Lets learn some music.

Think about the way we learn a song at Westminster.  

Now think about the way you learn a song from your favorite artist.

One of these ways I'm assuming you have no idea what the song is until after a couple times of learning notes, rhythm, lyrics, and such.  The other way you don't even contemplate learning the song, you just want to sing along.  I hear from a lot of people that it's bad practice to learn a song by ear, that it's not really learning the song, but I learn a song faster, and more accurately that way.  It's also easier to memorize.  In my case its a much more efficient way to learn a song than by plucking out notes on a piano and pretending I can sight read worth a penny.  Would it be blasphemous to teach by ear in a classroom?  Forget the sheet music and just play the song over and over, downloading it to the student's ipods or computers and let them take it home to learn it?  For one song we had to learn in high school the choir teacher did just that.  He had 4 different CDs for each voice part that included the orchestra and other parts and had the part that was listening be the most prominent so not only could we learn the notes by ear, but also put it in context with the whole piece.  It worked really well and I'm pretty sure an audience wouldn't be able to tell how we learned the song.  Also if it is faster then it also can give teachers time to teach more about what we're singing than teaching how to sing it.  

Oh Britney.

After watching “Womanizer” by Britney Spears, it got me thinking a lot about how I could implement this video and music in the classroom. The first thing that I noticed about the video was that while Spears is calling her boyfriend/fiancé/significant other a womanizer, she is using sex appeal throughout in order to prove her point. While I understand that sex sells in the media, I do not think that its promotion helps to better the predicament that Spears is feeling in her music. We, as a society, allow sex to be a huge aspect of media appeal. I always find it funny when female stars who are taking off their clothes say that their sexuality is empowering and that they are not ashamed of that fact. At the same time, they want respect and to be seen as professionals in the field of entertainment. It’s not to say that these women do not deserve respect nor should they necessarily be ashamed of any image they portray, whether that be sexual or not. The only thing that I wonder is, if you’re okay with taking off your clothes then you should also be aware of the potential scrutiny that will follow. And if that results in some judgmental or disapproving comments, then that’s the risk those individuals take. I, personally, do not know how effective overt sexual promotion can be when in search of respect, but it is definitely food for thought.

 I agree with Billy and how he thinks that this topic might be a little inappropriate for middle schoolers. This might be something that is more appropriate within a high school setting.  I do not know, however, if I would use “Womanizer” so freely in the classroom without being prepared to talk about its implications. Music and its usage in the media is something that affects our students’ tastes and thoughts regarding music and musical artists. Knowing how to tackle the topics that music can provoke, especially in today’s society, is another tool that music educators should carry with them in the quest to teach and connect to each students’ world. Because, let’s face it, Britney Spears is in everyone’s world whether they like it or not. You might not like her music or image, but she might help to open up great, thought-provoking discussions within your classroom. 

Is Authenticity necessarily relevant

After reading Dani's post on abandoning authenticity for synthesizers, I think it brings up a valid point about a generality of students in the 21st century. If a teacher teaches a lesson with clarity, precision, efficiency and grace, a student is much more likely to stay interested and engaged in what's going on. I feel like students can smell, if you will, the fact that a teacher is uncomfortable teaching a lesson or is faking it.

I've talked to countless church musicians who have elegantly planned and executed services. Likewise, I've dealt with the ones who can't hold a candle to music, but perform the music with such integrity that the honesty is what melts your heart. I guess my biggest problem with authenticity is that is challenges a teacher's ability to stay honest. One may ask: how is this a problem?

Shouldn't we as teachers go in to our classrooms knowing the truth about certain topics? I'm not suggesting that teachers are God with an all knowing mind. But I am suggesting that even if teachers don't know how to achieve an authentic experience of music, they know where to get it. Resources are everything in teaching. Agree?

Happy December!

follow up from class on tuesday

We spent a majority of time contemplating the fact of ESL schools in our nation. The fact is (and this is really sad to say) that most school districts who implement ESL in their schools set up administration who know very little about the positions they're inheriting. For example... my former principal was caught committing an immoral act of cheating on his wife. Personally, I couldn't care less. But in a gossiping town like Scranton where everyone is related to everyone else, the word got around quickly...the local newspapers got a hold of it and wouldn't let the subject die. The superintendent was forced to make a decision. (p.s neither the super nor the principal have taught in a classroom). After the incident went down, a position was created for this person where he would actually be getting a raise to be the coordinator of the ESL program for the entire school district. ((as a side note:: what kind of message does THAT send to kids??)) While a majority of the population in the school district speaks english, there has been an influx of Spanish speakers of those families who are looking for someplace cheaper to live than Philadelphia or New York. Only a handful of the teachers that have been hired to be in the ESL system actually speak a different language. It's used more as a stepping stone for promotions to a standard classroom as well as tenure.

What's worse is that most of the students who appear in the classroom in October will be gone by December because of their migrating parents who can't find work to keep food on the table. So back and forth they go from Scranton, to Wilkes Barre and the Poconos to Allentown...the list goes on and on.

Yet another sad story is that some of these kids who grow up in dysfunctional housing units with parents that teachers can never get a hold of grow up with disabilities that can't be diagnosed because A.) the student never stays in more than one place to get diagnosed by a counselor and B.) the pure selfishness of the parents to ignore the fact that the child needs help!

It seems to me that white suburbia is just testing the waters to see what will work in the years to come with ESL. What do some of your home districts do with these problems? Or are these problems eliminated/worse back home?

follow up on britney and beyonce

Ryan, you've hit on a good point...I guess we need another 3 weeks of classes just to digest some of the material that's out there on mtv and vh1...the material that our students pay attention too, sing on their own time and absorb.

From an outsider on pop culture, I looked at the Britney Spears video first, mainly because she was a big part of my pop music life when I was growing up. I can remember back to the days of "Hit Me Baby One More Time" where "bringing down the machine" as cited in the movie half nelson, was nothing more than dancing in your catholic school girl uniform and just singing your groove. I looked back on the video to compare what has been done in the last ten years of britney's music career. the singing has gotten worse, the dance moves have gone from talented to highly suggestive in a sexual manner and overall the content of the song is just trashy. When the Backstreet Boys first came out, with Britney, Nsync and Christina Aguilera close behind, the music was really good, the dancing showed much talent, hell even the way the film makers shot the video was less suggestive. The focus was on their faces, the talents they had and the stories they were telling, not on how attractive they are (or aren't, depending on how you look at it).

Personally, I feel this is a bit too much for middle schoolers to handle. how many times have we heard of kids getting caught in the bathroom with someone else doing things they weren't supposed to in school? While we can't avoid the subject, I feel the content can be a little more censored and geared toward stimulating our minds in ways that don't involve sex.

On the contrary, I liked the Beyoncé video. After watching the Britney video first, I was hesitant to continue on and dig into this subject matter anymore. However, one of the biggest concepts I thought it showed was empathy. Recently in our Secondary class, Andrew and I have had the privilege to hear the students talk about their views on character education through the school district. One of the topics that is broadly covered throughout the curriculum during their middle school years is empathy. How do you think it feels when person does a harmful act/kind act towards another person/thing? Would you be able to do it differently? Beyoncé really takes care to put that sense of empathy at the highlight of her video, (as opposed to the unnecessary shots of naked Britney..) and I feel it leaves a good message...take care of each other! In a relationship, don't go through the motions for the sake of going through the motions. Realize that everything you do on a daily basis can and will be used against you (if that thing is a malicious, harmful, spiteful or selfish act), whether you're sleeping with that guilt or not.

Beyoncé & Britney PLEASE WATCH!!!!!

Ok, so instead of posting a lengthy blog this week, i figured YouTube would be better. These are two songs that are popular right now by Britney Spears and Beyoncé... If you could watch the videos linked below and tell me your thoughts on how we might use these in a classroom to raise awareness of sexism in the US. We always seem to have these lengthy conversations about "guys" and hegemony, and have been talking about how multiculturalism means more than just race and ethnicity. maybe these videos could serve as a catalyst for a conversation with our students. Maybe they couldn't. I would LOVE to know your thoughts!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Womanizer -- Britney Spears
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZSLIq6YiRY

If I were a Boy -- Beyoncé
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVTyLqkez6A

"I Love Lucy" Inspired

I was watching “I Love Lucy” at the gym this morning, and it was the episode where Lucy and Ethel want to learn to speak French so they can order at a French restaurant. As they begin their lessons with their French teacher, one of the first questions Lucy asks is why some words have “la” and “le” before them. The teacher says that it is because everything is either masculine or feminine unlike in America. Lucy responds by saying, “apparently you don’t know this country.” It made me think about how much the time has changed since then. Lucy was in reference to the different roles of men and a women at the time.

