Williams, D. A. (2011). The Elephant in the Room. Music Educators Journal, 98(1), 51-57.
The Elephant in the Room was a very interesting read and brings many valid, important points to the discussion of music education. First, the article addresses the dropping number of enrollment in secondary school music programs. A few speculations as reasoning for this come to mind. With fewer students taking a fifth year of high school now that it is optional, there is less room for electives and far more choices to choose from than there ever has been. With my past experiences in a very small school, senior arts students were forced to choose from only one of the following programs: visual arts, drama, and music, because all of these senior classes were offered only once, and all during the same semester and period. Is that crazy, or what??! The article also talks a great deal about the disconnect between the music taught in schools vs. the music students listen to in their day to day lives. This conflict has been discussed in many of our previous readings and with guest speakers in class as well. Williams cleverly points out that the large ensemble performance model in schools is one that was established in the early 1900s, and since then, little changes have been made. When led well, this model can and has proven to be quite successful, however I think it fair to say that each time it has, it was thanks to the teacher or conductor that made the experience well-rounded and enjoyable, both musically and socially. This way, the experience will resonate far more clearly with the students and in their lives. Unfortunately, in many cases of this model, the teaching goal morphs into excellent performance standards, rather than student learning. As Williams puts it: “the group result takes precedence over individual needs” (Williams, 54). I have been involved with groups and witnessed this mind-set put to action first-hand, and can confirm that although the ensemble’s and conductor’s reputation may be high, the group dynamic suffers from this tense, pressure-based, style of teaching. In similar cases, sometimes the strict attitude towards the style of music taught and performed in schools can cause students to turn away from their passion of music. Williams cleverly refers to this style as “school music,” and believes that in order to create positive change in students’ attitude, enthusiasm, and experience, we as teachers must branch out to a more-inclusive study of multiple genres and traditions of music that will awaken the hearts and minds of more students. Other ways that Williams believes we could broaden our scope of musical education, would involve more of a focus on student composing, arranging, and improvising – just as much as the performance and listening aspects of class. I agree with all of these points, and think a healthy balance of both classical and commercial, technical and aural, performance and improv., etc are needed for a healthy class atmosphere and a well-rounded musical experience. Lastly, Williams makes a good point, that since many students cannot or do not choose to take music past grade 9, we as educators need to give them a sufficient musical experience filled with enough opportunities to grow with their instrument and explore musically, that they have the skills necessary and the knowledge of possibilities desired to continue experiencing music outside of formal programs, should they want to do so. We want our students to take-away a valuable experience in our class or ensemble so that if they wish to continue playing their instrument or composing outside of school, they then feel that they have the skills gained from memorable, learned experiences to feel comfortable in doing so (Williams, 56). Most importantly, we want our students to have fun, and seek fulfillment out of listening to and making music! Levinowitz, L. M. (n.d.). The Importance of Music In Early Childhood Education.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104837139801200103?journalCode=gmtb The Importance of Music in Early Childhood Education by Lili Levinowitz was a very interesting read and brought to light many good points. In her introduction, she makes clear that while so many people argue for the value of music education on account of brain development and other academic advantages, she argues that there is a bigger reason why music should be valued in education systems – that reason being none other than music itself. I agree with Levinowitz very much so on this point. Yes, it is amazing that music can make connections in the brain and help with mental growth along with many forms of intelligences, however we as music educators should not have to defend our area of expertise simply because we do not teach a core subject such as physics or fuctions. As many people understand, and as Levinowitz argues, music is an emotional stimulant. It is a form of artwork and it can become a skill to anyone who wishes it. Music is communication and life-giving to so many people. In the words of Levinowitz, “making music is as much a life skill as walking or talking” (Levinowitz, 5). There is so much to learn within music itself - it can even be a gateway into experiencing new cultures, so why would anyone ever consider denying this enjoyable learning experience to an eager student? I love Levinowitz’s analogy of the cable television – it is capable of producing so many visual images with a multitude of channels, but to do so, you must first own a cable box to make sense of the vast possibilities of images. The same is true with music making skills within a child, and the younger you begin exposing them to rhythms and music, the more susceptible they are to understanding and expressively creating music of their own. Levinowitz backed up her argument with a great deal of research, which only made her point that much stronger. Overall this was a very informative article and argued many valid points that need more exposure, especially to anyone who things that arts programs could be cut in schools with little negative side-effects. Serres, D. (n.d.). Think Everything's "Normal?" Then It's Time To Reconsider And Promote A New
