Saturday, December 1, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Planning a Class as a Performance, part ii (grades 2-6)
This article continues the idea of planning a music class to resemble a musical performance, except now moving beyond early childhood and into grades two through six. I first explore a few important related points by Bruner (1966), Elliott (1995), Pulaski (1980) and Gardner (1983). I then suggest a lesson plan, along their lines of thinking, blended with my own, that demonstrates the usefulness of this particular planning process and how it can address students’ various behavior and developmental issues students in a music class. These issues are different for this age level as compared to early childhood, and as many music educators may attest, the idea of ‘relevance to real life’ begins to emerge as students mature into the upper grades.
Jean Piaget’s perspectives on childhood development continue to be valuable in planning music class experiences at this age level. The period of between ages seven and eleven (usually second through sixth grade) Piaget called “concrete operations.” One of Jean Piaget’s key phrases "pedagogical mania" captures the essence of the need to students for have enriched sensory-motor experiences to "interiorize" them (Crain, p. 120). He is referring to a method of teaching which involves teachers doing a lot of talking and showing rather than allowing students to explore and learn concepts for themselves; a fault of much teaching which cheats students out of engagement in the discovery process. For example, Spencer Pulaski (1980) writes:
"A child with many physical experiences with a concrete object such as a ball can then form a mental image of that object and act upon it in thought as he has in actual experiences in the past. He can picture the act of throwing the ball, and his thought is "interiorized action." But the child who has never handled of thrown a ball is handicapped in his intellectual development." (p. 13)
As music educators, it is necessary to establish a balance between letting the students discover knowledge for themselves on the one hand, and transmitting concepts to them though lecture or handout material on the other. Time is an important factor in achieving this balance: it can take longer to create learning environments where students discover for themselves than to simply lecture or pass out material to them. Jerome Bruner (1966) develops a view of constructivist learning theory in which the teacher is aware of the structures students bring to the learning experience. Educators then build on those structures in a spiral fashion, revisiting concepts at increasingly higher levels, as the student is ready. Embedded in Bruner’s theory are the pursuit of excellence and the emotional connection of the child to the learning experience. In Bruner’s (1979) words, “How can I know who I am until I feel what I do?” (p. 43) This mode of thinking has clear applications in the choral curriculum and is closely tied to Elliott’s (1995) views. In Music Matters (Elliott, 1995) Elliott writes, “we don’t hear music as it is, we hear it as we are.” This points to the importance of the student as the center of planning in curricular development.
While factual knowledge is essential, facts alone become what Perkins calls “inactive knowledge” or others have called “inert knowledge” when it is not applied to critical, reflective problem solving. Many educators are trapped in such “fact-based” teaching. Howard Gardner (1999) calls this a “dipstick” approach. He explains: “If you want to know how much oil you have in your car, you stick in your dipstick, and you pull it up, and you say, ‘Oh, I need another quart.’ Most of us, think that if you had the right cortical dipstick, you could shove it into your cortex, pull it out and see how smart you are. “ (p. 11) These perspectives would suggest the importance of choosing a curricular model that moves beyond a “fact-based” design and engages students who are able to leave the classroom with the abilities to analyze and solve problems on their own.
A recent class period scenario illustrates this. One day I was passing out a written in-class assignment that asked students to label notes on the staff according to a picture of a piano keyboard that had the names of the notes printed it. Most students were intent on understanding the instructions so they could proceed with what appeared to me to be a productive way to learn how to read notation. Though the class was a little confused at first, most students seemed to understand the assignment and after ten minutes or so of explanation, were working happily. One student, however, came up to me in the front of the class and stood in front of me. I assumed that she, like many of the others was there to ask for clarification of the directions. Instead she looked at me. “Why do we have to do this?” she asked slightly annoyed, continuing to look expectantly at me. “Well, this will teach you how to read music,” I replied, “don’t you think that will be valuable for you?” She continued a slightly irritated look at me, “I don’t want to be a musician,” she shot back, “why do we have to do this?” The conversation continued for a few minutes with me explaining the value of learning “another language” and how this will help her problem-solving and thinking skills in other subjects. I found the whole episode a bit disquieting.
As I later reflected on this exchange, I began to realize the source of my discomfort with the conversation. I was afraid she was right. I was afraid there might actually not be a good reason for me to have asked the whole class, in fact, all my classes that day, to work on this assignment. This was a situation in which I was trying to fill my students’ heads with prescribed knowledge and it was obviously very hard for some of them to see how this material was relevant. I began to think about how structuring the class as a performance combined with allowing the students’ to pursue the discovery of what they are passionate about might be achieved.
The idea of relevance is different for each student as well as each teacher. In the case of this article, I suggest the performance paradigm as a means of structuring the class, but also as a means of addressing relevance. Part I of this article dealt with the benefits of planning a classroom experience as a performance from the standpoint of classroom management and operation. But here I take it a step further and suggest how ‘planning as performance’ may also influence how relevant students feel music class is to them. For example, the class may be preparing for an upcoming winter choral performance. The various spoken, sung, and perhaps acting and choir parts are all important for the success of the program. When students consider the ‘relevance’ of the class activities, this moves it beyond the age-old “because I said so” from the teacher, which takes away ownership of the classes common goals from the students.
The following is a contrasting example of a class plan that addresses these concepts of ‘planning a class as a performance’ as well as ‘relevance to life.’ It is generally for a fourth grade class, but could be modified for slightly older or younger grades.
Introductory activity/vocal warm-up: I ask the students to stand in a circle and think of a brief activity each could do while standing in place such as clapping, snapping, smiling, etc. The first student sings “hey, hey, look at me, I am clapping, can you see,” on “sol-me.” Each student sings the lead with their particular action and the class echoes in response. We go around the circle until each student has had a turn. This is setting up work on the sol-me relationship that is prevalent in the repertory we will be learning later in the class.
Solfege activity: Without skipping a beat, I then have a leader come forward to lead the class in an improvisation he or she creates using “sol-me-do.” This can be a simple or complex as the student wishes, but I expect accuracy from both the leader and the class. The student is asked to be “teacher” by choosing the next person to come up based on their performance. I am careful with this activity not to choose a difficultly level beyond what has been previously taught.
Repertory activity: The main work of the day involved preparation for our upcoming school concert which involved each class. The piece of repertory is “Lullaby Little Papoose” based heavily on the sol-me relationship. The logical progression to this throughout the class period has lead to the warm up of the interval of the third and since this is a program all the students are involved in, there is a sense of group purpose in our work.
