first few paragraphs of this article, I was skeptical. How could an iPad have the same regard as a musical instrument as a piano or a clarinet? This author used the technical definition of a musical instrument to try and convince the readers that an iPad can too be a musical instrument, however, I believe there are some flaws to this logic. Based on my understanding, the students in this ensemble use applications to play the pieces they perform. But do they use piano apps? Guitar apps? Technically, they are still playing the piano and the guitar, they are just playing it through the iPad. But, I can definitely see how it is different playing an actual piano and playing piano on an iPad. Truthfully, I’m quite impressed with the ability these students have to do this. I also really appreciate the audience participation aspect of this ensemble. Especially for children, sometimes listening to an hour of classical music can be boring or tiresome, but with this ensemble, by remixing well-known classical tunes, encouraging dancing and singing and even live-tweeting ideas for the band as the show goes on, this is likely a very fun concert that I would love to be a part of! I also have a lot of respect for the performers in that they learn a lot of their music by ear. I have always struggled with that aspect of music and I believe that it is an extremely important skill to have- and to be able to do that on an iPad is very cool! The author wrote that “our mistake in traditional music education is that we elevate the importance and worthiness of certain instruments” (Williams, 94). This is a very true statement, and something that I’ve always believed, and now, after discovering the iPad as a musical instrument, rings true even more. I believe that a lot of people tend to favour instruments like the piano or the guitar and regard them as “better” or “more important” instruments, and other instruments, though beautiful, have to sit on the bench. For example, in my experience, people are impressed when you say you can play the piano, but not as impressed when you tell them you play the didgeridoo. In fact, it may strike them as somewhat odd that you play an instrument like that. I love that this article points that out, and I think by creating an iPad ensemble, raises awareness to the fact that all instruments are important, and almost anything can be a musical instrument if you are creative enough. Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
This article brought forth some interesting points in discussing different scenarios in incorporating participatory culture in the classroom. Unfortunately, I did not find the ideas of this article easy to decipher at first, which made me reluctant to read the article in its entirety. There were numerous times when I questioned why a certain paragraph was relevant, or even questioned my own competence in if there was a point that I was missing. I thoroughly enjoyed the section of applying convergence into school music programs. The description of three different scenarios painted an interesting picture of how participatory culture can be applied in schools. The first scenario describes remixing or arranging popular songs, or creating mashups with that the students enjoy, and then asking them "why?" Why did they choose these two songs? Why do they fit together? How do they relate to each other? I appreciated this scenario because of the opportunities it provides for the use of media and technology in the classroom. In many music programs, these opportunities are not available. The second scenario describes instances in which students would be able to participate in contests for the mashups or arrangements they create. I appreciated this as well, because of the opportunity for media as well as performance. I think that having performance opportunities in schools is really important because they set goals for the students, and will encourage them to work harder. Personally, I always practiced harder and with more motivation when I knew I had to perform the piece I was working on. Finally, the third and last scenario seemed rather odd to me. The author suggested expanding pieces of literature using the musical Into the Woods as an example. Some of the ideas mentioned were creating twitter accounts or facebook pages for the characters, or even remaking certain songs in the show to fit present day norms (i.e, the Witch's rap into a 'dirty South-like rap'). Some of these suggestions are kind of strange, however, I can see how students would respond to this in a positive way. By using social media, this scenario might draw students into music and create an appreciation for music that students would otherwise not listen to. Overall, despite the numerous amounts of irrelevant information I found in this article, I really enjoyed the scenario section. Learning about different ways to incorporate this kind of culture into my future classroom was really interesting, and I look forward to trying out some of these concepts in the future. Application in My Classroom Considering the fact that my goal is to teach privately, I might encourage mashups by teaching my students about chord progressions and give them a song with a common chord progression (i.e, I IV V I) and then have them find songs with the same chord progression and assist them in creating the actual mashup, whether that be the use of one song for verse and the other for chorus, etc. To do this, I would play both songs that my student chose and ask them what they hear (listening for bass lines, similar sounding passages, etc.) Then, I would play the chord progression and ask them to sing the chorus of one song, and then the chorus of the other. I would then help my student put together the two songs. Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38. The premise of this article was promoting acceptance and inclusion of everyone in the music classroom, while at the same time following the story of Jason, a seventh-grade boy in the school band. The author writes about how easy it is for students with disabilities to fall through the cracks and become invisible to other students, or even ostracized by them. He fights for a classroom where everyone is included and treated equally, despite any disabilities that any student may have. I think that an important thing to note is that people who are perceived as "anti-social" are not necessarily "anti-social" people. It is very possible that they are just avoiding contact with others out of fear and lack of self-confidence. To combat situations like this, the author writes about a "big brother/big sister" system, where each freshman is paired with a senior. They are matched based on personality (i.e., pairing a shy freshman with a social senior) in order to bring them out of their shell and feel welcomed and included. The author also writes about potential problem situations where students with disabilities could feel excluded, one of them being class trips. Trips and festivals are extremely common in a band class, and these trips usually involve bus buddies or roommates. In order to combat "invisible students" feeling excluded, the