Narrative Of Disability. https://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its- time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/ I enjoyed reading this article by Drew Series, entitled, “Think Everything’s ‘Normal?’ Then It’s Time to Reconsider and Promote a New Narrative of Disability,” and found it to be very relevant to the times that we live in. It’s true that our “culture of normalcy” does demand humans to meet a multitude of unrealistic expectations (Serres, 1). Our society today also seems to place an unnecessary sense of pity towards those deemed “abnormal.” Many people are still uncomfortable thinking about immaterial facts pertaining to people – for example, people in wheelchairs –in reality, that fact should not make any difference to the conversation or friendship that you have with that person, and is no reason for you to single them out, feel pity for them or exclude them. Serres touches on this point a little, and I believe it is so valid, that people have a fear (or discomfort) with things which they are less familiar with or have no knowledge of whatsoever. Instead, people who are not exposed to such “disabilities” on a regular basis tend to focus more on the “painful” side of how they perceive those disabilities to be. Either that, or people will imply that a disabled person’s goal is to “overcome” what they are living with that is seen as abnormal (Serres, 2). Similarly, in today’s society as Serres pointed out, there is a rapid growth in the diagnosis of mental illnesses and the prescription of medications to “fix” such problems. But I agree with Serres, that it is important we question what is deemed as “a problem” or “abnormal” in the first place. The media is partially to blame for this lack of exposure. Serres reminds us that nearly every time we see a disabled person in a television show or movie, it is for one of two reasons: one) they are villainous, and the disability is what held them back and made them corrupt or unsuccessful, or two) they are a quest hero, and they succeed at outstanding achievements by persevering and overcoming their disabilities (Serres, 4). Rather than acting as a symbol for the plot of a movie, a disability should be portrayed as a normal part of a person’s identity. Likewise, in a school setting, we as teachers need to do a better job of addressing students with special needs in a way that is not demeaning and will not hold them back of their full capabilities (Serres, 4). Two of my closest friends were affected by this sort of labelling and assumption-based decisions in regards to their own education and future. My first friend was given an IEP in grade 4 for being involved with the gifted program, and from then on until gr12, he had teachers and EAs constantly assuming that he needed a laptop to type or that he could not read, write, or spell as quickly as others. My second friend is autistic, and when entering grade 9, was immediately enrolled in all G (general) level workplace courses, despite his capabilities or his and his parents’ wishes, because of his “disability.” In his senior years, this friend then had to go back and re-take multiple courses at the applied and academic levels, as he had intended right from the beginning, in order for him to continue into college this year. Another common problem, as Serres pointed out, is the over-diagnosis of ADHD within young students, and of course the medicated prescriptions that go along with it, particularly within boys. All of these different forms of labeling and assumptions based on a teacher’s personal close-minded definitions of normality and abnormality can take an emotional toll on students. They can start to believe that they are not capable of that which they most-definitely are, just because they’ve had it en-grained in their heads that they do not learn the same way or cannot do activities the same way as everyone else. What will it take to get people adapted not to single out or hold back those they feel to be abnormal? I agree with Serres that one thing is for sure – “we need to treat society, not just the individual,” (Serres, 10). It takes an agile and open mind to reflect on things which you say or think and force yourself to evaluate your opinions or choice of words. For example, even the phrase “I was blinded by the fact…” is demeaning, because it likens being blind to being either cursed or clueless (Serres, 6)! As a teacher, I want to create the most inclusive, friendly atmosphere possible for all of my students. To do this, we need to get rid of the stigma that “disabilities” are negative qualities. We need more exposure to disabilities in the real, day-to-day world. Gone are the days where we hide a student’s wheelchair in their school photo. The only thing that the act of this does is tell the student they should be ashamed of who they are, and show all the other students and staff that disabilities are taboo and okay to cover-up in order to “normalize” everyone, which is entirely wrong. I think that there are some good strides being made in terms of exposure and comfortability in society; however we may need to steer away from over-diagnosis in the future as well. Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within
performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38. This article’s purpose is to promote awareness of social situations and possible issues within a school band. It begins by giving the reader an example of a student, Jason, who has suffered from traumatic brain injury syndrome, and struggles with social interactions with his bandmates. I would like to ask the author: is this article pertaining more towards a high school or an elementary school setting? I do not recall the article ever mentioning this specifically, however I think that would be a crucial factor in handling such social issues of “invisible students”. In my experience, the older children get, the more and more they start paying attention to what others think of them, and thus the more and more awkward they might begin to feel and closed-off they could start acting if they think that they ‘don’t fit in’. Just as Hourigan demonstrates with Jason’s example, it is the sad truth that when people do not fight in to a particular setting, it causes them to feel secluded from the group, and can even cause people to doubt their own self-worth. The article also mentions that social identity is a concern not secluded to just students who have special needs. This, I believe, is mere common knowledge, because the issue is not secluded to students in general even, but to adults and everyone involved in society as well. I’m sure that many teachers can relate to feeling uncomfortable in certain social settings, at least during one time in their life. Therefore, it should be easy for a teacher to sympathize with students if they are feeling awkward or lonely; perhaps a similar situation even happened to them when they were in school. I believe that it is a teacher’s responsibility to be as observant as possible of students’ little social interactions with each other that go on inside and outside of class; they are important to notice in order for us as teachers to understand our students better and possibly pick up on any insecurities that students might be facing. Likewise, it is important that we make known the fact that we are always available to our students if they wish to talk about anything, be it their weekend plans, pets, hobbies, etc. Developing good, trusting relationships between student and teacher is very important in helping students to feel more comfortable in your class or ensemble. It takes more than just the odd question like, “how was your March Break?” to make everything better to a student suffering from feeling socially awkward – a student can tell if their teacher is sincerely interested in what they have to say or not, and this will affect how the student interacts with their teacher and thus how comfortable they feel speaking with their teacher if they have a social issue. The article encourages teachers to talk with their co-workers, counsellors, and even school psychologists, to come up with solutions to the “invisible student” problem as a team approach. I tend to think that for the most part, this is over-thinking the ‘problem,’ and that for a lot of students, receiving sincerity and respect from all of their teachers will go a long way to helping them feel more comfortable in school. Likewise, if all teachers were to put in the little extra effort it may take to demonstrate to their students how much they care about them, that would promote more acceptance in the classroom by their own example as role models. As the article mentions, “music is an interactive, social experience for many who participate” (Hourigan, 35). It is therefore extremely important that we as music teachers create an all-inclusive, judgement-free atmosphere, so that students feel comfortable not only to just be themselves, but furthermore to be expressive and creative musically and get the most worth and enjoyment out of their experience in band or music class. In creating a positive atmosphere, researchers Ted Bovey and Phil Strain state, “By teaching children appropriate social skills, providing them with willing and accepting peers to use their skills with, and creating opportunities for children to practise these skills, teachers can improve all children’s social behaviours” (Hourigan, 35). In my opinion, the task of integrating students is not as easy as Bovey and Strain make it sound, however to help with this task, teachers can include ‘ice-breaker’ activities in their schedules at the beginning of the year, or organize a fall retreat, to get students interacting with one another more. In a personal experience, my high school always organized a one-night camping trip each year that included many fun, team-building activities. It gave shy students (like myself) a chance to interact with other peers and build friendships that they might not have otherwise initiated, had they not felt the courage from such a fun positive opportunity. On the other hand, there are also times when a student may be perfectly happy going along with a group of parents on a school field trip, and in that situation, the article says that you should shoo away the student and encourage them to go find a group of peers to spend time with. I believe that in this situation, teachers need to really consider all the facts – if you know this student typically has troubles feeling comfortable with their peers, and they are content and happy to be exploring with the adults, then my