This model is different than my previous scenario because it is more student centered. In the first case, I was transmitting information to them via my handout on notation. In the second, I was acting as a guide or facilitator leading them to the understanding and performance of a piece. It is clear that planning a class as a performance is an efficient way to optimize music class time. It prevents gaps of time in which students might lose their focus. But, particularly in the case of upper grades, need to be taken a step further so that the progression is logical one. In the second example used here, there is a clear sense of purpose which addresses the questions students may form about “why this class is relevant to their lives.”
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Spencer Pulaski, M. A. (1980) An introduction to children's cognitive development. New York: Harper and Row.
Bruner. J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Elliott, D. (1995). Music matters: a new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Jean Piaget’s perspectives on childhood development continue to be valuable in planning music class experiences at this age level. The period of between ages seven and eleven (usually second through sixth grade) Piaget called “concrete operations.” One of Jean Piaget’s key phrases "pedagogical mania" captures the essence of the need to students for have enriched sensory-motor experiences to "interiorize" them (Crain, p. 120). He is referring to a method of teaching which involves teachers doing a lot of talking and showing rather than allowing students to explore and learn concepts for themselves; a fault of much teaching which cheats students out of engagement in the discovery process. For example, Spencer Pulaski (1980) writes:
"A child with many physical experiences with a concrete object such as a ball can then form a mental image of that object and act upon it in thought as he has in actual experiences in the past. He can picture the act of throwing the ball, and his thought is "interiorized action." But the child who has never handled of thrown a ball is handicapped in his intellectual development." (p. 13)
As music educators, it is necessary to establish a balance between letting the students discover knowledge for themselves on the one hand, and transmitting concepts to them though lecture or handout material on the other. Time is an important factor in achieving this balance: it can take longer to create learning environments where students discover for themselves than to simply lecture or pass out material to them. Jerome Bruner (1966) develops a view of constructivist learning theory in which the teacher is aware of the structures students bring to the learning experience. Educators then build on those structures in a spiral fashion, revisiting concepts at increasingly higher levels, as the student is ready. Embedded in Bruner’s theory are the pursuit of excellence and the emotional connection of the child to the learning experience. In Bruner’s (1979) words, “How can I know who I am until I feel what I do?” (p. 43) This mode of thinking has clear applications in the choral curriculum and is closely tied to Elliott’s (1995) views. In Music Matters (Elliott, 1995) Elliott writes, “we don’t hear music as it is, we hear it as we are.” This points to the importance of the student as the center of planning in curricular development.
While factual knowledge is essential, facts alone become what Perkins calls “inactive knowledge” or others have called “inert knowledge” when it is not applied to critical, reflective problem solving. Many educators are trapped in such “fact-based” teaching. Howard Gardner (1999) calls this a “dipstick” approach. He explains: “If you want to know how much oil you have in your car, you stick in your dipstick, and you pull it up, and you say, ‘Oh, I need another quart.’ Most of us, think that if you had the right cortical dipstick, you could shove it into your cortex, pull it out and see how smart you are. “ (p. 11) These perspectives would suggest the importance of choosing a curricular model that moves beyond a “fact-based” design and engages students who are able to leave the classroom with the abilities to analyze and solve problems on their own.
A recent class period scenario illustrates this. One day I was passing out a written in-class assignment that asked students to label notes on the staff according to a picture of a piano keyboard that had the names of the notes printed it. Most students were intent on understanding the instructions so they could proceed with what appeared to me to be a productive way to learn how to read notation. Though the class was a little confused at first, most students seemed to understand the assignment and after ten minutes or so of explanation, were working happily. One student, however, came up to me in the front of the class and stood in front of me. I assumed that she, like many of the others was there to ask for clarification of the directions. Instead she looked at me. “Why do we have to do this?” she asked slightly annoyed, continuing to look expectantly at me. “Well, this will teach you how to read music,” I replied, “don’t you think that will be valuable for you?” She continued a slightly irritated look at me, “I don’t want to be a musician,” she shot back, “why do we have to do this?” The conversation continued for a few minutes with me explaining the value of learning “another language” and how this will help her problem-solving and thinking skills in other subjects. I found the whole episode a bit disquieting.
As I later reflected on this exchange, I began to realize the source of my discomfort with the conversation. I was afraid she was right. I was afraid there might actually not be a good reason for me to have asked the whole class, in fact, all my classes that day, to work on this assignment. This was a situation in which I was trying to fill my students’ heads with prescribed knowledge and it was obviously very hard for some of them to see how this material was relevant. I began to think about how structuring the class as a performance combined with allowing the students’ to pursue the discovery of what they are passionate about might be achieved.
The idea of relevance is different for each student as well as each teacher. In the case of this article, I suggest the performance paradigm as a means of structuring the class, but also as a means of addressing relevance. Part I of this article dealt with the benefits of planning a classroom experience as a performance from the standpoint of classroom management and operation. But here I take it a step further and suggest how ‘planning as performance’ may also influence how relevant students feel music class is to them. For example, the class may be preparing for an upcoming winter choral performance. The various spoken, sung, and perhaps acting and choir parts are all important for the success of the program. When students consider the ‘relevance’ of the class activities, this moves it beyond the age-old “because I said so” from the teacher, which takes away ownership of the classes common goals from the students.
The following is a contrasting example of a class plan that addresses these concepts of ‘planning a class as a performance’ as well as ‘relevance to life.’ It is generally for a fourth grade class, but could be modified for slightly older or younger grades.
Introductory activity/vocal warm-up: I ask the students to stand in a circle and think of a brief activity each could do while standing in place such as clapping, snapping, smiling, etc. The first student sings “hey, hey, look at me, I am clapping, can you see,” on “sol-me.” Each student sings the lead with their particular action and the class echoes in response. We go around the circle until each student has had a turn. This is setting up work on the sol-me relationship that is prevalent in the repertory we will be learning later in the class.
Solfege activity: Without skipping a beat, I then have a leader come forward to lead the class in an improvisation he or she creates using “sol-me-do.” This can be a simple or complex as the student wishes, but I expect accuracy from both the leader and the class. The student is asked to be “teacher” by choosing the next person to come up based on their performance. I am careful with this activity not to choose a difficultly level beyond what has been previously taught.
Repertory activity: The main work of the day involved preparation for our upcoming school concert which involved each class. The piece of repertory is “Lullaby Little Papoose” based heavily on the sol-me relationship. The logical progression to this throughout the class period has lead to the warm up of the interval of the third and since this is a program all the students are involved in, there is a sense of group purpose in our work.