This episode reminded me of an article by Nel Noddings I used in my last paper. It is titled “Care Tradition: Beyond 'Add Women and Stir.” I don’t want to go into how we all need to be equal despite gender or anything at this point, but I want to share a couple of thoughts on the changing roles of women in society. Nel Noddings brings out an idea that now that the women are not taking on the “caring” carriers such as a being a stay at home mom etc... there are many caring roles that are not being carried out. It now falls into all hands to take on these roles. I will add that I think that teaching, is one of these very roles. Any thoughts?

conservative way and right brain

The topic that what Katie brought up got me attention. If teacher teaches well on Western /folk ways in her methods and the students take to it well and enjoys it and eager to learn, I believe there wouldn’t be a problem.It is nothing wrong with a conservative teaching because, the student may learn from conservative way. However, if the teacher teaches too conservative way in Western music and the students get bored and not appreciate, that is a problem. Western music is appropriate for the music classroom. However, I think the reason why we try to incorporated “popular music” is that we can use it as a tool so that the students feel more open about Western music and make us easier to introduce Western music in more effective way. As we know, unlike any other classes like math or science, Music is more right brain process. It is very true that we need balance between right and left brain. However, if we even teach music in too much left brain ways like other classes, when and where in school can they develop their right brain?

Stuck in a Box

Without even realizing it, I had been thinking a lot about Katie’s blog Conservative Teaching. Reading the post really got me thinking about Practicum and teaching in general… I absolutely love being able to go into a classroom four times a week and honestly see what goes on in the world of teaching. However, as Katie had mentioned, this should be the time that we are experimenting with new ideas and taking risks in a safe environment.

The way I look at it, if I’m nervous already, I might as well try something new with the expectation and understanding that I may make mistakes. Working with three other group members, it is more difficult to get creative and compromise. Generally we go with the traditional ideas when teaching something new. The kids seem to enjoy our lessons, and they are successful, but they can become so regular. I am afraid that after another month, they will get bored of what we are doing and tune themselves out of the classroom.

So frequently, we fall into traps of doing things because they are common practice. We know these lessons, warm ups, songs, staged shows, etc. will be successful. This is mostly the case because several thriving teachers have used them in past years. Why do we allow ourselves to fit into molds that have already been created, instead of breaking out and executing our own ideas? Where are the experiments within lessons? Are we essentially being lazy by using other people’s ideas?

Which Category is right?

The three categories of multiculturalism are monoculturalists, liberal multiculturalist, and plural multiculturalists. How does a teacher now which way to go about teaching in his/her classroom? First of all lets just discuss the differences between each category. Monoculturalists are neo-colonialist in that the intent is to maintain the dominant culture as the superior or best culture. Liberal muticulturalists usually speak in the language of democracy, freedom, and justice, but fail to acknowledge systemic forms of oppression. Plural multiculturalism celebrates human diversity but fails also to acknowledge systemic forms of oppression, often reducing reasons for socio-economic or political inequalities to a problem of misunderstanding.(Morton 34) Personally I think I fall between the liberal and plural multiculturalism categories. I think that it is important to incorporate all different cultures in the classroom. Everyone should have a well rounded knowledge of the different cultures of the world, and being music educators, I think it is our job to introduce our students to different musical cultures. I think that it is great to incorporate the different types of cultures that your students are into the classroom, but I don't believe that it should be based on just one culture.

Conservative Teaching: A Bad Thing?

Conservative teaching is something that has it’s place in the classroom for some educators, but is it the type of teaching I want to lead my future classroom from day to day? I’m not really sure to be honest with you. In response to Katie’s previous blog, I completely understand what she is saying about conservative teaching and pushing the boundaries. I think, as a student studying to become a teacher, it is so easy to shun the idea of being a “conservative” educator.  The word conservative automatically brings about ideas of non-experimentation, the usage of outdated practices, and only sticking to a set way of teaching.  Being part of classes at Westminster has taught us to think outside the box, look at everything from different perspectives, and learn to teach in a way that will constantly be connecting to our students.  That is all well and good and I believe in those practices, but sometimes I find that this is hard because a large chunk of my education was conducted under conservative-style teaching. Even in my music classes. I think I turned out pretty well and I still have great passion for music and teaching. I feel like the classes I take here are sometimes saying that the way I was taught was wrong or not expansive enough. Furthermore, I know am I supposed to teach in a way that is connecting to my students’ world, but I know the conservative aspect of teaching quite intimately.  Sometimes I worry that once I get into my own classroom and practicality is more apparent than it was in the world of Westminster, that I will perpetuate a cycle of conservative teaching. A type of teaching that while not necessarily considered wrong, will not push the boundaries of my students in the way that effective teaching should.  This is not to say that I think I am bound to be a conservative teacher and that I will not use the tools that I have acquired here. I do, however, worry about teaching in a way that I, personally, wasn’t taught for a majority of my life.  Is conservative teaching wrong or are we just being idealistic college students? Maybe we will constantly strive to be out-of-the-box educators, but conservative teaching could have its place as well. I hope I don’t sound too pessimistic, but I have a feeling some people can relate to my thoughts. If you can, blog about it!

As Promised...

In my blog, "Democracy is Absent", I mentioned that I would be posting some interesting facts on the new resources I would be reading in lieu of my attendance in class.

I was fascinated to come across this book by David Sousa called "How the Brain Learns". Within the book the author demonstrates how learning happens, and how to facilitate in this process through good teaching. I found one page, 24, to be particularly interesting. Within the first chapter there is mention of how threats and emotions affect memory processing. I didn't take this too seriously. Sousa states that, "We have all had experiences when anger, fear of the unknown, or joy quickly overcame our rational thoughts...this happens because the hippocampus is susceptible to stress hormones which can inhibit cognitive functioning and long term memory...Under certain conditions, emotions can enhance memory by causing the release of hormones that stimulate the amygdala to signal brain regions to strengthen memory. Strong emotions can shut down conscious processing during the event while enhancing our memory of it." If our memories are as strong as Sousa says they are, then how come we can't control the feelings that cause the hormones in the first place? Why do we find it so difficult to examine a situation that we've seen before but just can't face?

To put this a little differently, I look at it from a alternative perspective. As a 9 year old, my 8 year old cousin convinced me to ride a local carnival rider known as the paratroopers. For any of you who have been on the ride before, you know exactly what to expect. The one thing I did not expect was to travel backwards after going forwards. Needless to say, my inner ear was off balance and my lunch was lost. The feeling of fear as I threw up on my cousin was excruciating; so much so that I have never been a ride that I know will take you backwards again. Ever. I'm sure we've all been in situations like this. But how do we face this as teachers? That pit in your stomach when facing a pedagogical or ethical conflict must be excruciating; but how do you pull it back together?

David Sousa goes on to mention at the end of the 1st chapter how to develop a classroom climate conducive to learning.
"Nearly all learning that occurs in schools involves complex cerebral processing. This occurs more easily in environments free from threat or intimidation. Whenever a student detects a threat, the cerebrum [the part of the brain that controls thinking, memory, speech, muscular movement and deep inside, emotion and reason] downshifts [aka the process where the hippocampus is susceptible to stress hormones which can inhibit cognitive functioning and long term memory] and thoughtful processing gives way to emotion or survival reactions. Experienced teachers have seen this in the classroom. Under pressure to give a quick response, the student begins to stumble, stab at answers, gets frustrated, angry, and may even resort to violence.
"Threats to students loom continuously in the classroom. The teacher's capacity to humiliate, embarrass, reject, and punish all constitute perceived threats to students. Many students even see grading more as a punitive than as a rewarding process. Students perceive threats in varying degrees, but the presence of a threat in any significant degree impedes learning. One's thinking and learning functions operate fully only when one feels secure [safety without safety anyone?].
"Teachers can make their classrooms better learning environments by avoiding threats (even subtle intimidation) and by establishing democratic climates in which students are treated fairly and feel free to express their opinions during discussions. In these environments students:

• develop trust in the teacher
• exhibit more positive behaviors
• are less likely to be disruptive
• show greater support for school policy
• sense that thinking is encouraged and nurtured."

Being the sacred music major that I am, I payed attention to the homily that the priest delivered this weekend... above all, I hope as teachers we simply learn to nurture and care for our students. This does NOT mean spoon feeding them. this means to challenge students in a way that best suits the needs for everyone in the classroom. Apathy is probably the biggest venial sin on the table at the moment. As the week begins, let's all take a deep breath, a step forward and remember that concern for the betterment of music in our schools starts with service to our students. If you're not here for those reasons: get out.

I'll shove the "ism" too

I mentioned in my earlier blog on Democracy in our classroom. For any of us, we have the power to make decisions in our own classrooms. But when those ideas conflict with ideas that students have, and we let the students take the idea and run, the only thing we're left to do as leaders is facilitate. It seems to me this is exactly what happened with multiculturalism.

When I walked into my practicum classroom for the first time, I felt extremely comfortable. The environment was extremely conducive for learning, the resources Andrew and I were told we had were remarkable and the kids were at the forefront, driving the music program. What I failed to recognize (and still do so) is how much of an affect the diverse backgrounds have on our classroom. The school district we teach in is a tremendous melting pot of students whose parents work in and out of New York City, Philadelphia and many other successful businesses around the greater Princeton area. It would seem as though these parents know their children need math and literature; however, it seems to be more of a necessity for these children to be studying in the arts. The arts have given these students a chance to put what they do in their classroom activities as well as their real lives and put them to use in their music classes.

