Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students Talk about Music
Rose, L. S., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘the elements’: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 12(3): 45–64.
This article relates to my personal life substantially. Ever since I was four years old, I was trained classical piano. Everything was ‘by the book’ and extremely technical. I was taught about proper body alignment, proper finger positioning, proper body movements, etc. Musical technique has been heavily emphasized ever since I started playing piano. Looking back, I wish I had experienced more of the joy of creating music. I wish that my passion for music hadn't been suppressed, but instead, encouraged. A quote from the article states that “The disconnect between school music and music in the everyday lives of students continues to be addressed by various music education scholars”. I believe that this disconnection is harmful to many music students because it denies creativity and individuality. If students are constantly taught a specific way, without having the option of expressing themselves, how will they ever enjoy what they are being taught? I strongly believe that music study should be approached with more self discovery as opposed to a pertinacious curriculum.
I found it interesting as to the meticulous rules and regulations that educational curriculums enforce. In my opinion, these curriculums are limiting students when it comes to their education. Would famous musical composers be considered famous today if they followed a curriculum? They stepped outside of the norm and explored themselves musically. Historical teaching methods should not be held on to because the society that we live in is constantly changing. In order for an individual to achieve their true potential, they should be given the opportunity to connect their personal lives to their musical studies. With regards to music education, limitations and curriculum barriers should be avoided as often as possible, and be replaced by a pedagogy that encourages self-expression and individuality.
I was both surprised and frustrated to learn that educators tend to doubt themselves when it comes to their teaching styles. Second guessing your teaching abilities may result in mechanical teaching because you start to rely and depend on ‘the curriculum’ in order to teach. You become consumed with the thought that you may be putting your ‘professional identity at risk’. Musical educators, especially, should be open-minded and creative. They themselves should think outside of the norm, and in a more abstract way, as well as promote such behaviour.
As stated in the article, educators should be able “to embrace ambiguity” because “to resist the simplistic notion of “best practice” prepares them to teach in our complex, fast changing, globalized world.” Students do not need to be taught by a robot when they could nowadays easily look up any answer to any academic question on the internet themselves. Instead, students need an inspirational figure, who will provide them with a positive learning environment which allows for exploration, experimentation, and creativity.
Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake
Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24
As a music student, I found the article extremely interesting due to the fact that I have personally experienced many of the points that were brought up. Since age four, I was taught music in a way where, as stated in the article, “things were very black and white”. In the article, Dawe stated that she “was able to get by and be successful as long as I did exactly what I was told to do.” I felt the same way studying music throughout the years. However, I did not dislike this style of teaching. I felt a sense of comfort towards learning because I was rarely asked to think. The way I was taught was more about repetition as opposed to individual application of knowledge. In my head, there was only one correct way to play a piece. I believe that this kind of teaching philosophy prevents musical creativity.
I was surprised to read that other individuals who have been taught in this style tend to become anxious and feel judged when they are asked to musically improvise and/or think about music in a more creative way. For an area of study so abstract as music, educators should encourage risk taking and mistakes. Failure should not be perceived as negative, but rather, seen as a framework for improvement.
I find that the “teacher knows best” mentality is quite frustrating. The article, Humility, Creativity, and the Music of the Future, written by Schafer (2006), states that the teacher’s objective is “to push information into student’s empty head”. However, I can honestly tell you, both as a student and a human being, our heads are not, and have never been, empty. Furthermore, in the article written by Dawe, it was mentioned that teachers tend to be afraid to go against the curriculum because it may compromise their knowledge and control in the classroom. This kind of mentality denies creativity for both the teacher and the student. I find this frustrating because nowadays we live in an immensely fast changing society, which in response, requires fast changing academic alterations. The education system that worked years ago, may not be so ideal for current and future generations. Both teachers and students are now resorting to a comfortable teaching and learning style. With regards to music study, we are rarely asked to step out of our comfort zone, and instead, encouraged to both teach and learn in ways that feel safe and familiar.
I agree with the author when she brings up the point that we should not “throw away the traditional practices of our past”. I believe that this article positively expresses the importance of balance between traditional ways of teaching and more creative and interactive teaching styles.
Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability
Serres, Drew. (n.d.) Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Retrieved from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
I found this article interesting to read, but extremely frustrating as well. Many points that were brought up left a negative impact on me. However, I admire how the author mentioned that an individual who has “a different way of learning, communicating, or moving” should not be classified as “abnormal”.
My issue with this article is that the “culture of normalcy” keeps on getting mentioned, but in my opinion, the underlying cause of the separation from what is considered normal and abnormal is the “fear of difference”. I think this is the biggest problem, due to the fact that many individuals consider a physical, biological, or mental difference as unusual. Ableism refers to the idea that “anyone who is disabled lives “less of a life” than those who are nondisabled.” Many of us assume that such a difference would mean that this individual must be suffering. In the article, Serres states that “Changing our language (e.g. saying “people with disabilities” instead of “disabled”) means little if we resist changing our actions, institutions, and broader culture.” I believe that we as humans are quite greedy. I state this because, whenever we perform a good deed, we expect good karma to come back to us. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is what most of us were taught growing up; “do good things, and good things will come back to you” and “what goes around, comes around”. This mentality frustrates me because we help others in order to boost our own self-conscious; in order to make ourselves feel important.
The idea that individuals who have been altered differently should be treated differently is absolutely absurd. I agree with the idea that accommodations should be made in order to make an individual feel more comfortable. Nonetheless, setting a “low bar” makes the individual feel helpless and dependant. In the article, a quote from Tobin Sieber states that, “those with disabilities just want “to live life as a human being…They do not want to feel dominated by the people on whom they depend for help.” Institutions for individuals who are considered different are often not positive accommodations because they do not help with developing interpersonal skills.
I was surprised to read that 10 years ago, “normal” was considered differently that it is today, and that, in fact, the idea of “normal” often changes. Why is there normalcy? Who has the power to create a criteria that states what is and what is not normal? I would love to ask the author these questions, but frankly, Serres should not have an answer to these questions because no possible answer could be justified well enough. Finally, in my opinion, different should not be a diagnosis; different should be considered the new “normal”.
The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles.
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
In all honesty, I found this article to be hopeful, rather than frustrating. The point of this article was to “highlight social awareness” amongst students regarding ensembles. Although, in my opinion, some points that were mentioned were somewhat unrealistic. This article seemed like it was portraying an ‘ideal’ learning environment, rather than a realistic one. The points that were brought up were extremely genuine and admirable. The article made it seem as though this flawless education system can and should be implemented. Does the education system have the ability to be as immaculate as this article makes it appear to be? This is a difficult question to answer, because most people would say that it does. However, the many individuals that believe this is possible, do they actually stand by their answer, do they solely state this in order to portray themselves as kind-hearted and caring, or is it just wishful thinking? Don't get me wrong, it would give me great pleasure to know that the education system is capable of this, but from what I've personally experienced, this ‘ideal’ is quite difficult to achieve.
The ‘teacher does, student follows’ mentality that was often addressed in this article is not something I completely agree with. I do not deny that it is important for an educator to “model appropriate social behavior”, however there is always the obstacle of what kind of behaviour the student is being exposed to in his/her home. As well, it is always a possibility that an individual may behave one way in the classroom, and another way outside of it. For this reason, teachers should not rely on this as the only way to assure an inclusive learning environment. Secondly, in the article, Hourigan mentioned that teachers should “include activities to assist students in breaking down social barriers in the classroom.” Nonetheless, from personal experience, some individuals do not react positively to compulsory classroom participation. This type of atmosphere may make them feel uncomfortable, and as a result, the individual may socially exclude themselves from the ensemble. An idea stated by the author that I greatly appreciated was that “As music teachers, we cannot force students to accept invisible students. However, we can set up conditions within our ensembles that encourage social acceptance of all students.” I do understand that various ice-breaking activities are enforced in order for everyone to feel safe and comfortable in their learning environment. Educators just need to keep in mind that different students respond differently to these kinds of interactions.
Hourigan stated that “because of his lack of connection to the ensemble, he considered himself to be a poor musician.” This is unfortunately the sad truth and reality. An individual will believe that their academic performance is not good enough because they become consumed with the thought that they are not good enough. The lack of self worth within an ensemble is critical to any student.