This model is different than my previous scenario because it is more student centered. In the first case, I was transmitting information to them via my handout on notation. In the second, I was acting as a guide or facilitator leading them to the understanding and performance of a piece. It is clear that planning a class as a performance is an efficient way to optimize music class time. It prevents gaps of time in which students might lose their focus. But, particularly in the case of upper grades, need to be taken a step further so that the progression is logical one. In the second example used here, there is a clear sense of purpose which addresses the questions students may form about “why this class is relevant to their lives.”
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Spencer Pulaski, M. A. (1980) An introduction to children's cognitive development. New York: Harper and Row.
Bruner. J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Elliott, D. (1995). Music matters: a new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Jean Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development: Applications for Music Education
Though there are a lot of mixed feelings about Jean Piaget's work, there are certain useful consistencies between it and my classroom teaching experience with children, so I publish this here.
Jean Piaget (1896-1980) continues to be one of the most important figures in the theory of intellectual development. Born in Switzerland, he did most of his important work at the Rousseau Institute in Geneva where he found that younger children before the age of seven think in a qualitatively different way. He conceptualized four general periods of development: sensori-motor (birth to two), preoperational thought (two to seven), concrete operations (seven to eleven) and formal operations (eleven to adult).
The question of how one would design a music curriculum that conceptualized teaching and learning through a Piagetian framework is an important one for a music educator. I want to explore it by connecting the theoretical work of Jean Piaget to my practical work in the classroom and the choir rehearsal. In addition to instructing my students through their music class in school, many of my students sing in one of the two children's choirs (grades pre-kindergarten through 6) in church which gives me the opportunity to see them more than once a week in two different contexts. A smaller number of them also take private piano class with me. This affords the chance for repeated reinforcement of the aims of my music education program which includes music appreciation, applied vocal performance (focusing of Kodaly rhythms), music history and applied instrumental performance (piano, recorder, handbells, Orff instruments and choir chimes).
Interpreting Piaget
My investigation involves students in Piaget's period two, "preoperational thought," ages two to seven in which the child's mind is rapidly advancing to a new plane leading to the understanding of symbols (including images and words) and requiring a reorganization of thought from the previous sensori-motor period. This cannot be done all at once, and for some time during this period the child's thinking is unsystematic and illogical.[1] The symbolic activity involving nonlinguistic symbols in children's play (representation)[2] and the increasing ability of language to widen the child's horizons are important here.
I want to start with some of Piaget's language. One of his key phrases "pedagogical mania" captures the essence of the need to students for have enriched sensory-motor experiences to "interiorize" them. He is referring to a method of teaching which involves teachers doing a lot of talking and showing rather than allowing students to explore and learn concepts for themselves; a fault of much teaching which cheats students out of engagement in the discovery process. For example, Mary Ann Spencer Pulaski writes:
"A child with many physical experiences with a concrete object such as a ball can then form a mental image of that object and act upon it in thought as he has in actual experiences in the past. He can picture the act of throwing the ball, and his thought is "interiorized action." But the child who has never handled of thrown a ball is handicapped in his intellectual development."[3]
As music educators, we each need to establish for ourselves the appropriate balance between letting the students learn for themselves and teaching concepts to them. Time is one element involved-- it simple takes longer to let students learn for themselves than it does to lecture or read to them. If we do decide to take that time, then I would suggest the role of the teacher becomes more of a guide providing a structure within which the student can learn. But how much are the students permitted to "go off course" to investigate questions they begin to formulate. Is it possible that by asking a question the student is demonstrating a readiness to pursue that question? Or must we reserve that determination for the teacher? In other words, does a question from a student more complex than the material at hand indicate he or she has mastered the lesson, is now bored with it, and wants more in depth material? Or perhaps the student is demonstrating boredom based on immaturity and lack of development.
Spontaneous Development
One of Jean Piaget's most controversial claims is that cognitive development is a spontaneous process; children develop cognitive structures on their own through many processes including adaption, a process engaging accommodation and assimilation. For example, an infant may bring a rattle to his mouth and assimilate[4] the object to his cognitive structure (take in the object), but when it does not fit his existing cognitive structure, he must make accommodations[5] or changes in the structure by changing the shape of his mouth thereby removing an obstacle for the new structure. The child has learned something valuable and lasting, by learning it for him or herself, rather than having a teacher talk about it or instruct by lecturing or reading. Many American psychologists in the learning theory tradition, however, believe that adult teaching is more important than Piaget thought. And further, many believe that adult teaching can increase the speed of the learning process which might otherwise be slow when waiting for students to achieve learning through spontaneous development. Within music education, the ways can we strike a balance between letting the student learn for him or herself on the one hand, and providing the student with essential information on the other which might speed up learning and allow more material to be covered in a set time frame are important for us each to discern as we enter the classroom or rehearsal. In an ideal world, time would be a nonessential element in learning and could we take as much of it as necessary to produce students who possess more than just knowledge, but the ability to think for themselves.
The question then becomes what does Piaget's theory concerning adaption (assimilation and accommodation) and representation mean for a classroom or a choir rehearsal full of 3, 4, or 5 year olds? How can their music teacher or choir director assemble a curriculum that conceptualizes teaching, learning, and assessment through a Piagetian framework?
Applied Piagetian Concepts
To explore the question, I have designed a classroom activity for a beginning piano class made up of first through fifth graders with little or no experience with the keyboard. The main objective was to spark and maintain their interest by getting their fingers moving without introducing the complexities of notation. I used a method book which detailed in a visual diagram of the piano keyboard on the page with the required fingers 2, 3 and 4 marked on the group of three black keys, f-sharp, g-sharp, and a-sharp. The rhythm was a simple quarter note pattern in common time.
My approach to this lesson was very Piagetian. I guided their eyes to the diagram, explaining simply that it told them where to place their hands, and then stepped back, allowing as much time as necessary for them to make the connection between the page and the piano keyboard. I was encouraging students to think for themselves rather than feel the I, the teacher, was the source of all knowledge and they would have to turn to me in each instance of confusion. The result was a class full of students who left that first session not only able to play a first piano piece, but now also able to go on alone at home without their teacher, to teach themselves subsequent pieces in their book by going through the same process they just did in piano class. If I had taken their hands and placed them on the piano, or even worse yet, pushed the correct notes under their fingers for them, it would have seemed to them when I was later absent, there was no longer a teacher and no longer any direction to follow; their work practicing at home would likely cease.