For example, one girl in the 7th and 8th grade general music class studies dance. Accordingly, our co-op assigned her a piano piece entitled "Ballet Dancer". Within the piece, there was a sense of legato and the use of pedal helped the student connect the flowing use of her body in her dance classes to what was happening on the music page.

The Egyptian unit for 6th graders gives students a chance to look at some of the every day life activities of ancient Egyptians by means of a small play. This play consists of one group who is in charge of the music and the other group, in charge of the pantomime and acting. One narrator leads the children in a rehearsed script that looks at the typical day of an aristocratic family in ancient Egypt. Two children in this class happen to be Egyptian. One went home and discussed the lessons with his parents, and he managed to bring back to class some Egyptian money as well as stories about the traditional music sung and played in their families. Another student actually had a mother that was on a business trip in Egypt. As a present, she brought him back some sort of pennant or flag, but the meaning of the flag was unclear. All in all, this lesson is something I would definitely emulate in a classroom if I were to teach general music in the future. Why?

The answer does not lie in interest. When talking about culture in a classroom, its one thing to read about it in a book. It's another thing to experience it in person. This is not "multiculturalist" thought. This is simply having interest in all parties involved in a classroom. The experience in a classroom should be a shared one. As teachers, is that not the goal we thrive on each day? The hopes that one day everyone will show enthusiasm towards what we teach, how we teach it and everyone's discussions and thoughts? In short, I agree with what Ryan has to say about throwing the "ism" out of our vocabulary. Why can't we all just honor multicultural actions instead of having to put a label on all of the actions we perform in the classroom to meet up to standards that we don't trust in the first place? As teachers shouldn't we want to show our students other worlds that connect to theirs? Instead of being told by white philosophers, administrators and clinicians what should be taught in our classrooms, why can't we use intuition a little more often? If I'm a Latin American teacher teaching in an area where a majority of the students are Indian, am I going to sit there and demonstrate raga? Most of the kids already know what this is in their own family traditions. As a teacher, I would invite in some parents to demonstrate what's going on in their households with music on a daily basis.

To sum up, when one talks about multiculturalism, the term is boxed immediately. To explain what boxed means: a definition and hurdles fall into a teacher's lap: to explain what a definition of multiculturalism is it is the relating to several cultural or ethnic groups within a society. to explain the hurdles, it is the everyday moments that teachers deal with to make teaching happen.

Does this make sense?

Take the -ism and Shove It!!!

I don't even know where to start. 

I guess, going back to what I said in class on Tuesday, multiculturalism, in my opinion, is something that, while well intended, is a tool poorly used in the classroom. Far too often, teachers teach a unit on "music of the world" or "music from latin america/africa", but what happens beyond that unit? sad to say, nothing. This is because music from different cultures cannot be isolated into sections, but must be incorporated into the music classroom everyday. Even then, I don't believe this to be multiculturalism, because, as of right now, I do not feel that multiculturalism is something that can be taught in a classroom. It is a tool of the class. Educators can teach in a multicultural manner, but cannot actually teach multiculturalism. I think that's where we drop the ball. I also feel that this topic is too magnified in the classroom to a point where it hinders itself. It loses it's steam. And who decided that multiculturalism was such a hot button issue?! I'm willing to say it was the "majority" white, middle-class, upstanding citizens. To me, this seems like working at a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving. Yes, there are very good intentions, but what are we doing beyond that one day to promote hunger awareness? Oh, we just go to dinner parties and restaurants and go grocery shopping and throw away whatever we don't feel like eating. What a luxury. In many ways, I feel this is what multiculturalism has become. Something we say we're for- teaching to show equality and fairness to the poor, suffering minority- but in actuality we do not embrace it beyond the 40 minutes we teach it. Let's be real. And until we fully embrace it, why teach it. We're a bunch of hypocrites. 

thoughts?

All or Nothing

In class on Tuesday, a comment made by Dave sparked my interest. He had asked the question that if one does not teach multiculturalism authentically, should one even teach multiculturalism? This idea was brought up in the article we read as well. I would like to give my opinion on this matter. I think that to teach multiculturalism one does need to know what they are teaching. I might even go so far to say that a person needs to fully understand the culture of which they are teaching. It would be similar if a teacher was trying to teach students about music theory without fully understanding what figured bass does. The teacher has to be the one that has already experienced many instances with the given topic and has learned through that process.

In my practicum on Wednesday, it was brought to our attention that there were a couple of principles that my practicum team was not fully aware of, and that was evident in the lesson. I truly feel that this is the same for multiculturalism. In high school I found myself offended many times when my history teacher would speak falsely of my religious beliefs. It was not my history teacher's fault that he was misinforming the class, but there was no room to teach something that my teacher did not fully understand. I liken this to ones culture, and I would hate to do the same for someone else; let alone one of my students.

Conservative Teaching

I am currently enrolled in elementary praxis, and I'm having difficulties figuring out what I am allowed to do and what I am not. I feel like this is the time for me to experiment with how I teach, but on the other hand I am scared to go outside my CT's boundaries. The teacher is really great, and I LOVE working with the kids, but I find that I am almost holding back. Does anyone else feel that way? So, basically I know we just talked about how many teachers are "conservative" and stay in there ways, and now I'm realizing why it can be so easy to do that. It is hard to take risks, but I guess ultimately if you never take them then you will never know. I am observing that my teacher for the most part does stick with the "Western" / "Folk" ways, in her teaching methods. The students take to it well, and still have fun with the lesson, but I can't help to think that if we incorporated more "popular music" or honored their world more, that maybe they would be even MORE involved. I don't know, but I was just wondering if any of you feel the same way. Do you think that we are ever going to fully move on from the "conservative" ways?

Lets just turn on the LHC

The question of whether or not authenticity is necessary always gets me to thinking about this situation Haltmeier would often bring up.  It's a scenario where synth sounds have come such a long way that they are indistinguishable from the real instruments and you take a student, who has no musical background and only studies the piano for a short period of time, and you have another student, who for a much much longer period of time and more effort given, learns an instrument, say a saxophone.  The piano student would be given a synth instrument that sounded exactly like the other student's saxophone.  So through less time and effort the piano student could "play" the saxophone equally well if not better than the student who can authentically play the instrument.  What should authenticity mean in this case?  Both are "musicians", both practiced their craft, but it feels like the student who worked harder got cheated because he didn't have to.  What value does working that hard have if the same thing can be done and kind of faked?  As an instrument player I'd be a little upset.  With my biased opinion I think authenticity is very important.  I'm curious to hear how authenticity could not be relevant.  

Bi-partisan political activity

my parents are both registered republicans. my older brother is registered independant and my younger brother and I are registered democrat. All we need is my sister to register liberal or green party and the gangs all here. Yet, we can still live and communicate under one roof without problems. But I noticed that when I had conversations with a few people that their opinion of me or someones opinion of them changed based solely on their registered party. I found this to be troubling because their political party only determines their views on the ways in which certain things should be run or directed or dealt. This is not even the case 100% of the time. The person has not changed otherwise. I found these things to be shocking because I found myself arguing with friends and even some family members about the future of this country, be it good or bad. I am upset to find that silly things like politics can have such an impact on friends and family. Hence the power of a label:(

When I stepped out of the voting booth on Tuesday, I was glad that I had done my civic duty of voting for our next President. I felt a sense of pride and accomplishment, because I believed that my voice was heard and that my vote was worthwhile to the election. I have not been a politically active person up until this point in my life, but I definitely felt the necessity to do my part in enacting change for our country. Afterwards, I interviewed three people who had also finished voting and asked them a few questions to see what they had to say about the campaign elections. It was fascinating for me to hear the different thoughts and opinions that came from these three people. They were each affected by politics in different ways. One woman was in a committee that campaigned for Darfur, another woman campaigned for her presidential candidate, and the man that I interviewed owned a business in NJ and it was being affected by the poor economy. After seeing such informed and active citizens, I hope to become as political as these adults.

"Freedom of mind"

Most of you may disagree with what Woodford said. However, when Woodford says about “Freedom of mind”, it reflects the most positive influence to music education today because I believe it is greatly impact on students to be creative. “…most kid lost the capacity of being creative and frightening to be wrong because we stigmatized the mistakes. National education system is where the mistakes the worst think that can make” (Robinson, 2006). It is so true that in reality, we all frightened to make a mistake and therefore I think causes our creativity to fade. If we as a music educator provide environment where they can have a freer mind and find their own identity of being creative, wouldn’t we see more potential of creativity in them?

I think this is really inspiring video to watch you should check this out!
- www.sirkenrobinson.com.