I stated before that although I may not agree with some of the points brought up in the article, overall, the ideas were positively thought out. The only suggestion I would make to the author is to emphasize the importance that these type of education systems should be enforced from a young age, because it becomes difficult to alter adolescent behaviour as they get older.
The Power of Limits and the Pleasure of Games: An Easy and Fun Piano Duo Improvisation
Thibeault, M. D. (2012). The power of limits and the pleasure of games: An easy and fun piano duo improvisation. General Music Today, 1048371311435523.
This article was an interesting read due to the fact that it emphasized the differences between the subject of music being learned as a game, as opposed to a drill. The concept of learning through games is not the traditional learning style. However, in my opinion, it is a positive approach to learning because it is fun, interactive, and engaging. Furthermore, drills can often be seen as more of a forceful approach to learning; they encompass the idea that a certain goal must be achieved. I believe that learning though games allows a student to learn at ease.
I feel as though games that involve musical improvisations allow for creativity, and promote individuality. As well, improvisation also takes into account “ideas that emerge in social interaction with others.” Working with other students allows for peer suggestions and inspirations. More creative ideas have the opportunity to be produced when more students are interactive with one another. Furthermore, during a game, students often do not feel as pressured, since games are meant to be more fun and interactive. Although, there was a statement in the article that was brought up by the author, Matthew D. Thibeault, that I don’t necessarily agree. He stated that some students have been taught “too much of the wrong kind of music education.” What is a “wrong kind of music education”? I disagree with this statement because music education is different for every individual. Some learn better through games and improvisation, however, others learn better by following instructions step by step. In my opinion, adjusting to an individual’s needs is an extremely important aspect of musical education.
I believe that the idea of “limits” in this article suggests that limits can make music making essentially limitless. In the article, it is stated that educators can easily promote creativity, even with limits, because an individual can be “free within limits.” Although this statement may sound somewhat contradicting, taking the time to fully understand the underlying meaning of this, can open up a whole new mindset towards musical education. Regarding music education as a whole, I strongly believe that educators should place emphasis on encouraging their students to always improve, make mistakes, and take risks. It is important to give students suggestion, inspire them, and honour their work. Boundaries, variations, and rules in music making should not be a primary mindset towards music education. Nonetheless, as previously stated, placing minimal limits allows for further exploration and can open up the creative mind to push beyond these boundaries and explore various ways of executing the task.
Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36. Who are our students? Sharing interviews
Reading this article was immensely intriguing because I found myself in agreement with the author for almost everything that was stated. One statement that I was not particularly fond of was when the author made the statement that “the public nature of contest…places students at the centre of participatory culture in and beyond the music program.” I wouldn’t say that this statement is entirely inaccurate, however, it does not apply to all individuals. Personally, competition diminishes my will to participate because I do not like being compared to others. Due to this reason, I cannot say that I entirely agree with this statement. Nonetheless, this statement is accurate in the sense that competition does open individuals up to various perspectives regarding individual creativity.
I greatly appreciated the idea of individuals engaging in music through various methods, as opposed to solely music making. In particular, the “ethic of remixing” stood out to me, because it portrayed the idea that everyone has the opportunity to interact and engage with music “in ways where their contributions can be valued and enjoyed by others beyond their immediate environment.” This article positively emphasized the idea that music is for everyone. Since music is such an abstract area of study, individuals who do not study music are still able to create wonderful musical pieces because music supports the exploration of individual engagement. Sharing your ideas with the public is a great method of interaction, which results in positive learning experiences. Music is all about creativity as an individual, as opposed to creativity in a specific area of study.