The process of spontaneous development is an exciting and challenging one to explore for both the music teacher and music student. We can probably all relate the feeling of gratification and fulfillment that accompanies breakthroughs in our own development as musicians; times when we have pushed ourselves to new plateaus as performers, teachers, writers, composers or thinkers. Our students achieve this same joy of self-discovery, if only we can let them discover for themselves. Jerome Bruner writes: "How do I know what I am until I feel what I do?"[6]
[1] Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000. p. 120
[2] Spencer Pulaski, Mary Ann. An Introduction to Children's Cognitive Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. "Representation is the process for which an image, a sign, or a symbol comes to represent an external reality. In symbolic play, a child may use acorns to represent nonexistent dishes. Memories are interiorized images, whereas words are verbal signs that represent complexes of socially shared meanings."
[3] Spencer Pulaski, Mary Ann. An Introduction to Children's Cognitive Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. p. 13
[4] Spencer Pulaski, p. 231. "Assimilation is the process of taking in from the environment all forms of stimulation and information which are then organized and integrated into the organism's existing forms of structures, thus creating new structures."
[5] Spencer Pulaski, p. 231. "Accommodation is the process of reaching out and adjusting to new and changing conditions in the environment, so that preexisting patterns of behavior are modified to cope with new information or feedback from external situations."
[6] Bruner, Jerome. On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1979. (p. 43).
Jean Piaget (1896-1980) continues to be one of the most important figures in the theory of intellectual development. Born in Switzerland, he did most of his important work at the Rousseau Institute in Geneva where he found that younger children before the age of seven think in a qualitatively different way. He conceptualized four general periods of development: sensori-motor (birth to two), preoperational thought (two to seven), concrete operations (seven to eleven) and formal operations (eleven to adult).
The question of how one would design a music curriculum that conceptualized teaching and learning through a Piagetian framework is an important one for a music educator. I want to explore it by connecting the theoretical work of Jean Piaget to my practical work in the classroom and the choir rehearsal. In addition to instructing my students through their music class in school, many of my students sing in one of the two children's choirs (grades pre-kindergarten through 6) in church which gives me the opportunity to see them more than once a week in two different contexts. A smaller number of them also take private piano class with me. This affords the chance for repeated reinforcement of the aims of my music education program which includes music appreciation, applied vocal performance (focusing of Kodaly rhythms), music history and applied instrumental performance (piano, recorder, handbells, Orff instruments and choir chimes).
Interpreting Piaget
My investigation involves students in Piaget's period two, "preoperational thought," ages two to seven in which the child's mind is rapidly advancing to a new plane leading to the understanding of symbols (including images and words) and requiring a reorganization of thought from the previous sensori-motor period. This cannot be done all at once, and for some time during this period the child's thinking is unsystematic and illogical.[1] The symbolic activity involving nonlinguistic symbols in children's play (representation)[2] and the increasing ability of language to widen the child's horizons are important here.
I want to start with some of Piaget's language. One of his key phrases "pedagogical mania" captures the essence of the need to students for have enriched sensory-motor experiences to "interiorize" them. He is referring to a method of teaching which involves teachers doing a lot of talking and showing rather than allowing students to explore and learn concepts for themselves; a fault of much teaching which cheats students out of engagement in the discovery process. For example, Mary Ann Spencer Pulaski writes:
"A child with many physical experiences with a concrete object such as a ball can then form a mental image of that object and act upon it in thought as he has in actual experiences in the past. He can picture the act of throwing the ball, and his thought is "interiorized action." But the child who has never handled of thrown a ball is handicapped in his intellectual development."[3]
As music educators, we each need to establish for ourselves the appropriate balance between letting the students learn for themselves and teaching concepts to them. Time is one element involved-- it simple takes longer to let students learn for themselves than it does to lecture or read to them. If we do decide to take that time, then I would suggest the role of the teacher becomes more of a guide providing a structure within which the student can learn. But how much are the students permitted to "go off course" to investigate questions they begin to formulate. Is it possible that by asking a question the student is demonstrating a readiness to pursue that question? Or must we reserve that determination for the teacher? In other words, does a question from a student more complex than the material at hand indicate he or she has mastered the lesson, is now bored with it, and wants more in depth material? Or perhaps the student is demonstrating boredom based on immaturity and lack of development.
Spontaneous Development
One of Jean Piaget's most controversial claims is that cognitive development is a spontaneous process; children develop cognitive structures on their own through many processes including adaption, a process engaging accommodation and assimilation. For example, an infant may bring a rattle to his mouth and assimilate[4] the object to his cognitive structure (take in the object), but when it does not fit his existing cognitive structure, he must make accommodations[5] or changes in the structure by changing the shape of his mouth thereby removing an obstacle for the new structure. The child has learned something valuable and lasting, by learning it for him or herself, rather than having a teacher talk about it or instruct by lecturing or reading. Many American psychologists in the learning theory tradition, however, believe that adult teaching is more important than Piaget thought. And further, many believe that adult teaching can increase the speed of the learning process which might otherwise be slow when waiting for students to achieve learning through spontaneous development. Within music education, the ways can we strike a balance between letting the student learn for him or herself on the one hand, and providing the student with essential information on the other which might speed up learning and allow more material to be covered in a set time frame are important for us each to discern as we enter the classroom or rehearsal. In an ideal world, time would be a nonessential element in learning and could we take as much of it as necessary to produce students who possess more than just knowledge, but the ability to think for themselves.
The question then becomes what does Piaget's theory concerning adaption (assimilation and accommodation) and representation mean for a classroom or a choir rehearsal full of 3, 4, or 5 year olds? How can their music teacher or choir director assemble a curriculum that conceptualizes teaching, learning, and assessment through a Piagetian framework?
Applied Piagetian Concepts
To explore the question, I have designed a classroom activity for a beginning piano class made up of first through fifth graders with little or no experience with the keyboard. The main objective was to spark and maintain their interest by getting their fingers moving without introducing the complexities of notation. I used a method book which detailed in a visual diagram of the piano keyboard on the page with the required fingers 2, 3 and 4 marked on the group of three black keys, f-sharp, g-sharp, and a-sharp. The rhythm was a simple quarter note pattern in common time.
My approach to this lesson was very Piagetian. I guided their eyes to the diagram, explaining simply that it told them where to place their hands, and then stepped back, allowing as much time as necessary for them to make the connection between the page and the piano keyboard. I was encouraging students to think for themselves rather than feel the I, the teacher, was the source of all knowledge and they would have to turn to me in each instance of confusion. The result was a class full of students who left that first session not only able to play a first piano piece, but now also able to go on alone at home without their teacher, to teach themselves subsequent pieces in their book by going through the same process they just did in piano class. If I had taken their hands and placed them on the piano, or even worse yet, pushed the correct notes under their fingers for them, it would have seemed to them when I was later absent, there was no longer a teacher and no longer any direction to follow; their work practicing at home would likely cease.