author suggests making lists yourself to ensure that the student always has someone. I think this a foundation for a good idea, but there could be potential problems. Without constant monitoring by a teacher or someone else of authority, it is quite possible the students could "ditch" their assigned buddies for someone else, which would cause even more problems. Students could feel unwanted, ostracized, and excluded. The author also writes about "ice-breaker games" for the first day of class so that everyone can get to know each other. I find these games very useful, because if students can find out small personal details about each other early on, they are more likely to feel empathetic towards one another. In breaking down these social barriers and discovering new things about each other, a further level of inclusion would be natural. I think that the general idea of including all students in the classroom is good, however there are other things to consider. Just because a student sits alone does not mean that they are miserable. Being the "invisible child" is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes children (especially those who are older) make the decision to keep to themselves because that's what they want. Many of the things mentioned in this article like the buddy system are really only effective until about grade 6. Then it just seems tedious and annoying, and almost seems like a bright neon sign pointing at the "invisible child" (which is probably exactly what they don't want). What if this "buddy system" ends up pairing the invisible student with someone who is picking on them? These are all factors to consider before forcing students to work/sit/room together. Though the teacher is coming from a good place, they could be doing more harm than good. Serres, D. (2014) Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Retrieved January 26, 2017, from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
The idea of normalcy and how it connects to ableism is an ongoing discussion in our society. The main issue stems from the fact that society believes people who have disabilities live lesser lives than those who do not. I agree strongly with the article that simply changing how we speak about disabilities (i.e, saying "people with disabilities" instead of "disabled") is not enough. There must be action. What society views as "normal" today is completely different from what was considered to be "normal" 100 years ago. Normalcy comes from a higher power; what we strive to be. It is difficult to say what is actually "normal" though, since there are so many different ways of living. Something I found interesting was the Deaf community referring to themselves as being part of a linguistic minority, rather than having a "disability". I will admit, I had never thought about it like that before, but I think that is a very interesting and thought provoking way of viewing lives within the Deaf community. Someone who society would consider to have a disability doesn't view themselves that way, so why should we? The article states that to ensure that society knows that no life is "abnormal" just because it is different from the life they live. I think that statement is so important. Difference is what makes the human race so interesting. It broadens our culture. Another idea that I found to be prevalent in this article was conformity, especially in schools. Teachers say that they bend over backwards to ensure that the student is "comfortable" and "fits in", when in reality, all they are doing is taking measures to make students with disabilities conform to what is considered "normal" in the school. For example, they take extra measures to ensure students in wheelchairs do not have their chair visible when their photo is taken. It seems as if taking these measures does not better the student, but rather, makes the other students and staff feel more comfortable. Instead of making changes to make the student like everyone else, students and staff should be doing everything in their power to make the student feel comfortable and accepted as they are. When thinking about disabilities in relation to film, television, and other media, how often do you see a hero with a disability that they don't overcome? That makes them better in the long run? Or a villain with a deformity that "represents their evil"? This plays a huge part in the negative connotation that society puts on those with disabilities. With this kind of reflection in the media, society is a long way off from changing the "culture of normalcy." I think that the fact that disabilities are almost exclusively negatively stereotyped in film reflects poorly on society, and shows that we believe those with disabilities must change to convenience us, when in reality, we should be working to ensure that they feel included and respected, and not like we are trying to change them because it will make us feel better. There is also the track of education: when a student is discovered to have any kind of disability, they are put on a different track, usually one where the standards are much lower, and they are expected to achieve less. I think this could be extremely problematic, as it could demotivate students that have tremendous potential that is not recognized just because of a "disability". I do however, recognize that sometimes these separate tracks are helpful and sometimes necessary. Sometimes mainstream classes prove to be too difficult for a student with a learning disability. It also would not be beneficial to alter the class difficulty, because this would be detrimental to other students that are looking to pursue professional careers in the subject in question. The whole idea is tricky: disability is not black or white. There is a spectrum to consider in which some students are higher functioning than others. Some students simply cannot function in the mainstream school environment, and we should not try to force them to do things that are beyond their capabilities. I feel that it is important to note that society may not recognize that what we are doing could be viewed as harmful or inappropriate. It's quite possible that we actually believe that in trying to make someone with a disability more "normal" that we are doing what they want, and that it is helping them, but in reality it seems kind of like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. We must fix the root of the problem, and in this case, the root is society. I think we have to realize that all anyone wants is to be accepted and included as they are, and instead of trying to change someone to suit our needs, we should do just that. It was a pleasure to skype in with Lesley Dawe and chat with her about her experiences in teaching, I really enjoyed hearing about the journey from someone first hand. We had the opportunity to ask her questions about her teaching and her article, which was very helpful, interesting, and enjoyable. every teacher has their own way of teaching their material and inspiring students to learn, so it was very cool to hear from someone directly, who went through the same journey that we are all on right now.