Furthermore, although some individuals may believe that technology is diminishing human societal interaction and involvement, I believe quite the contrary. The author stated that “we must address the cultural milieu in which we are situated.” Nowadays, it is clear to see that technology has an immense impact on our lives. Additionally, I feel as though technology is extremely inclusive and allows for the opportunity for individuals to engage themselves in anything that interest them. Our society requires change, and in order to make these changes, limits need to be pushed and risks need to be taken. Educators should make the effort to immerse themselves in what is popular today in order to understand the mindsets of individuals of today’s society. Older and newer learning styles can be intertwined by connecting academical tasks that students can familiarize themselves with. I appreciate how the author stressed the belief of “musical life beyond school.” When students are given the opportunity to work on what they enjoy outside of the classroom, they are more likely to be engaged inside the classroom. Then, when it comes time to reflect on what an individual has learned, this reflection will most likely come with ease.
Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98.
I found this article immensely intriguing due to the fact that it dealt with an idea that impacts the lives of students in today’s society. Is the iPad a real musical instrument? I was pleasantly surprised that Williams argued that the iPad is a positive addition in musical studies. Williams stated that the use of an iPad as an instrument in a musical classroom setting has many advantages including: an increase in student engagement and involvement, the use of various instruments expands knowledge, the small and intimate classes encourage student participation, aural transmission is superior to written notation, audience participation during performances is highly encouraged.
In his article, Williams mentioned that classrooms are more intimate, which result in more student participation and involvement. In my opinion, the teaching style of utilizing the iPad as a musical instrument focuses more on the process, as opposed to the product. I feel as though this teaching style positively contradicts the “traditional school model.”
What I found to be frustrating, yet so accurate in my opinion, was that the author stated that the profession of teachers “does too much ignoring, and we continue to do it at our own peril.” I feel as though this is an accurate statement for many teachers that I have been introduced to in the past. Personally, many of my teachers have emphasized the importance of product, instead of process. I would not necessarily want to apply this teaching style to my own teaching methods in the future because I believe that a student’s process should be considered more important than their product. The article mentioned three goals which I found particularly positive: 1. “strive to play musically” 2. “work very hard to incorporate various collaborations in performances” and 3. “audience participation”. I believe that these goals encourage interaction, creativity, and musicality.
I wonder why so many individuals seem to be opposed of utilizing the iPad as a musical instrument. In my opinion, keeping up with societal trends, including technology, is a great way to ensure student participation in the classroom.
Teaching Creatively and Teaching For Creativity
Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50.
This article emphasized creativity. I appreciate how the author asked and answer the question of “what is a good teacher?” Nowadays, many people believe that a good educator is based on how well one can present academic information drawn out from the curriculum. In my opinion, this idea of education does not create positive outcomes for students because it does not consider their individuality.
Furthermore, Brinkman expressed the personal opinion of what creativity means to them. It was mentioned that creativity can be measured with a little “c” and a big “C”. Personally, I feel as though a value should not be put on creativity because then it, not only generalizes, but diminishes creativity as well. I agreed with the author’s approach to education, and the idea that the curriculum’s objective is to guide students to be the “same” as opposed to encouraging difference. I state that creativity is difference and that the education system should not strive to equalize all students regarding their academically process and progress. Although, this idea should not be misunderstood. In the article, it was mentioned that some teachers believe that if they encourage creativity as long as they themselves are creative. However, Brinkman states that “having professors that are creative does not necessarily influence students to be creative themselves.” Brinkman also states a very positive and important idea about teachers and creativity: “The creative teacher can inspire, motivate, and develop students that can function at various levels of engagement.”
Regarding education and creativity, the emphasis that creativity takes time and that educators should approach various situations creatively are both equally important. Educators who strive to embrace connections of the outside world and incorporate different ideas into their classroom, especially during “the elementary methods class” referred to by the author, are essential in creating an interactive and engaging learning environment. I believe that this is immensely important because familiarity encourages creativity.
My final thoughts regarding this article is that creativity is vastly encouraged by educators. In many cases, they are the ones who acquire the ability to impact whether your creativity increases or diminishes. Teaching is all about being given an unexpected situation and allowing yourself to think on the spot and create a learning environment that will benefit your students. The first steps to encouraging creativity in the classroom is removing the idea that “…more than one answer can be correct” and leaving “…room for unplanned and unpredictable goals to develop.” To conclude, I agree with the author’s point of view in many cases, with minimal exceptions. As a current student, I can only hope that the education system will soon realize the importance of individual creativity and aim to strengthen this in the classroom.