The process of spontaneous development is an exciting and challenging one to explore for both the music teacher and music student. We can probably all relate the feeling of gratification and fulfillment that accompanies breakthroughs in our own development as musicians; times when we have pushed ourselves to new plateaus as performers, teachers, writers, composers or thinkers. Our students achieve this same joy of self-discovery, if only we can let them discover for themselves. Jerome Bruner writes: "How do I know what I am until I feel what I do?"[6]
[1] Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000. p. 120
[2] Spencer Pulaski, Mary Ann. An Introduction to Children's Cognitive Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. "Representation is the process for which an image, a sign, or a symbol comes to represent an external reality. In symbolic play, a child may use acorns to represent nonexistent dishes. Memories are interiorized images, whereas words are verbal signs that represent complexes of socially shared meanings."
[3] Spencer Pulaski, Mary Ann. An Introduction to Children's Cognitive Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. p. 13
[4] Spencer Pulaski, p. 231. "Assimilation is the process of taking in from the environment all forms of stimulation and information which are then organized and integrated into the organism's existing forms of structures, thus creating new structures."
[5] Spencer Pulaski, p. 231. "Accommodation is the process of reaching out and adjusting to new and changing conditions in the environment, so that preexisting patterns of behavior are modified to cope with new information or feedback from external situations."
[6] Bruner, Jerome. On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1979. (p. 43).
The Use of Writing as a Tool to Teach Music: the Benefits of an Interdisciplinary Curriculum
This work is from 2001, but remains pertainent and so I re-publish it here now
Introduction
As music educators, how often have we come into contact with other members of our school faculties from disciplines other than our own, and felt like alien entities in the same institution? We share many similar philosophies of education with our colleagues, and certainly the same students, but the appreciation we develop for each other’s subject matter is often too limited. This separatist view, which has its roots in many areas of our modern educational system can be detrimental to students who might otherwise benefit from the interdisciplinary collaborations of their teachers. This article is designed to provide some practical classroom applications for the music educator in connection with other work students are doing in their elementary, junior high, senior high school, or even college freshman English or writing classes. Of equal importance I provide some of the learning theories guiding the planning of my interdisciplinary approach to teaching music (and writing) in order to show how I have created my curriculum. My hope is to spark the imagination of music educators and writing instructors to continue this process of creating imaginative work for students. This work could have just as easily been titled "Music as a Tool to Teach Writing" with very little theoretical re-conceptualization.
There are constructs within a successful written text (essay, article, review, etc.) analogous in many ways to a well-crafted music composition. Stepping out of one’s principle discipline, as teacher, and examining some of the fundamental assumptions and practices we hold as we approach our daily teaching and academic activity, whether composing, writing, researching, editing, or practicing, can be an exciting way to grow and develop as scholars. Particularly when the sequence of study in one field may be useful to incorporate into another. For example, if I am teaching a college writing class to read in a way which will help them understand not just what the text means, but how it means; in other words, how it was conceptualized and formulated. Similarly, I can use a music composition to show how one can hear beyond simply what it is expressing, but more deeply understand how it was constructed to express it. The understanding of that "construction," whether of written text or music composition is essential for students to begin forming their own voices as composers or authors.
Theoretical Basis for my Work
Jerome Bruner’s constructivist theory of learning specifies a method of teaching taking into account the past and current knowledge of the student and developing it into new, more complex levels of knowledge through active encounters with the material. The teacher enters into a Socratic "question/answer" mode of engaging the students aimed at triggering their imaginations and curiosity; the student is then moving forward because he or she wants to satisfy answers to questions the teacher has raised. The process of moving forward is conceptualized in a theory of spiral learning. This is the act of visiting certain areas of knowledge, and then re-visiting them at more complex levels after the student has mastered simple tasks. For example, teaching the concept of the major scale and the names of the notes at one point on the spiral, and then later on teaching the major scale and the relationships of the scale degrees to one another; tonic, dominant, subdominant, etc. One of the key ideas here is "engagement." This is important because students don’t think as much when they are being lectured to; at least not most students. Especially when it comes to music and writing, active engagement is essential before learning can happen.
Patricia Campbell in her "Lessons from the World," discusses imitation and its use in music education in the various cultures throughout the world. It is implausible that a beginning piano student could learn to play a complicated piece of repertory simple by witnessing a teacher play, say, a Chopin Mazurka. There would need to be adequate preparation at a much more rudimentary level. A group of pre-school children, on the other hand, are easily able to listen to and imitate their teacher who sings them a simple, diatonic melody with predictable rhythmic and melodic patterns. Activities we, as teachers, expect out students to imitate must be observable. This is particularly important as we use writing in the music classroom. It is essential that we write for our students in ways they can observe and imitate.
Practical Applications for the Music Classroom
Specifically within my own class plan I visit the material at increasingly complex levels, as the student is ready. For example, I might start with mood. I would delineate some of the outward characteristics of a piece via a class examination and discussion using writing as a key element. Then, as the lesson progresses, I begin to discuss some of the features of the construction of the piece such as mode. Making sure that all the students are able to identify the character of a listening example is important. By asking them to write about the music, it is possible to generate a class consensus about whether the piece is joyful, melancholy, dark, or light-hearted. Once this is established, the class is then ready to begin exploring how the composer achieved what is being communicated in the music. Did he use the minor mode? Is there an ostinato bass? What effect do the tempo indications have on the mood we as a class have identified? As a starting point, writing is used as a tool to deepen our understanding of the music.
I have included here a lesson plan for a 3rd to 6th grade music class to exemplify work designed to lead the student to an understanding of the structural components of music, which communicate mood, emotions, and feeling. My objective is to get the students thinking about how the composition may have been planned by the composer to communicate "things" or "messages" to the listener in ways related solely to the language of the music itself, apart from sung vocal or choral texts. I engage the students in this process through writing. Collaboration with the school English teacher to plan a larger writing composition assignment will assist the students to deepen their understanding of the next step after this lesson which is to approach the material from a music theory perspective. Many of the activities typically used in a writing workshop are very helpful in the music classroom. Such workshopping activities include dividing the students into small groups to read their writing for each other, presenting their writing to the larger group for critique or exchanging papers with a partner for input and reactions. Here is how the class activity is designed:
I. Introduce the Work of the Day.
Be brief with the introduction, but be clear. Talk about the kinds of class work we will be doing- listening, writing, speaking, and sharing ideas. Be sure to tell the students when they will be expected to share their writing, and when it is private writing not to be shared. Remember that establishing a sense of community and trust is very important before students will feel free enough to write in ways which are expressive of feelings which can make them vulnerable before their peers.