Try Something New: Chances Are, It Won’t Bite

Something happened last night that I had never expected: I actually had positive thoughts towards politics, and it wasn’t even because of an SNL skit. When I first heard of our task for class this week, I was unhappy and actually upset that I had to engage in something political. I have never liked politics and tried to stay as far away from them as possible. This was the case up until last night, when I saw how important this election was to those around me, and how it was affecting them.

Obviously this election is a big deal, and I wouldn’t doubt that for a second, but I literally could not escape it last night. So, I set out to find what the big deal was and why it did not have an impact on me. (Or maybe I felt guilty for not having yet completed our class assignment.) I joined my friends in the lounge and watched the results flood in. Once Obama took California, everyone around me went crazy. People were yelling, jumping up and down, calling their family and friends, and a few were even crying. For the first time it hit me. This could possibly be the most important election of my lifetime and I did not even have the desire to register to vote.

I think the main reason why I never felt strongly about politics is because of my lack of exposure to the subject. When I am living at school, I do not own or have time to watch TV. While I am home, I am either sleeping or visiting family, and the last thing I am thinking about is watching the news. Also, I do not read newspapers or online news articles. Most of my disinterest is because of my disconnection to the candidates and their views. Before yesterday, I could not even tell you one thing Obama or McCain stands for. But after watching both the speeches following Obama being announced as the newly elected president, I have nothing but respect for what these two men do, even if I still don’t exactly know what they want for the country.

Honestly, I am super excited to see what happens to our country with a black president. America has spoken and we are ready for change. Obama is young and willing to change things from the traditional views. He is one of the bravest people I have ever seen and I sincerely hope he will succeed in office. Plus, he’s a great father and that automatically gets my vote. Last night, history was made. I am SO glad I decided to be a part of it. ☺

Democracy is absent

and so am I.

When we all get the picture that we are not being "spoonfed" material, but rather learning the material instead of having to question every other sentence that we read, I will return to class. I find it incomprehensible that for three weeks we haven't had one bad thing to say about Woodford, only about the way this text is being handled. And quite frankly, I do not enjoy thinking about being frustrated, nervous, and aggressive all day in the hopes that things will turn around. For the past three days, I have felt nothing but disgust for the way things were handled in our classroom on Tuesday. If one child did not understand a lesson on Ancient Greek music, or the terminology of "lyre" as opposed to using a word they might be more familiar with (i.e. harp), I would seek out a real life example, organize a field trip to a museum, set up a youtube video, or simply select another resource from which we can all understand together.

This ultimatum had me thinking as well. Are we really here for the grade? Are we here just to pass as Dr. Schmidt and Mr. Heckman presume? Are we here because this is the process by which hierarchy works (i.e. you pass c.p.1, you move on to c.p.2, etc.)? I am convinced after seeing most of your blogs and your work inside the classroom, outside the classroom, and through conversation that if you stuck each individual in a box alone, we would come out of that box learning something we did not know before. This is part of our generation. We have been taught as a class, from a very young age that knowledge is power (Thank you schoolhouse rock) and I feel that knowledge has taken a step back in the last three weeks for pointless arguments over how the class is to be run.

In conclusion, I ask you to tell all of your students in general music who do not understand "The Marriage of Figaro", impressionism, music theory or piano to get out of the classroom, skip assignments to see how they react. This is not about reactionary policy. This is about a classroom. This is about who we are now as students, as individuals and musicians. Our philosophies, as Ryan as pointed out, should be bubbling at the moment. But we will have difficulty with these philosophies considering we only work with children for three hours (at most) a day. Let's face it: most of our philosophies will be thrown out when our third year of teaching begins and revamped with new ideas of practicality. After asking a renowned teacher on their explanation of Postmodern theory and its influence on their teaching and the coagulation between the different art forms, I found out they barely knew anything about this term that philosophers have coined. It seems like a mere gimmick that puts money in the pockets of big name philosophers. And does it? You tell me who's running our classroom right now. Is it the students with the questions? Or the philosophers without answers to why postmodernism does not have a definition? Why in three weeks have we spent time arguing about the definition of postmodernism when the "enlightened thinkers" of our class have not mentioned Modernity or Modernism once? And why when it comes to practical sides of our teaching in postmodernism is democracy left out of our classroom?

When these questions can be answered with depth and thought by students, I will be happy to sleep peacefully. Until then, I will select alternative resources for you all to critically reflect on the weeks to come. Enjoy!

Ignore first blog title

Forget the title of my first blog. I ended somewhere different. Tee hee, oops. Love those tangents.

Big Words or Colossal Terminology?

I need to vent about an issue Ryan brought up for the past two classes. The idea what we need to use such heavy language to explain simple concepts drives me nuts. If you’ve ever had a conversation with me, I’m sure you’ve picked up that I tend to be relaxed and informal. I like to be this way when conversing with anyone- whether it is with my peers, the students in practicum, or my professors. The concepts and ideas being discussed should be more complex and intellectual, but I do not feel like the language I am using should change drastically. It should not make me any less intelligent because I choose not to use a large vocabulary. I feel that people should be able to express themselves using basic words that we have all learned. We can still be bright and educated without complicating things. And honestly, if I decided to create new concepts and thoughts that I wanted to be critiqued and expanded on, I would try to express these ideas as easily as possible. I would want it to be understood quickly and without misinterpretation.

When writing, I find myself using more complicated words then in my speech. Throughout our education, we are taught to keep improving our writing and the way in which we write out our thoughts. When following this idea, in my own experiences, I usually get bored after the first paragraph. I turn to the heading ‘Tools’ at the top bar of Word, click, and scroll down to ‘Thesaurus’ for help. I am more entertained by the funny sounding words I see for the first time and usually put them in my paper for amusement. What a harebrained scheme.

Big words are good, but I think they are used too often in contexts they should be left out of. Life is complex enough as it is, so why do we make language so difficult? As I mentioned in a previous blog post, we are expected to do and think so much in our lives as musicians, teachers, students, friends, siblings, mentors, children, etc.

There’s a quote I was exposed to that I connected with the second I heard it. No worries- it’s easy to comprehend. It goes a little something like this:

“Simplify, simplify, simplify!”

What about modernist...

In the Woodford text there is some dispute over abstract reason. In this case he states "reason, as defined herein, is a tool of understanding that intellectuals employ in their ongoing conversation as to the nature of truth, beauty, freedom, and love" (Woodford 39-40). He then goes on to explain that in this context, postmodern and other contemporary critics still have not settled on one firm definition of abstract reason. Reason in this instance is the tool to understanding.

Woodford uses the term intellectuals, but what determines someone as intellectual? Who has the authority to label the qualifications of an intellectual individual. Is he using intellectual as a synonym for higher educated individuals? my problem is what indicates an intellectual or non-intellectual being and how can Woodford use these words so comfortably as if he has the authority to label individuals as such. I was bothered by his word choice and phrasing so I wanted to blog. Enjoy.

Two Random Thoughts

As I was reading the Woodford, the thing that stuck with me is when he states, “Public schools and universities were blamed by the New Right for regional or national economics reverse because they failed to equip students with the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes to allow business to successfully compete in the global market place. Seldom , if ever, were those same institutions given credit when the economy was healthy” (Woodford 61). I think that this is a major problem in more than just the schools. It is so easy to criticize and complain, and there seems to be this large burden of complimenting. Why is it that the bad things are the things that stick out?
Another thing that stuck out to me was when Woodford was talking about the type of students the school are producing. The type of student that acts more mathematically and such. I can’t help but think that this is because of the day in age we are living in with all of the technology we have. The technology requires people to be able to be a “step ahead” of it all.

Who does Woodford think he is?

After our heated classroom discussion on Tuesday, I decided to delve back into the Woodford to try and make more sense of it all. In my re-reading of chapter two, one quote stuck out to me that I was actually surprised I did not highlight in my book the first time around.

 On page 22, Woodford states, “Relatively few people outside of academia have the luxury of devoting much time and energy to the pursuit of truth and understanding.” Now, not to sound all zen-like, but isn’t the pursuit of truth and understanding a lifelong goal for all individuals on this earth? Not everyone looks for truth in the way that Woodford probably would, but it seems to me that he is almost labeling the highly educated as the elite within society and as the only individuals capable of gaining true understanding.  I know plenty of people, myself being one of them, who are constantly in search of truth and understanding, whether that be in an academic context or not. Thomas Jefferson states that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I truly feel that to be in a state of happiness, the “pursuit of understanding” is an inevitable part of that process. To be happy, one must first understand what it is that he/she feels will bring happiness. It is a process that is never-ending whether we are conscious of it or not. To say that this is a “luxury” seems like a rather arrogant assumption. I understand that Woodford probably did not mean to sound haughty when he wrote this statement, but perhaps his choice of wording was not optimal. 

I think I can...