thoughts are, why force them to go out of their social comfort zone during a field trip that is supposed to be an enjoyable experience? This scenario is something that I witnessed multiple times in elementary school, and the thought of it still frustrates me to this day. I realize there is a fine line, because if people never do things that they don’t want to try, then they will never grow. But at the same time, you must trust your students and their capabilities, and understand that if they really thought they would be happier spending time with their peers, then they would go and do that, without needing a teacher’s orders to do so, even if they might find it difficult to initiate. Thus, I believe that teachers need to give their students more credit in their abilities to make their own social decisions, and not interfere with their social lives if the students are content as they are. Many shy students have introverted personalities (like myself) and enjoy actively listening to their peers in class, or spending some quiet time during breaks. Some students actually prefer being ‘invisible’ for a little while; or rather, that they do not always feel ‘invisible’ in a bad way because they are content to blend in so that they can focus on themselves and their own needs for a moment, without worrying about what other students might be thinking of them. However, the moment when these students are not content is if they feel left out or uncomfortable in a situation. That is why it is important that we as teachers are very attentive of our students, their personalities, and the little social interactions they have inside and outside of class, to make sure that we foster a positive, accepting environment in our classroom or band setting. Sometimes this will require extra effort, but after all, the students along with their growth and happiness should be the first and foremost reason why teachers become teachers in the first place. We need to provide ample opportunities for our students to mingle and interact socially, and do our best to cater to each of their social needs, with sincerity, respect, and thoughtfulness. Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music
Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24. I deeply enjoyed reading this article written by Lesley Dawe, and found her concepts of teaching to be extremely insightful and inspiring. I found myself empathizing with the feelings she expressed about her experiences in lessons and music class, having hardly ever been given the opportunities to think critically about her own interpretations of musicality, or to develop her own creative flare. She expressed how these experiences made her feel extremely vulnerable when times came where she had to improvise as a musician, or eventually when she was handed her first classroom and had the responsibility of teaching a large group of kids about music in a way that wasn’t too restricting, but at the same time not lacking too much in control either. I understand the struggle that it must be to maintain a good balance in this area. In response to that thought, I would like to ask Dawe how she goes about achieving such a balance, between structural curriculum and lessons laid out by the teacher in charge, and student-centered learning where the individual gets to be a part of the creative process and lead the way down their own path towards their product. Also I would like to hear her thoughts on how she approaches the situation when students are still disengaged from the classroom, despite great effort to get them interested. The notation of the ‘old approach’ frustrates me greatly: “teacher has information; student has empty head. Teacher’s objective: to push information into student’s empty head. Observation: at outset teacher is a fathead; at conclusion student is a fathead” (Dawe, 23). It is also disturbingly true to note that teachers wanting to try new methods in the classroom can often be afraid of the negative reception that they may receive from their administration, other colleagues, or even parents. However, what anyone who is skeptical needs to understand, is that if teachers never make an effort to try new teaching methods, then neither the students nor the teachers will ever discover anything ‘new’ or grow to develop creative ideas of their own. Dawe’s positive attitude and eagerness to continually do better as a teacher and to listen and learn from her students is positively inspiring, and just knowing that there are teachers out there looking for creative new ways to approach the curriculum, that gives me a great hope for the future of music education. 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. My initial thought after reading the first page of, “Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students Talk about Music”, was that I find this paper itself to be ironic. Here this paper is about to describe how, in an effort for the study of music to become more ‘academic,’ scholars and writers of the curriculum have basically taken any emotion out, and instead drill technical terms – a statement that I generally believe to be true. Meanwhile, this is a philosophic paper, written very academically and in certain areas ambiguously, and took 20-sum pages filled with lots of technical terms to say what could’ve been stated in four or five pages. That being said, the paper does raise some very good points, some of which I had never considered in such ways before and am happy that they were brought to my attention. I agree that teaching just the elements is a very mechanical approach to teaching