II. Establish a Prompt
Use a prompt to begin to formulate a class vocabulary for talking about music. This will require some careful guidance; hold the students accountable for their words, making clear that if they use "boring" they will have to explain why. A beginning prompt might be: "what words can you think of to use to talk about music?" You might ask them to call to mind a recent experience in which they heard a piece of music, which caused them to feel a certain way. Put all of these terms on the board or overhead projector.
III. Listening
Play Mozart’s Piano Sonata in A Minor or any Mozart piano sonata you wish. Listen without writing, but ask them to think of the vocabulary established by the class as the music plays.
IV. Writing
Now listen again while writing. Ask the students to write at least three sentences about the piece using both the vocabulary established on the board as well as their own personal language. Begin to encourage answers with supporting evidence. Writings making unsupported statements should be discouraged.
V. Sharing
Ask the student to share the thoughts they have written with the class. This is a time when you can divide the class into small groups of three or four and ask them to read their sentences for each other. Grouping the students according to creativity and ability can lead to a more fruitful discussion within each group. After ten minutes, ask them to return to the large group and share their work publicly. Here are some examples of the work my third grade class came up with:
"When I listened to the Mozart it made me feel happy. It made me want to dance. It was very beautiful. It was a song that made me want to listen to it again. It gave me many emotions. I think Mozart did a good job."
"The song went from happy in the beginning to sad, and then to happy again. When it was happy the music sounded like drops of rain. When it was sad, it was very graceful."
"The song was very soothing and I felt like I was waiting for the Italian ice man."
It is important to look carefully at the work the students produce to see what it may tell you about your teaching and their learning. If the student is not understanding the work of the class, back up and repeat the section of the activity .
This work is an introduction to a series of lessons beginning an in-depth look at the components of Mozart’s Sonata from the perspective of music theory. It is just a beginning. The next steps in the following classes can lead to activities both in music analysis and in expository writing, both lead individually by the music teacher and writing teacher, but planned collaboratively to draw connective elements from both disciplines.
WORKS CITED
Bruner, Jerome S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966.
Campbell, Patricia Shehan. Lessons from the World: A Cross-Cultural Guide to Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Schirmer Books, 1991.
Introduction
As music educators, how often have we come into contact with other members of our school faculties from disciplines other than our own, and felt like alien entities in the same institution? We share many similar philosophies of education with our colleagues, and certainly the same students, but the appreciation we develop for each other’s subject matter is often too limited. This separatist view, which has its roots in many areas of our modern educational system can be detrimental to students who might otherwise benefit from the interdisciplinary collaborations of their teachers. This article is designed to provide some practical classroom applications for the music educator in connection with other work students are doing in their elementary, junior high, senior high school, or even college freshman English or writing classes. Of equal importance I provide some of the learning theories guiding the planning of my interdisciplinary approach to teaching music (and writing) in order to show how I have created my curriculum. My hope is to spark the imagination of music educators and writing instructors to continue this process of creating imaginative work for students. This work could have just as easily been titled "Music as a Tool to Teach Writing" with very little theoretical re-conceptualization.
There are constructs within a successful written text (essay, article, review, etc.) analogous in many ways to a well-crafted music composition. Stepping out of one’s principle discipline, as teacher, and examining some of the fundamental assumptions and practices we hold as we approach our daily teaching and academic activity, whether composing, writing, researching, editing, or practicing, can be an exciting way to grow and develop as scholars. Particularly when the sequence of study in one field may be useful to incorporate into another. For example, if I am teaching a college writing class to read in a way which will help them understand not just what the text means, but how it means; in other words, how it was conceptualized and formulated. Similarly, I can use a music composition to show how one can hear beyond simply what it is expressing, but more deeply understand how it was constructed to express it. The understanding of that "construction," whether of written text or music composition is essential for students to begin forming their own voices as composers or authors.
Theoretical Basis for my Work
Jerome Bruner’s constructivist theory of learning specifies a method of teaching taking into account the past and current knowledge of the student and developing it into new, more complex levels of knowledge through active encounters with the material. The teacher enters into a Socratic "question/answer" mode of engaging the students aimed at triggering their imaginations and curiosity; the student is then moving forward because he or she wants to satisfy answers to questions the teacher has raised. The process of moving forward is conceptualized in a theory of spiral learning. This is the act of visiting certain areas of knowledge, and then re-visiting them at more complex levels after the student has mastered simple tasks. For example, teaching the concept of the major scale and the names of the notes at one point on the spiral, and then later on teaching the major scale and the relationships of the scale degrees to one another; tonic, dominant, subdominant, etc. One of the key ideas here is "engagement." This is important because students don’t think as much when they are being lectured to; at least not most students. Especially when it comes to music and writing, active engagement is essential before learning can happen.
Patricia Campbell in her "Lessons from the World," discusses imitation and its use in music education in the various cultures throughout the world. It is implausible that a beginning piano student could learn to play a complicated piece of repertory simple by witnessing a teacher play, say, a Chopin Mazurka. There would need to be adequate preparation at a much more rudimentary level. A group of pre-school children, on the other hand, are easily able to listen to and imitate their teacher who sings them a simple, diatonic melody with predictable rhythmic and melodic patterns. Activities we, as teachers, expect out students to imitate must be observable. This is particularly important as we use writing in the music classroom. It is essential that we write for our students in ways they can observe and imitate.
Practical Applications for the Music Classroom
Specifically within my own class plan I visit the material at increasingly complex levels, as the student is ready. For example, I might start with mood. I would delineate some of the outward characteristics of a piece via a class examination and discussion using writing as a key element. Then, as the lesson progresses, I begin to discuss some of the features of the construction of the piece such as mode. Making sure that all the students are able to identify the character of a listening example is important. By asking them to write about the music, it is possible to generate a class consensus about whether the piece is joyful, melancholy, dark, or light-hearted. Once this is established, the class is then ready to begin exploring how the composer achieved what is being communicated in the music. Did he use the minor mode? Is there an ostinato bass? What effect do the tempo indications have on the mood we as a class have identified? As a starting point, writing is used as a tool to deepen our understanding of the music.