So I think we all can all agree last class was a first for us all. But who knows, I came in two weeks late, ha. Anyway, I am going to say what I am going to say and I don't care if it makes me feel uninspired, dull or even weak-minded. I will admit, reading the Woodford has been a ego-crusher. My entire self-esteem runs away when I open that spiraling wordy sentence of doom. I just feel dumb, no other word to explain. I feel like I can't grasp the material or when I do get one four line sentence under my hands, I can't relate it anywhere.

This class period help me realize, hey we're all drowning and made me a little more comfortable. Schmidt believed that we could it because he thought we were smart. And as cheesy as it is, the next time I opened the book, it was like I have the cryptex from The Da Vinci Code. I was able to read so much and understand so much more. I still, like us all, lack time to delve deep. But when i can read and understand is phenomenal. I decided to test my newly "third day" confidence on the postmodernism chapter.

Woodford says, "the idea is that the individual is himself and is constructed from language or music...so as subject he does not exist...he then cannot be responsible for what is written. So basically this ties into the political struggle how history is what we want to remember it as. And it's so true: you read any American history book and they will edit "truth" and "lies" to accomodate popularity or distaste. I think about it every time I watch political news. I look at Barack Obama, and see him as an icon. Not even as a human. Is he real? What does he really stand for? How does Palin feel when she leaves the podium, does she have emotion. It was a shock to see Hilary cry, because let's face it, they're not supposed to. They need to sell, sell, sell it.

I mean this sentence, is a lot for me. It strikes me and I am still trying to figure it out. It seems like we can't control what people think about us and more over what we can become. It's scary to think that there is a cabinet of people controlling the world but what if. What if we thought this was the life we chose but really it was more complex than that. I'm sure I'm wrong, ha, but isn't blogging about trying out thoughts?

Loving my thirteen year old pedagogical self

So, things in class got pretty heated this past Tuesday. I know I walked away pretty fired up, but the cogs in my mind were churning faster than usual. Objectifying the situation, it was fascinating seeing how the dynamic of the classroom changed on Tuesday when we disagreed on something. I mean, up until this points, we as students have pretty much been dogs on a dash board, so to speak, just kinda going with the flow of things. Sure, this could be due to the fact that we all genuinely loved the Block, but maybe there's something more...

After class, I felt guilty about my conversation with Dr. Schmidt, so I, being the "brown-noser" some of you may think me to be, decided to write Dr. Schmidt an email. But i couldn't! So i went to his office and we proceeded to have a conversation for the better part of an hour about what happened in class. I just wish to clarify at this point, especially since I have revisited the Woodford to more or less prove to myself that I am trying, that my biggest qualm with the Woodford is not the Woodford itself. Rather, looking at the book from a pedagogical viewpoint, I do not believe it best meets the needs of our class. It is a book that requires a lot of time for reflection and processing, which it seems we all don't have. But, at the same time, we can't just have a no brainer, that's a disservice to our education... and I don't know about you, but I'm not paying as much as I do to have a bird course (don't even get me STARTED on Music in Special Ed). But thinking about the situation again from a pedagogical standpoint, that was quite an audacious thing we did in class on tuesday, to speak out so frankly and passionately. I think that says volumes about our class community and the level of respect we have for each other, our careers, and (at this point, most importantly) our education (all positive reflections, of course). But go with me for a sec!!! Since WHEN did i start thinking PEDAGOGICALLY?! I have never felt qualified to think in such a manner before, and now out of thin air, here I am challenging every move Schmidty makes. AND YOU ARE TOO!!! and the best part.... THAT'S OK!!! IT'S FABULOUS!!! 

I think this is in large part due to the fact that we have all started practicum this semester. So now, not only are we students being taught at WCC, but we are also teachers teaching in REAL schools with REAL students. Being on the other side of the spectrum completely flip-flops your views, or at least mine! I have such a radically different approach to education now that I'm actually out and about... it seems like I actually CARE lol. You know the old expression "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"? I'm sure you do. and I'm sure that's what you've often thought about teaching, but now, in this unique experience called junior year, we are getting to play on both sides of the fence. so, when we're in class we're not only thinking "ok, this is how i learn," but also, "ok, this is how I would teach!" And i think this all came into fruition on Tuesday. 

I know I was pretty frustrated and turned off last class, but if we could all just take a step back and think what an awesome thing it is that we're doing, I think we could all rest easy. We're never going to get everything the first time (a lesson i still hate to admit is true), so let's try and look at this situation from a different perspective, not one that makes us feel like stupid students, but one that says "hey! you there! yeah, you with the fancy clothes! YOU look like a teacher! and you SOUND like a teacher!" 

An analogy I used with Dr. Schmidt is that I think of my pedagogical self as another person. And over the past three years I have moved from infant, to toddler, to child, and now I feel like I am in the "tween" phase. This is the point when I think my philosophy trumps all, and I challenge everyone's authority... I am in the middle school of my pedagogical self. No wonder this feels like hell! I think we are all in this weird transitioning phase, but now and again, there are glints of brilliance shining through in our class. it's very exciting stuff... i hope this wasn't a completely random tangent, and you all caught on to something from this. 

Best. 

"Worth remembering, too, is that professional musicians, music teachers, music education majors, and children all need to be prepared for a life beyond music."  This statement is on the last page of chapter 2 in the Woodford and I think a very important statement we should all be aware of.  In my Astronomy class in high school, the teacher taught a lot of astronomy, but also taught general knowledge.  Sometimes, an entire class would go by without even touching on the subject astronomy.  A lot of these lessons taught me many things about how the world works and what to expect after I graduate.  This influences my teaching philosophy to make sure that I don't hold the subject I teach to be the most important thing.  Students are living, breathing, ever changing human beings and it's important that they're well rounded in many subject areas.  As teachers, we must be prepared to handle the unexpected and to be willing to change our minds as to how a lesson should go.   Also we should consider this statement in our own lives.  We have to be prepared for a life beyond music.  

Progress

I would like to discuss the topic of advancing and progressing in a classroom. One group in class pointed out the quote on page 44 that says, "Students should be encouraged to question and challenge tradition and status quo, but if this is to be more than a nihilistic exercise they must have faith in the past and in the possibility of progress." This situation applies to a class I am taking right now at Westminster. Many of the students feel that our teacher is not doing enough to advance our learning because the teaching is stagnant and habitual. Our homework is usually the same, tedious work of reading and summarizing. The professor lectures throughout the class period but does not give us time to practice or do any of the material in class. None of the information is being transferred and absorbed into our brains. We have asked the teacher to give us different assignments, but the teacher is reluctant to change her ways. We want to challenge the status quo of the classroom, but the teacher is not encouraging the progress. We are not trying to deconstruct or change her teaching altogether, but we would like for the opportunity to learn differently. We recognize that her style of teaching works in some situations, but we need other ways to learn, and thus her teaching would progress and make a difference. As the article we read over the weekend says, "There you are in a classroom with kids who are real, living, breathing, dynamic, unique. And then these rationalizations become an expression of your values: following orders over taking this kid's needs seriously; using the boring teachers' guidelines above engaging kids in a project that grabs and propels them. To teach takes commitment, strength, struggle, a willingness to grow and develop." I know it must be hard to give up control and look towards focusing on the student's needs, but I hope to keep it in mind when I become a teacher in the future.

Girls Rule and Boys Drool!!

What a cute little expression I used to say… but it has a deeper meaning that I never thought of until now.

Going off of Katie's example/situation with gender bias I wanted to comment on my own experiences. In my praxis site, I see a split between boys and girls on a daily basis. When the class uses rhythm instruments, the teacher will always have the boys on one instrument and the girls on another. One gender will start off a round and the other will follow. If the class is too noisy or rowdy while moving around to the steady beat, the teacher will have the boys sit and the girls do the exercise, and then they will switch. No matter the activity, it seems like they are always divided by gender.

At the beginning of class, the students are expected to form a circle on the floor for warm-ups. I have noticed now that when the students enter the classroom, they tend to sit with half of the circle being boys and the other half girls. When they are asked to choose partners for group activities, all groups, except for maybe one or two, usually have students of the same gender. I feel like this idea of separating by gender is creating competition that may carry over into other areas besides music activities. The students do seem to be competitive when they are separated. Is this really teaching them equal rights or that boys and girls can work together well?

When asked why he approaches a division of the class based on gender, the teacher simply stated that it makes it easier. This way he does not have to waste class time counting the number of students and how to separate them. The classes (in terms of, for example, fourth grade) generally have the same number of boys as girls in them. The teacher also said the students get a kick out of being separated this way. I know it may be fun for the moment, but will it backfire later? Will these students always try to separate between genders and therefore become less worried about equality as a whole? Am I over-analyzing?

Maybe the expression should change to: Girls AND Boys Rule!!

What is equality and musical equality?

Responding from Dani’s blog, in my perspective, what Woodford brought up in the book, the meaning of “equality” is the freedom of right to do and to be a fair teacher who treats everyone equally. I think this is what “democracy” is about and what Woodford talks about in his book.