We spoke a lot about the programs in her school within the Peel District School Board, and how they are a "student centred" program, meaning that they cater to the needs of the students and figure out what will work best for them, as opposed to what will work best for the teachers. One thing that I really appreciated was that in the choir she runs, she asks her students what they would like to sing instead of choosing repertoire by herself and forcing her students to learn music they don't know or like. By having her students actively participate in choosing repertoire, they are more likely to want to sing out and actually be present and engaged at rehearsals. I think this is a great example of student-centred programming, because she prioritizes the needs of the students and thinks about how they will learn and appreciate music best, as opposed to prioritizing what is convenient for her. Additionally, Dawe also spoke about classroom management, which is extremely important in teaching in a public school setting. She reminds the class of their behavioural criteria and how to behave responsibly in the classroom, and conferences with them at the end of each period to find out about their struggles, and attend to where they find they need help (yet another example of student-centred programming!) What I appreciated most about Lesley Dawe is her desire to instil a love of music into every student, whether or not they are pursing a musical career. She wants them to enjoy it, and to be knowledgable about it. She approaches concepts like "form" through the comparisons of popular songs on the radio. She wants them to love music, and she wants to teach it in a way where she knows her students will be engaged. I think that appealing to your students, knowing what they like and using that to indirectly teach concepts that could prove to be complicated is an excellent way of teaching. As an educator, I learned a lot from Lesley Dawe, and I look forward to practicing similar techniques in my own classroom to engage my students and teach them about the joy that is music! Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24
While reading this article, numerous times I caught myself nodding in agreement or thinking, Wow, that's exactly how I feel! That's how I was taught. I get it. It was really interesting to read an article from a music educator and see that we share so many of the same opinions and even were taught the same way. Like the author, I was taught to strive for accuracy above all else. I would spend time at my piano, practicing the same sections over and over again in order to achieve accurate notes and rhythms. I wanted perfection. I didn't even bother trying to bring in any ounce of creativity or expression until I had the piece learned, and like the author, this way of thinking was encouraged by the majority of my teachers. Obviously, I do not fault my teachers for this in any way- I would not have gotten this far without them! I do wonder though, how different of a musician I would be if I had learned through a different method, practiced a different way, or had a different way of thinking about music altogether. In reading this author's story about an embarrassing experience in audition for a Senior Jazz Ensemble, I felt a deep connection to her feelings about it. She cites it as embarrassing because she was unable to live up to her teacher's expectations, which I can definitely relate to. I have always been afraid of disappointing a teacher or mentor. She also writes about feeling vulnerable in a music classroom setting. She describes her vulnerable experiences as being "humiliating" however I believe that as a musician, being and feeling vulnerable is extremely important. I think that feeling that way brings about an honest portrayal of music in a performance, and helps you release emotion and makes for a better performance. I will agree though, that had the author been given more opportunities to build skills in soloing, composing, and improvising, the experience would have been less "traumatic". If I ever had the chance to sit down and speak with this author, I would want to know how she thought her musical journey would have been different had she learned differently, and was taught improvisation skills during her time growing up. I think that this reading directly correlates to guest speaker Dr. Mark Hopkins' lecture, in that it is extremely important to teach students to improvise and compose, and build skills in creativity because in the long run, it helps make you a better musician. It will encourage you to take more risks and challenge yourself. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this reading, and I think it fit in perfectly with what I figure to be a "theme" of the week: infusing creativity into learning. Backing away from structure and tradition, and instead of using that to teach the material, lay it down as a foundation and build upon it with creativity and curiosity. Mindful TeachingThis video takes place in a first grade classroom and uses a technique called "Whole Brain Teaching". I thought that the teaching done in this video was mindful, interactive, and exactly the kind of education that would be impactful and effective on elementary level students. There were numerous activities that I thought were very interesting- one of them being "teach". On numerous occasions in the video, the teacher would raise her arms and say, "Teach!" and her students would respond, "Okay!" and they'd turn to their partner and review and teach each other the concept they had just learned. I think this is a great activity because it promotes an interactive learning environment, and ensures that all students understand the concepts. In the event they do not understand, every student will have the support of their friends and teacher. As well, typically, if a student is able to explain a concept to another person, then they have a good understanding of the concept themselves. Another activity I enjoyed was "mirror". Upon hearing the "mirror" command, students would watch and copy their teacher's actions and repeat after them exactly. I think this is a great idea, because it ensures that all students are actively participating and paying attention to the lesson, and promotes an interactive learning environment. In addition, it made the learning seem fun and prevented students from getting distracted or fidgeting. Both of the exercises mentioned above put an emphasis on active participation and interactive learning. I think that these are key factors in a successful learning environment as well as ensuring that children learn and completely understand the concepts. By enforcing these activities and putting an emphasis on inclusion of all students in partnerships, this teacher was a perfect example of mindful teaching. Not-so-Mindful TeachingThis professor is teaching a mathematics class to what I would assume to be either high school seniors or university students. The best word I can use to describe his teaching is 'unclear'.