I have included here a lesson plan for a 3rd to 6th grade music class to exemplify work designed to lead the student to an understanding of the structural components of music, which communicate mood, emotions, and feeling. My objective is to get the students thinking about how the composition may have been planned by the composer to communicate "things" or "messages" to the listener in ways related solely to the language of the music itself, apart from sung vocal or choral texts. I engage the students in this process through writing. Collaboration with the school English teacher to plan a larger writing composition assignment will assist the students to deepen their understanding of the next step after this lesson which is to approach the material from a music theory perspective. Many of the activities typically used in a writing workshop are very helpful in the music classroom. Such workshopping activities include dividing the students into small groups to read their writing for each other, presenting their writing to the larger group for critique or exchanging papers with a partner for input and reactions. Here is how the class activity is designed:
I. Introduce the Work of the Day.
Be brief with the introduction, but be clear. Talk about the kinds of class work we will be doing- listening, writing, speaking, and sharing ideas. Be sure to tell the students when they will be expected to share their writing, and when it is private writing not to be shared. Remember that establishing a sense of community and trust is very important before students will feel free enough to write in ways which are expressive of feelings which can make them vulnerable before their peers.
II. Establish a Prompt
Use a prompt to begin to formulate a class vocabulary for talking about music. This will require some careful guidance; hold the students accountable for their words, making clear that if they use "boring" they will have to explain why. A beginning prompt might be: "what words can you think of to use to talk about music?" You might ask them to call to mind a recent experience in which they heard a piece of music, which caused them to feel a certain way. Put all of these terms on the board or overhead projector.
III. Listening
Play Mozart’s Piano Sonata in A Minor or any Mozart piano sonata you wish. Listen without writing, but ask them to think of the vocabulary established by the class as the music plays.
IV. Writing
Now listen again while writing. Ask the students to write at least three sentences about the piece using both the vocabulary established on the board as well as their own personal language. Begin to encourage answers with supporting evidence. Writings making unsupported statements should be discouraged.
V. Sharing
Ask the student to share the thoughts they have written with the class. This is a time when you can divide the class into small groups of three or four and ask them to read their sentences for each other. Grouping the students according to creativity and ability can lead to a more fruitful discussion within each group. After ten minutes, ask them to return to the large group and share their work publicly. Here are some examples of the work my third grade class came up with:
"When I listened to the Mozart it made me feel happy. It made me want to dance. It was very beautiful. It was a song that made me want to listen to it again. It gave me many emotions. I think Mozart did a good job."
"The song went from happy in the beginning to sad, and then to happy again. When it was happy the music sounded like drops of rain. When it was sad, it was very graceful."
"The song was very soothing and I felt like I was waiting for the Italian ice man."
It is important to look carefully at the work the students produce to see what it may tell you about your teaching and their learning. If the student is not understanding the work of the class, back up and repeat the section of the activity .
This work is an introduction to a series of lessons beginning an in-depth look at the components of Mozart’s Sonata from the perspective of music theory. It is just a beginning. The next steps in the following classes can lead to activities both in music analysis and in expository writing, both lead individually by the music teacher and writing teacher, but planned collaboratively to draw connective elements from both disciplines.
WORKS CITED
Bruner, Jerome S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966.
Campbell, Patricia Shehan. Lessons from the World: A Cross-Cultural Guide to Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Schirmer Books, 1991.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Technology in Music Education: Games to Teach Music
This is another idea I have for a full-fledged article
Many current computer applications designed to teach music integrate games for students to learn various aspects of music. Many non-computer learning materials do the same. This article investigates the historical development of games in music teaching in order to gain insights into the objectives of current game usage within computer technology in music education. Moreover, this research seeks to explore the underlying principles and theories of learning development informing the conception and design of games used historically and currently.
Many current computer applications designed to teach music integrate games for students to learn various aspects of music. Many non-computer learning materials do the same. This article investigates the historical development of games in music teaching in order to gain insights into the objectives of current game usage within computer technology in music education. Moreover, this research seeks to explore the underlying principles and theories of learning development informing the conception and design of games used historically and currently.
Performance as a Teaching Paradigm in a Constructivist Learning Environment
This is the beginning of a new research project I am considering:
Introduction to Research Questions
Since the rise of the virtuoso performer in the time of Franz Liszt and Paganini, performance has been viewed as an integral part of music education. Even before, in ancient antiquity and later, the fiefdoms in the Carolingian age of medieval Europe, implicit in the making of music has been a central individual or group creating sound and, in many cases, movement, for the benefit of curious onlookers. When considering the ontological concept of music, is performance an inherent part of its make-up? Said another way, does music exist apart from its performance? From a constructivist music educator perspective, these questions can be examined in view of a praxial approach to music education when contrasted with and aesthetic perspective.
Introduction to Research Questions
Since the rise of the virtuoso performer in the time of Franz Liszt and Paganini, performance has been viewed as an integral part of music education. Even before, in ancient antiquity and later, the fiefdoms in the Carolingian age of medieval Europe, implicit in the making of music has been a central individual or group creating sound and, in many cases, movement, for the benefit of curious onlookers. When considering the ontological concept of music, is performance an inherent part of its make-up? Said another way, does music exist apart from its performance? From a constructivist music educator perspective, these questions can be examined in view of a praxial approach to music education when contrasted with and aesthetic perspective.
Friday, August 24, 2007
CONSTRUCTIVISM IN MUSIC EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY: CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR CHORAL COMPOSITION IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH GRADES
This is the abstract of my doctoral dissertation for the PhD at New York University. This research will be presented at the 2008 Hawaii International Conference on Education. I previously spoke on my work at the 2005 National Conference of the College Music Society in Quebec City, Canada.
This research addresses how the integration of representative music education computer software applications like Morton Subotnick’s Creating Music, Music Ace I and Music Ace II can be used in the creation of teaching environments designed to develop critically reflective music makers who engage synthesis, evaluation and critical reflection in the cognitive process. The project explores how the integration of such representative computer applications can assist in the development of teaching strategies designed to lead students to compose a text-based choral composition, an essential element of a general/choral curriculum. This problem is interrogated by creating a “meta-journal” monitoring the progress of the design of a text-based choral composition project using computer technology to assist in the creative, intuitive compositional process with the philosophy of constructivism engaged as a lens through which to view the educational setting. The curricular design of this project is geared toward students in a fourth and fifth grade music class who have been assigned an eight-week composition task guided by the creative, intuitive design of the computer applications within the school lab available to them. This project will use all performing forces available within the school, and will be shaped by the students’ imagination and interaction with the education computer software as well as their vision for a text-based choral composition with varied accompaniment including, but not limited to, piano, organ, band instruments, handbells, choir chimes, Orff rhythm instruments and digital synthesizer.
