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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When I'm reading the Woodford I usually just skip over stuff I don't understand fully and stick to things I do understand. I'm just trying to absorb what I can and make it relevant to me. I don't think we need to understand every single sentence of the book. I think it's better to understand the concept's that are trying to be portrayed. I suck at english, so I just pick and choose what I can understand, and the rest is lost and its partially my fault, but also the authors for making it so damn confusing. If someone's going to spin around in circles trying to explain something then I'm just going to flat out not listen.
disgruntled...I felt a light bulb go on in my head when you had mentioned the fact that "Language has a large part to do with the receptiveness of students, and the willingness of students to participate in the class." I mean, haven't we spent about two class periods talking about (a.) the use of generalities in our papers and our lack of being specific enough (b.) how our language affects our classrooms, how we word things and communicate to others IS a majority of what we want our student's to receive and (c.) taking a look at gifts, whether they are ours as facilitators of lessons or our students? Number one, the Block book may have been frustrating to read, but at least we could understand where he was coming from. We clearly saw what we agreed with and disagreed with, thus forming our own beliefs, values, and theories on how we can establish communities in our own classrooms. Number two, since the first day of class I just remember breaking down the simplest words like concept and how many twists and shakes we could get out of that combination of seven letters. Funny how words like Abstract Reason or Postmusical Age means nothing to us now. The "concept" of these words go a bit over our heads...and why I do exactly what Dani does when reading (because God knows those words aren't even in the Webster's dictionary yet), it does encourage us to look up these concepts ourselves and find other readings (like the Gould) which we don't understand. Point being: there are a thousand other educational books that we could easily start a CP conversation over. Why are we limited to Woodford? In the absence of my Woodford reading, I've actually been reading a book edited by Thomas Oldenski, a future visitor to our school this coming March. One of the contributors in the book compares education in the beginning to a universal understanding. Everything in our universe follows some sort of pattern. Likewise, the education system has a sort of ebb and flow. If we disrupt that flow with materials chaos begins. Hope my point is clear. I'm saving an elaboration of (c) for my blog...
Post a Comment