However, I thought that what Dani talked about “musical equality” is a pretty interesting topic. Dani stated, “Everyone should be able to appreciate all types of music in some way”. Everyone has their favor of different genre of music. In my case, I grew up listening to classical and opera music. I want the students to appreciate classical and opera music. However, I cannot force the students in elementary or middle school to listen to these genres of music and learn about it every single day. Like the Critical Pedagogy’s lesson, “Honoring their world” is the key. As a music educator, we should appreciate what the students listen to, even though; it is a totally opposite genre of music. In order to make that happen, in my opinion, we should appreciate their music first, and then, we can step by step introduce classical music. Therefore, maybe they will at least have a bit of open mind about classical genres.

Can We Handle Equality?

My thoughts lie in the idea of equality. I spoke a little about it in Tuesday's class. I feel that there are always people that are striving to make everyone equal. There are so many programs with time and money spent on ways to make everyone equal. My problem with that is the fact that we are not "ready" to be equal. If you think about it, the only ones that generally want to be equal are those that are the "under dog." If we all were really to be equal I think that we would have to change our nature as human beings. Naturally, people want at some point in their lives to feel like they are better than others. There is also the problem that if we all are equal than there is going to be someone that gives up something or does something for someone else. We all cannot do the same things as everyone else, I don't have to go into that, we've spoken extensively about that in class already. But to explain my point that there would have to be sacrifice on the part of some people to the benefit others I ask you think of two children with cups of juice. One of them has more than the other, but they want to be equal. The one with more juice has to give of what he has to the other. As people we all feel that what we work for is ours and ours alone, but if we ever want to live in a state that we all treat each other on the same level, then we need to realize that there will be things that we work for that does not necessarily mean that we ourselves will or even should reap the benefit of it. I'm not saying that we all need to simply do all the work for everyone else, everyone needs to do their part, but if someone else's best is far below another's than I would hope that there is a willingness to give. But I can't help but feel uneasy every time the Woodford or I guess the concept of democracy brings up the need for equality, when I really don't think we realize what that really means.

Gender

So, today in my praxis class, I became VERY aware of being "gender bias". First let me just put it out there that I do not have a problem, nor do I think it is a big deal when a teacher refers to the group as "guys", or when I am called am in a group that is called "guys". Although I try to watch myself very closing while using this term, I think that these days the term guys has a different definition. When I looked up the definition in my Mac computer, the term (guys) came up as a group of people of either sex. Anyway, what I wanted to really talk about, was my 5th grade class this morning. I am normally very aware of the children I pick to come up and and help me out, or to play the instruments. I make sure that there are an equal amount of boys and girls especially at that age where they might think I'm picking one over the other. Today, I had a lot planned for my lesson and so as I was going through it, all that was really on my mind was okay make sure you have enough time to put the Orff instruments together with the song. I didn't realize that most of the people I was picking to come help me out were girls. At one point I heard a boy in my class say, she's picking all girls. That is when I realized and started switching it up. I felt really awful that it had slipped my mind, but I'm glad it happened because now I can be more aware of it, and I also know how much it can impact the students.

I don't know.

I was sitting in my secondary practicum class today and before Britt, Ryan and I went up to teach, the students played youTube videos for the class. It is something that they have been doing since the beginning of the semester and the whole point is to play a video of the student’s choosing, have it play with the original music, and then play a different musical recording along with that same video. The musical recording usually contrasts the original music and changes the whole feel of the video.

The student who played his video today showed a scene from the Matrix. It was a pretty violent shooting scene. While I was watching it, I was sort of surprised that our co-op would allow such a violent clip to be played.  No one seemed phased by it and I actually felt silly to have such uptight thoughts. On one hand, I thought that allowing such a clip to be played was sort of inappropriate due to its graphic nature and could almost be seen as the glorification of guns and violence. On the other hand I thought to myself, “C’mon Korey, it’s just a video and the kids don’t see it as anything more than just a cool scene with heavy metal music playing in the background. They’ve all probably already seen it anyway and this is just a way to connect their world to the classroom.” I had such conflicting ideas about the whole video because I do believe that it was a way to pull the students in to the class (music appreciation), but I also felt like maybe there should have been more limitations on the types of videos that could be chosen. In our discussion about being politically correct and the creation of an ultra sensitive society, I wondered if my thoughts were valid or just an example of me being an ultra sensitive educator.  Thoughts? By the way, the video on youTube is called “Matrix (new sound shooting scene). Check it out and tell me what you think.

The Power or Beauty of Language? or both?

Language I believe should primarily be used to communicate and facilitate group/classroom order. I mean it can be used for other reasons. Language can be used to express emotion like poetry. We use language to get what we want. Like Ryan said, "we want to appropriate our words and terminology to our audience."

Does that mean we should dumb ourselves down when writing a paper? Trust me, I don't like the readings either. But we must understand, writing should not be confused with conversation. Conversation has two sides, two view points and a correlation between the two or more objects. Writing is a one sided view of language and it is filled with expression, grammatical and literature motifs. Writing is an art form.

My concern: is Woodford's book written for his peers? Something so wonderful and ground-breaking might be more eloquent, passionate and more emotional. And it should not be so much one plus one. Remember abstract topics are all about how you phrase them. Perhaps Woodford is deliberately being vague and wordy.

Does this mean it should be used for classroom cirriculum: the answer is no. We're getting practically nowhere. We soaked up the Block book: transformations and sparking revelations. Woodford is more like "ok so what is he saying here" and "not what are you saying to this."

So are we hating on someone's art and blaming Woodford for being a hypocrite because he does not speak to his peers in a comphrehendable language? If language is primarily about communication and facilitation and working alongside with the audience, we should give Woodford a call and have him stop by for class on cyberspace. Let's see if he can write the write and talk the talk

blargh

An interesting topic Woodford brought up in the book was about this thing called musical equality.  This brought up a lot questions for me that really had nothing to do with the statement.  I thought of my high school experience and the social role that music played.  People forming groups of friends they would keep through-out high school based a lot on the type of music they listened to.  What would musical equality mean in this format?  If you look at it from this point of view you can't really have musical equality.  How has music you listened to shaped your life?  Did you think the music you chose to listen to was equal to other music around you?  What makes these differences?  There are a lot of questions that come up when you think about this sort of stuff and it's one of my goals as a music educator to blur the differences between the genres of music.  I think everyone should be able to appreciate all types of music in some way and not be turned off of a song just because of the genre.  

A new kind of blog and a new kind of understanding

Ok, so I realize we just had class like ten minutes ago, but I have a free hour, so i figured I'd blog quickly. I am so glad to hear that PJ wants to see these blogs actually look like blogs, and sort of break them down, so here goes:

As I was leaving class today, PJ and I had a brief conversation about the language of the materials we are reading. Now, I don't want it to come across that I am a lazy student, because that is not the case, but I feel that the language of the materials we are reading is far superior to the language that we are capable of thoroughly learning at. Between reading the Woodford and the Gould article, I felt as though I was slammed back to second grade for my lack of understanding. And not to sound arrogant, but I know I am a strong competent student and reading comprehension is not an issue for me. However, and feel free to disagree, but it is my understanding that we cannot comfortably approach all these materials without the Webster's Dictionary at arm's reach.

Now, I'm fully aware that it sounds as though I am just complaining, and Dr. Schmidt would probably say something along the lines of "there goes LaBoy running his mouth again," so allow me to try and bring this back to what we've learned... In the Block, a reading that I was very fond of, we explored the importance of language in an educational setting. Language, I believe has a large part to do with the receptiveness of students, and the willingness of students to participate in the class. This is to say, age appropriate language is key to garnering a high retention and responsiveness rate in students. We would never dream of going into an elementary music classroom and talking about the ideé fixe in Liszt's symphonie fantastique and how the composer manipulates and elaborates upon said melodic fragment to create a cyclic work and how the ideé fixe allows us to continuously identify a motif within a large-scale symphonic/orchestral work, thus maintaing a sense of congruity and continuity throughout the piece. We would probably go in and play something along the lines of Mozart's variations on a theme and use twinkle twinkle little star as an example of theme and variation. This is not to belittle the students at hand, however it is taking into consideration age appropriateness of the lesson and language. If we were to go into a classroom presenting the former, something tells me the students would feel a) disserviced and b) flat out stupid, much as I am feeling in reading the Woodford and related articles. Granted I chose to read the Gould, but the Woodford text I believe is too scholarly to meet our needs. I told PJ, I just feel like I'm talking out of my ass when we discuss Woodford, and in stressing so much about my competency and understanding of the material, I end up walking away from the readings learning next to nothing. Even this blog is a testament to that b/c I am relating this all back to Block.