On numerous occasions, this professor referred to the material he was teaching as "easy". As an educator, I would want to steer clear of any words that voice your opinion on the level of difficulty of your material. Had I been a student in this teacher's class, I would feel uncomfortable approaching this teacher for any extra help. This professor also spoke quite quickly, and stuttered quite a bit. I think that a teacher needs to speak slowly and clearly, and be confident in themselves to teach the material they are teaching. I did not get that feeling from this teacher. Additionally, this lesson was not interactive or participatory whatsoever. There was no interaction with the students, which is unfortunate. I believe that student interaction and participation are two of the biggest factors in ensuring that they are learning the material and understanding the concepts. At one point, this teacher even checked his cellphone during his lecture. I found that baffling. This teacher clearly was not focused and put his needs before his students. With all of these combined factors of an unfocused teacher, lack of participation and interaction, and unclear instruction and voice, this is in my opinion an example of not-so-mindful teaching. Dr. Mark Hopkins from the University of Acadia shared his perspective on the music curriculum for junior high aged students, particularly, band students. He began his lecture with the idea that "every musician teaches". In one way or another, whether you teach in a public school, or have your own private studio, every musician is an educator of some kind. According to Hopkins, there are three parts to curriculum: the process (the "how"), the people (the "who") and the product (the outcome). Assignment grades typically come from the final product, however, the person and the process could also be factors in what the final grade may be. Additionally, there is also a structure known as Bloom's Taxonomy that has three parts: cognition, psychomotor, and affective domains of thinking. He also spoke about the Spiral Curriculum, which ensures that students learn about the elements of music at a level of complexity that is appropriate for their age.
Dr. Hopkins spent a lot of time talking about the "Standards of Excellence" method books and how while they have a great deal of positive reasons to use them, they lack in teaching students about expression. Hopkins wrote the Nova Scotia New Band curriculum, and hoped to change the standard of teaching music. He wanted students to learn "sound before sight" and being pursuing creativity in the classroom from day one. He wanted students to improvise and teachers to realize that failure is not only possible, but accepted as well. I found Dr. Hopkins' lecture to be very interesting, and I really connected with the majority of his content. As someone who played in a junior high band, I found it very frustrating to start at the very beginning of a method book and just learn to accurately play music without the fun of expression through ornamentation, dynamics, tempo, or improvisation. Teaching from a method book is very structured, and does not leave much room for creativity. It was refreshing to listen to a music educator who wanted to put emphasis on the creativity involved in teaching and directing a band, In learning about Dr. Hopkins' curriculum, I really enjoyed the balance between structure and creativity. While he wanted to emphasize building skills in creativity and improvisation, there was still material and concepts to be taught about musical terminology and various historical and cultural aspects of music. There was still a foundation of the basics (posture, air, sound production, terminology) which I appreciated. What I appreciated most about Dr. Hopkins' curriculum was the emphasis on collaboration. In music, being able to work effectively with others is a necessary skill, especially if you want to be involved with concert bands or anything similar. Dr. Hopkins' curriculum provides students with the baseline and foundation to continue studying music to gain a mastery of their instrument, as well as pursue a career in music if they so choose. Overall, I really enjoyed this lecture. I found myself agreeing with just about everything that was said, and having voice as my principle instrument, I found it very interesting to get a perspective on teaching music in the instrumental stream. |
|