Constructivism has played a major role in the development of new technology for use in music education. As Peter Webster observes, “ the final force that underscores much of the more contemporary research on music technology is the interest in constructionism as a basis for learning” (2002, p. 418). Perkins, in addressing instructional design of technology, stresses two major points: “American education is failing to prepare our students to be successful in today’s world and, in order to remedy this situation, instruction must focus on retention, understanding and active use of what is learned” (1992, p. 92). Recognizing that there exists a great disconnect between classroom learning and music lab learning that has yet to be bridged will be the starting point for the pursuit of this complex research problem.
In this twenty-first century, computer technology has become commonplace in all levels of American education. This dissertation will explore processes music educators and curriculum developers go through when designing learning experiences that integrate current computer technology into their curricula, forging ways for music education practitioners and researchers to apply constructivist philosophy to the use of computer technology in the music classroom. Specifically, the research focus will draw on the use of Morton Subotnick’s “Making Music” integrated into a constructivist environment; linking together the, too often parallel and disconnected, pedagogical paradigms of the applied music classroom and the computer lab. Integral to the structure of this doctoral thesis will be the design of a student-centered project embedded within a curriculum spanning the academic year. The primary focus will be a computer composition project, however, the year-long curriculum will supply the landscape out of which this project is drawn. This curriculum will embed information and communication technology (ICT) into a music education program for primary school grades. Specifically, this work will focus on composition, an essential component of this curriculum and a particularly strong design feature of Subotnick’s work. In addition to narrating the process of this design, I will address important issues identified both in music education literature as well as problems that arise in the implementation of my curriculum in the pre-kindergarten through sixth grade general choral music program I teach.
Drawing from current literature in the areas of (1) philosophy of music education, (2) music education technology, (3) cognitive development and (4) learning theory, this work illuminates how students learn music best with computer-assisted instruction (CAI), how CAI coincides or departs with commonly established philosophies of music education (a praxial philosophy, or an aesthetic philosophy, for example), and how CAI addresses current theories in the field of cognitive psychology related to learning and development (for example, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, or Robert Steinberg’s theory of successful intelligence).
The use of computers in music instruction is a broad-based concept that could potentially take many directions. Computers can be used to access the internet, for example, opening up possibilities for distance learning (synchronous and asynchronous), and collaboration (Rees, 2002). They can also be used in a variety of ways with software applications designed for composition, theory, and performance using the artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities of a computer (Rowe, 2001). Each is a large area of inquiry. My study will focus, however, on the integration of computer and internet technology that is available in a typical music classroom situation involving readily available applications on standard computer equipment.
Too often, music educators view music theory and composition as skill-based components of music curricula rather then explore the possibilities constructivist perspectives might lend to the engagement of student-centered problem solving in collaborative environments. My guiding research question is: “what effect would a computer-based learning experience grounded in composition have on students’ abilities to critically problem solve as they are guided to approach the study of composition?”
This research addresses how the integration of representative music education computer software applications like Morton Subotnick’s Creating Music, Music Ace I and Music Ace II can be used in the creation of teaching environments designed to develop critically reflective music makers who engage synthesis, evaluation and critical reflection in the cognitive process. The project explores how the integration of such representative computer applications can assist in the development of teaching strategies designed to lead students to compose a text-based choral composition, an essential element of a general/choral curriculum. This problem is interrogated by creating a “meta-journal” monitoring the progress of the design of a text-based choral composition project using computer technology to assist in the creative, intuitive compositional process with the philosophy of constructivism engaged as a lens through which to view the educational setting. The curricular design of this project is geared toward students in a fourth and fifth grade music class who have been assigned an eight-week composition task guided by the creative, intuitive design of the computer applications within the school lab available to them. This project will use all performing forces available within the school, and will be shaped by the students’ imagination and interaction with the education computer software as well as their vision for a text-based choral composition with varied accompaniment including, but not limited to, piano, organ, band instruments, handbells, choir chimes, Orff rhythm instruments and digital synthesizer.
Constructivism has played a major role in the development of new technology for use in music education. As Peter Webster observes, “ the final force that underscores much of the more contemporary research on music technology is the interest in constructionism as a basis for learning” (2002, p. 418). Perkins, in addressing instructional design of technology, stresses two major points: “American education is failing to prepare our students to be successful in today’s world and, in order to remedy this situation, instruction must focus on retention, understanding and active use of what is learned” (1992, p. 92). Recognizing that there exists a great disconnect between classroom learning and music lab learning that has yet to be bridged will be the starting point for the pursuit of this complex research problem.
In this twenty-first century, computer technology has become commonplace in all levels of American education. This dissertation will explore processes music educators and curriculum developers go through when designing learning experiences that integrate current computer technology into their curricula, forging ways for music education practitioners and researchers to apply constructivist philosophy to the use of computer technology in the music classroom. Specifically, the research focus will draw on the use of Morton Subotnick’s “Making Music” integrated into a constructivist environment; linking together the, too often parallel and disconnected, pedagogical paradigms of the applied music classroom and the computer lab. Integral to the structure of this doctoral thesis will be the design of a student-centered project embedded within a curriculum spanning the academic year. The primary focus will be a computer composition project, however, the year-long curriculum will supply the landscape out of which this project is drawn. This curriculum will embed information and communication technology (ICT) into a music education program for primary school grades. Specifically, this work will focus on composition, an essential component of this curriculum and a particularly strong design feature of Subotnick’s work. In addition to narrating the process of this design, I will address important issues identified both in music education literature as well as problems that arise in the implementation of my curriculum in the pre-kindergarten through sixth grade general choral music program I teach.
Drawing from current literature in the areas of (1) philosophy of music education, (2) music education technology, (3) cognitive development and (4) learning theory, this work illuminates how students learn music best with computer-assisted instruction (CAI), how CAI coincides or departs with commonly established philosophies of music education (a praxial philosophy, or an aesthetic philosophy, for example), and how CAI addresses current theories in the field of cognitive psychology related to learning and development (for example, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, or Robert Steinberg’s theory of successful intelligence).
The use of computers in music instruction is a broad-based concept that could potentially take many directions. Computers can be used to access the internet, for example, opening up possibilities for distance learning (synchronous and asynchronous), and collaboration (Rees, 2002). They can also be used in a variety of ways with software applications designed for composition, theory, and performance using the artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities of a computer (Rowe, 2001). Each is a large area of inquiry. My study will focus, however, on the integration of computer and internet technology that is available in a typical music classroom situation involving readily available applications on standard computer equipment.
Too often, music educators view music theory and composition as skill-based components of music curricula rather then explore the possibilities constructivist perspectives might lend to the engagement of student-centered problem solving in collaborative environments. My guiding research question is: “what effect would a computer-based learning experience grounded in composition have on students’ abilities to critically problem solve as they are guided to approach the study of composition?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)