I understand that we have to push ourselves and strive for higher understandings and educational excellence, but to what extent are we expected to do this? Until we break? We are learning that language is key in presenting to our students, but as students are we being presented materials that are appropriate? Can it be that Woodford (like some theory teachers on campus) is too scholarly for us to possibly comprehend at the undergraduate level? Does this establish him as an elitist, believing his word to be superior to ours? Why fluff up the facts? Just say what you need to say... My eighth grade social studies teacher, Mr. Rule (who was shortly after fired from the district, BUT regardless) taught us KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid. I think Woodford could use a KISS or two. Perhaps he's so caught up in the advocacy of music education and sort of fluffing our feathers as music educators, so to speak, that he does not realize the negative affects of his writing style. But is he really to blame? They say when you write, you should write to an audience of your peers... Is that then to say that we are understood to be Woodford's peers? I would hope not! I don't believe I have anywhere near the comprehension of music and education that he possesses.

Are we, in our CP III class, being taught in a manner directly in opposition of how we are being taught to teach? Are we a bunch of phonies and hypocrites? You decide... I'm curious to hear back!

Yours,
Disgruntled.

Dalsnooze.

What could be different about the way the current ed lab is being taught?

More than a Teacher

I am responding to Dave's blog called "Coke or Mountain Dew." Dave says that the role model is a title we give to teachers when they are in the classroom. They are most likely knowledgeable, wise, fair, and exemplary people. However, he implies that we forget that teachers are human beings who are vulnerable and susceptible to mistakes, wrongdoings, and unjust acts. No one is perfect and that doesn't make him or her a less respectable or worthy person. Therefore as he says, "students run to a person who has been in their shoes before." Students can connect to their teachers, because they see that the teacher has had experiences simliar to theirs. Teachers and students can engage in personal conversations. This is because the teacher cares about the student at a deeper level and the student is allowed to see the teacher as a human being.

I just started picked up a translation of "The Dhammapada" by Gil Fronsdal, which is a Buddhist scripture of the Buddhist path of life. I found some passages that describe how a sage or role model is certainly not perfect, but is always bettering himself through his life.

1) Irrigators guide water;
Fletchers shape arrows;
Carpenters fashion wood;
Sages tame themselves.

2) Greater in combat
Than a person who conquers
A thousand times a thousand people
Is the person who conquers herself.

3) As one instructs others,
So should one do oneself:
Only the self-controlled should restrain others.
Truly, it's hard to restrain oneself.

I have recently had an experience where I was able to connect to a professor at a more personal level. I was having a difficult time within the class, but she gave me the opportunity to call her at home and have a long conversation with her about what was wrong and how I was feeling towards the situation. I was very appreciative that she was open to talking to me on an emotional and personal level, and she could understand and relate to my experience. Although I wasn't having a problem that dealt outside the classroom, it is not everyday that I can approach a teacher with my concerns and expect support and sympathy in return. I have a stronger admiration and apprecation for this professor, because of the deeper student and teacher relationship.

the child and the "mature" adult

In reading both the Stauffer article this week and the Woodford, I must admit I am slightly disheartened by the view that we, as educators and “adults,” frequently have of students. In the Woodford, and I wished I had highlighted where I spotted this… regardless, on numerous occasions he referred to Dewey’s idea of creating a “mature” individual, or something to that affect. Also, in the Stauffer, she makes mention of current scholarship, in which many professionals see the compositional works of children to be futile, basic, and of little creative scope.
I suppose I am so frustrated with the fact that so many people, despite what we at WCC may think, still view children as empty vessels waiting to be filled. I would not be surprised if this thought even occurred to recent Westminster grads. The fact of the matter is: children are not empty vessels and piles of clay for us to mold. They are individuals with their own ideas and likes and dislikes. Certainly, children may be conditioned by society, but so can adults or anyone for that matter, at any time. I also believe there are many children that are more brilliant than some “adults.”
Which brings me to my next question, what qualifies a “mature adult”? Is it an age limit? Is it a certain salary? Is it a physical appearance? Is it the amount of knowledge one has obtained? Is it someone who has a driver’s license? Someone who doesn’t live with mom and dad? What makes an adult an adult? I think we, as college students, are currently in transition, but when you think about it, are we not acting in a very adult way right now? Which raises some more questions: are we just acting? Is that why we’re not considered to be adults yet, because we’re “acting”? And is there a difference between “acting adult” and “being adult”? Who’s to say when we’ve arrived? Maybe it’s on our 21 birthday, the first shot of tequila we have!
To drive the point home, one has to wonder, also, what is maturity, and how does one obtain it? According to Dewey, the goal of education is to cultivate “mature” individuals and ready them for society, but can one really teach someone to be mature, or is it something one has to learn on their own? Again, is there a difference between “acting mature” and “being mature”? Perhaps we all get so caught up in acting a certain way that is untrue to our young self that we trick ourselves into believing this ghost of a person, this mature self, is the best thing we have to offer our democracy and is the real “me.” God forbid a mature adult have energy and wear bright colors, and refuse to wear ties and skirts (not at the same time, but then again why not?!).
I feel as though you know you’re an adult when you wake up in the morning, waaay before you feel you should, get up, read the Wall Street Journal while eating a heaping bowl of bran flakes drowning in ultra low-fat, extra skim milk and sipping on black coffee (sweetened with one splenda… depending on the morning), grab your briefcase and mindlessly go to work, earn your paycheck, come home, watch CNN, check your emails, tidy the house, get ready for bed, go to bed before 11:00, and repeat. Sounds lame to me. I guess I just really have a strong opposition to teaching students to act mature and grown up when they are less than 20 years old. At the same time, I feel it is a huge disservice to the students to consider them children and kids and treat them as though they know nothing of the world. When push comes to shove, we all are living in the same world; we just have different views of it. None are wrong, but I feel like some are considered to be inferior compared to the “adult,” “mature,” cookie-cutter way. I think adults are the ones who need to step back and learn something from kids

Resonse

“The point that I wanted to make is that I think we have a very specific idea about what well roundedness is in today’s day and age. Maybe it is our job as individuals to not buy in to what the typical well-rounded individual needs to be and, rather, figure out for ourselves what life experiences we want and can take on.” This is a quote from Korey Terranova’s blog on being well rounded. I think that this brings up a great point. Now that people have put a certain definition to what being well rounded means, it is difficult for people to really do what they want with concerns to their future.

As Korey stated in her blog, these days it’s harder for kids to get into college. For example a college like Yale does not only want a student that has great grades, but a student that is “well rounded” as well. This meaning, a student who participates in extra curricular activities. This includes being involved in sports, academic clubs, music, student government, and volunteer activities. I guess it is possible for people to do these things, considering people are going to these schools that have these requirements. But, I don’t see how it could be very possible; it must take up all of the person’s time leaving them with no room to really be specific on one topic.

I think that it is better for someone to choose one specific career because then they can focus on one thing and try to become the best they can at that subject. When people start picking many different careers, I don’t think that they have as much knowledge in the subject as they could. College is the time where someone can choose what they want to do with their future. This is what it means in “education” to be well rounded.

There are other meanings for being well rounded as well. I think that just life in general there someone can be considered well rounded. This might mean someone who participates in a lot of activities. Someone who can do many different things, but when you think about it, you may be great in many different things, but how much can you really know on that matter when you have so many other things to worry about?

Two Thoughts

It is an interesting concept to say that a student needs to be well rounded to be more “valuable” to society. It is a concept of which I am torn on. Part of me agrees that a student or a person cannot merely be good in one thing. It would be like only exercising your right arm and not any other muscle. Working the right arm is a great thing, but it alone can’t accomplish as many things as if the whole body was exercised. On the other hand, a person can over work and burn themselves out in trying to be well rounded, which ultimately doesn’t accomplish anything.
To completely change focus I wish to share something I cannot get my thoughts around. In my practicum, my co-op said that once the students enter into the school they lose many of their rights. I can’t help but ask why. The rights were not specified in our discussion, but the idea that rights are taken away does not sit well with me, and does not seem to fit with the idea of democracy. If the schooling system is truly supposed to be a catalyst for the future society that the students will be a part of, then students rights must not change simply because they are in a building. I understand part of the reason why this is the case is for safety reasons in the case of taking away a student’s right to bare arms, but when freedom of speech is taken away, there is a problem. It makes sense that there are things that a student cannot say to one another or to a teacher for the sake of allowing things to flow, but there also comes along a restriction with this. If a student is always worried about how they are going to word things, then there is an unneeded obstacle for that student to participate. Rather than simply saying that a student may or may not say certain things, I think that it is the teacher’s job to allow the students to speak as they will but then show them what type of speech is the most productive for society. Society needs to not change within the walls of a school. Again, if a school is supposed to be educating students for the “real world,” this idea of taking away student’s rights is creating a fake environment. This is a concept that I would love to hear what you all have to say about.