music and can make students loose interest. On the other hand, I believe that knowing the elements is such a great tool to understanding the structure of a piece. If a student hates learning about it, but wants to become a singer-songwriter, then it can only help them to have an understanding of these concepts. Also, there are many students out there, like myself, that enjoy learning about the structure of music. So, there needs to be BALANCE. In my experience, my high school teacher gave us listenings in class, and had us describe how the piece made us feel, imagery that came to mind, etc. Then, we learned about the elements bit by bit and started incorporating that language into our descriptions as well – I found this method to be very effective and fun at the same time. The next point that Rose and Countryman make is quite valid. In regards to typical views towards curriculum, they say: “we must acknowledge the traditional caste system of school subjects, a system in which some content areas are valued more than other. In this hierarchy, disciplines based on objectivity and empirical proofs are valued about disciplines based on knowing in the body and knowing-in-doing. We believe this inclination to academicking in music teaching is one result of music education’s perennially marginal status and the resulting need to be legitimized, value, respected, and funded” (Rose, & Countryman, 48). It is so frustrating, yet so true, that many powers that be in the school systems do not value music to be as needed as the study-based, textbook-style courses such as Physics or Calculus. Thus, music programs can often be found at the ‘bottom of the barrel’ when it comes to receiving funding, and are not always thought of with high priority when schedules are made. Also, music is not a protected subject in schools, meaning that anyone with a degree and teacher’s college certificate can teach music, regardless of if they have any musical experience. These issues really ‘hit home’ with me, for a few reasons. I came from a small elementary school with a fantastic music program lead by one teacher – we had a great choir, chime choir, band, and put on a musical almost every year. However, shortly after I had graduated, this teacher retired, and now the program is led by a teacher with practically no music experience, and aside from music class (which is greatly student-led), the program is non-existent. I am sure that this teacher would probably be happier teaching another subject that they are more versed in, as I know the students would receive such a greater experience with an actual music teacher teaching music. If music were a protected subject, scenarios like this would not happen. Another personal example I have, is that in my senior years of high school, the only music class was scheduled at the same time as the only senior drama, and one of two senior visual arts courses, as well as the only senior Chemistry class. Where is the logic in that? Another common example, is students who receive slack for studying music in the post-secondary level, as opposed to something ‘difficult’ like engineering or ‘useful’ like biology. Thus, according to this article, in an effort to prove that music is a worthy and greatly needed subject of study, we have made the curriculum too rigid and “academic.” While it is true that the ideal mind-set of studying music should be one of more respect, “academicking” is not the ideal way of fixing the problem. The article also mentions how, by consistently studying and praising classical repertoire and disregarding multiple other genres in the classroom, teachers can give off the impression that any other music that is not classical is not worthy of study. This approach turns many talented and interested students away from taking music class, another deeply frustrating situation for many including myself. As the article points out, teachers often tend to teach as they were taught, and the drilling of classical music happens quite vigorously in the university music setting where students prepare to become teachers. Sometimes when teachers try to deviate from the dictated curriculum and matching, appropriate repertoire, they are criticized for it. In an example given, high school band students really want to play a rhythmically difficult pop-culture piece for a competition, and the teacher, while siding with the students, is worried that they will be disqualified from the competition for playing popular music. This scenario should not be a problem, and reflects a snobbish elite view towards music that unfortunately has its negative, restrictive affects in the classroom and with many music students. What I found shocking and troubling, was the stat that only 5.7% of students enroll in gr12 music. Yet it is true that listening to music of some sorts is a favourite activity for all teenagers. I like the experiments that Rose and Countryman conducted in classrooms through listening activities, getting students to describe the music and the feelings it gives them with their own creative terminology. This exercise is quite similar to what I experienced in high school and I believe it is quite effective and enjoyable for everyone, adding bit by bit of the elements of music terminology into the students’ vocabulary as they go along. Overall, this article raised a lot of good points about music teaching and curriculum, and I believe that with a healthy balance of ‘elements’ and feelings, as well as classical and popular/traditional music, we can get students interested in taking music class and enhance their musical experience. |