Teaching in other country

From attending Bradley’s drumming workshop, I felt that it was a real “multiculturalism lesson”. I think in order to teach multiculturalism and to understand different cultures; it would be best, if we traveled around the world and have real cultural experiences. However, Prof. Bradley provided us a great opportunity that we could experience Ghanaian culture without traveling there.
From reading Dave’s blog, “teaching music in other country” got my attention. What can we do as a music educator? I believe, before we even try to take action of changing something, we should try to adapt, learn and understand their culture. Without learning and understanding their culture, it would be nonsense to educate people in another country. Therefore, it would be hard for them to accept the new idea from someone, especially, foreigners who does not understand their culture. Like what Dave said, “How do we go to another country and tell people how to live?” If it makes a positive influence to others, I believe, it is necessary to help them. I think “help them” contains more of a positive meaning than “educate them”.
An issue like gender bias in Ghana is a serious problem. It is not just about woman’s right or human right issue. This issue reminds me of the TV show, “American next top model”. There was a probable winner who came from Ghana. She shared her story about her terrible experiences at Ghana. There she got sexually abused by several men that caused her to become sterility. She said there are so many victims who went through this terrible situation.
For us to do as a music educator is we should help them as another human being instead of educating them and to make changes in a view of another foreigner’s eyes. I think if we connect these concepts of teaching music in other countries, then it will be much easier to make a difference. We are all human beings and so in order to understand others better we should see people from other countries as another human being.

Faux Democracy

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles ABOUT freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

I could not have stated what Democracy isn't any better. Democracy is not freedom. I completely agree with my first quoted paragraph in saying democracy is not what it used to be. The Bush administration has flip flopped my view of democracy by backing their decisions with military and political muscle. I feel like the Bush Administration has used Democracy as a weapon to fight so called 'terrorism'.

"Democracy" by Langston Hughes

Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.

I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my own two feet
And own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.

Wyncoop,moriah(2008). Langston Hughes.

Moriah's choice of poem as a blog is brilliant. Langston Hughes captures the very essence of freedom and the difference between democracy and the later. Do not penalize her for lack of words, I beg you. Occam's Razor- the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Blog Ripper

We live in the information age where we have a plethora of music available to us, at our fingertips. (4) There is no doubt that technology and the internet shapes not only how we teach but also what we do in our everyday lives. (4) Who is to blame for things happening? (1) A leader takes all the blame. (2) All too often music teachers are led to believe that performance encompasses the only priority by which we teach. (11) Unfortunately for most of our secondary or elementary aged students, they could not care less about performance in our society. Rather than having one leader to follow, each person within the community holds a sense of accountability. (11) In a society where today’s students are preparing for 11 careers, how is it necessarily possible for them to be great in a particular field if it is expected that they dabble in so many others? (6) I am still not at closure with this idea of there being a difference and/or a similarity between being prepared and being well rounded. (7) Specifics come in once a student is in college. (5)

There is no definite structure to a well rounded student only general guidelines.(1) Focusing until the students become an expert on a certain subject and finally, we can focus on other things.(3) There are influences that higher education systems have that require students to be in so many activities or they will not get into a 'good' school. (1) This brings me to something that has been bothering me for quite a while. music ed. majors at Westminster are required to be well rounded individuals who go into the world to mold the minds of future America. (1) There is no definite structure to a well rounded student (1), there is a foundation of morals and ethics. (2) Unfortunately, the reality is many communities do calculate success based on the dollar sign attached to the front of a figure. (9) It starts with money but how much money people do or do not have causes them to live a particular way which in turn creates a different culture and way of life for each group. (4) There is a sense of trust between people, and thus people are willing to support one another. (8)
While I do feel that there are a number of different factors that contribute to its success, I also believe that the relationships that make up that community are what drive it forward, (6) characterized by an ethical commitment. (10)




Andrew - 1
Brittany - 2
Jai - 3
John - 4
Katie - 5
Korey - 6
Moriah - 7
Nancy - 8
Ryan - 9
Schmidt -10
Tuna - 11

As you can see, I wrote this in the style of Girl Talk or Woodford.  Thanks everyone :D

Food for Thought

Dave’s blog is the blog that I have decided to focus upon this week.  I was interested in responding to his thoughts because they made me think a lot about topics such as women’s rights, the authenticity of interdisciplinary education, and the role of the educator as a teacher of morals.

I do not specifically remember what Professor Bradley said regarding women’s rights in Ghana, but I do remember her mentioning that women were very rarely, if ever, master drummers. While this might seem like an act of oppression on women’s rights, perhaps we do not have to look at it as something that runs that deep. While this might be an example of women being viewed as inferior in Ghana, maybe women are never master drummers because it is merely tradition. Maybe women do not opt to be drummers because it is such a physically taxing experience.  Professor Bradley did mention how the drummers would play for hours on end with only a twenty-minute break.  In the United States, the construction business is a predominantly male field.  Is it because women are not capable of doing construction work? No. The truth of the matter is that construction is something that tends to be a male profession due to its physical demands.  That’s not to say that women are not capable or allowed to be part of that field, but it just happens to be a job that is chiefly male.  This is not something that we, as Americans, are up in arms about.  It is something that we see as being normal.  Now, if someone were to say that women are not allowed to be construction workers because they are incapable of such a job, then I could understand being upset about such a close-minded statement.  I do not recall, however, whether or not the culture in Ghana purposely keeps women from becoming drummers or if it is just a tradition that is considered normal amongst the general population. While it is a definite possibility that the lack of women drummers is a result of a female inferiority mindset, I do not know if that is a conclusion that we should be so quick to make.

As far as the idea of learning and teaching Ghanian drumming in a way that is authentic and that stays true to the culture, I do believe that as educators we should know exactly how their music is carried out.  That meaning that we not only learn the music itself, but the context in which it is taught and performed as well.  As far as the transference into the classroom, however, I do not know if it is necessary to maintain authenticity in every aspect. While it is ideal to keep the experience as authentic as possible, it is also our job as educators to teach in a way that is most appropriate for own classroom community and in a way that allows everyone to experience what is being taught.  Women might not be drummers in Ghana, but that should not mean that we exclude them from learning how to drum.  Being aware that the Ghanian culture teaches and performs in a very specific way is something that we might want to mention to students, but the heart of what we are teaching is music and everyone should have an equal opportunity to experience that.

Lastly, Dave’s mention of “moral teachers” is one that got me thinking a lot about morals in the classroom and how far educators should go when teaching morals and values rather than strictly sticking to the curriculum.  I honestly do not know where exactly to draw the line. I do think, however, that the teaching of morals is inevitable if you have a human being teaching you.  There is no way that one’s morals or values will not be displayed in the way he/she teaches, but as educators, we should try to be as un-biased as possible, despite our own personal beliefs.  Presenting more than one side to every argument or situation not only encourages students to think outside the box, but it encourages them to think for themselves. Yes, we are supposed to be teachers, but our ultimate goal should be promote a greater sense of individual thought.  They will not always be students in our classrooms and when they are gone, we hope that they carry what we teach into the real world; the world beyond the classroom.  If this is so, then teaching only the values and morals that we hold will never achieve this goal. 

"Democracy by Hughes

"Democracy" by Langston Hughes

Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.

I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my own two feet
And own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.

Cops and Robbers and Facilitators

Brittany Godfrey brings up the idea of rules and why they are created. This ties so much into my praxis site and how the teacher is very structured. Godfrey states, "The actions that are not allowed to take place are those that take away from the freedoms of others, or in other words are those actions that will take away a right of another." My practicum coop strives for structure and ordinance and on Wednesdays, his classes are at another school. It totally throws him off that he is in the band room and does not have a smart board or has the same structure as the other school. Although he tries to adapt lesson plans, he does not personalize lessons for the new environment. There are so many instruments in the band room and even at his usual site that he does not use. It is because he is afraid of discourse.

It's interesting that at Westminster, we are all about changing the classroom, reforming lessons, and transforming the way students learn. But when we get out and teach, we see the "cook book" lesson plans from method books, smartboard activities and interactive movies. Are we robbing children of their freedom to learn by sitting in front of a smart board to learn staff notes. Or are we robbing from our freedom to teach students our way. The freedom to teach students through conscientization. The responsibility to teach students and for students to teach themselves.

Now I am not docking on my coop teacher for using cook book lesson plans. He is not bad at all, but I am know there are teachers everywhere that do this. Godfrey goes on to say, "It is against the law because there is an underlying moral and ethic that you do not take from others what they don’t give to you." What are your morals and how do your aesthetics affect you will teach a class. As for Dewey, "Democracy is a moral obligation. It is an obligation to have social equality so that there are not a select few people that are the mere dictators taking away from a person’s right to freedom," (Godfrey). Are we robbing our students of their freedom to learn?

It is my sole duty as a practicum students to give every child at my site a membranophone and give it hell's storm. I am ready for discourse and so are my students and it will be something they will remember. Of course there will be structure but not created solely by me. The new structure will become an example of how team work can create and facilitate progress. Most importantly it display the antithesis of discourse and chaos. I am focused on helping create a community in each of my classes. Each student will have a task whether it's playing the ostinate, being a back up singer or prima ballerina. Everyone will learn to cooperate as a whole. I just have a feeling this won't come around until I'm probably done with praxis, but it isn't about just me anymore.

What has your moral obligation, as a teacher, done for their learning?