I find that one of the most difficult aspects of teaching elementary music is only getting to see them once a week, for a limited amount of time. Due to holidays, teacher workdays, professional development and an assembly, I have seen my Friday classes two times in the last eight weeks. Staying connected to my students is difficult with a normal weekly schedule, but we've become strangers with the "Friday situation".
There is hope and it's name is technology. Through a great web tool called Edmodo, I have been able to share with my students, collaborate, give reminders and provide online documents, videos, audios, and websites to keep the lessons moving forward to some extent. The students have grabbed onto this tool wholeheartedly. The technology staff is taking the time to teach them how to use the tool and correct educational environment behavior versus social networking, and the students are catching on.
Unfortunately, the teachers at my school don't have the eagerness to learn something new, willingness to invest time to save time, and the understanding of how important it is to teach 21st century skills to our students. Learning (and teaching) doesn't stop when students walk out of the brick building. And I'm not referring to "homework". By using the 21st century tools, students are excited to go home and continue their learning, in a unique and engaging manner. Some innovative teachers have gone one step further and designed flipped classrooms.
There are so many tools out there to engage students and develop a love of learning, but not enough time to do it all. My students in class ask me "when are you going to .....?" on my Edmodo website. Because my students crave this connection and source of information, I try to set aside time each day to work on it. The saddest question I got from a student was "when is my classroom teacher going to get on?"
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Musicianship improves with....?
As a Kodaly music educator, musicianship is a very important aspect of my life. I started college as a music ed major with voice as my "instrument", but switched to piano after two years. Initially I was focused on secondary choral education, but that interest quickly changed to elementary general. So, I sing and play. I still spend a lot of time teaching choral music, but to elementary students. And I began teaching recorders as a part of my curriculum to fourth and fifth grade students.
I've found that as I teach vocal production/choral techniques, and instrument techniques, my own personal understanding, approach, and experiences play a big part in how I teach. The more (understanding/approaches/experiences) I have, the better I am at teaching the students. It's amazing to look at my progress as a musician and see how my teaching has changed with my progression through musicianship. They really are connected. Every time I figure a different way to approach something as a musician, I think "wow, I need to teach this to my students!"
A year ago, I decided to take up the guitar. First, let me tell you there are a lot of differences between piano and guitar playing. One thing, guitarists don't often read music from the staff. Then you have different hand positions and finger numbering. But, the experience has improved my musicianship. Being able to pick up a new instrument gives me more experiences to draw on in teaching my students. And, of course, my students think I'm really cool because I play the guitar.
I began playing the piano for church services and their choir. The choral director made the comment last week that it was really nice to have a pianist who also sings, because my understanding of voices comes out in the way I play and helps the choir so much more. Strangely enough, I had never thought how my choral background affected the way I play.
I've also found that when I'm playing or reading music, I'm now starting to analyze the chords and progressions. Music theory was not a favorite subject in college, even though I was good at it. (Math!!) But, strangely enough, I'm now embracing it as something that explains the "whys" of music, helps with memory, and improves me and my performance on the whole as a musician.
So, musicianship improves with... experience, age, practice, time.... And performance improves with musicianship.
I've found that as I teach vocal production/choral techniques, and instrument techniques, my own personal understanding, approach, and experiences play a big part in how I teach. The more (understanding/approaches/experiences) I have, the better I am at teaching the students. It's amazing to look at my progress as a musician and see how my teaching has changed with my progression through musicianship. They really are connected. Every time I figure a different way to approach something as a musician, I think "wow, I need to teach this to my students!"
A year ago, I decided to take up the guitar. First, let me tell you there are a lot of differences between piano and guitar playing. One thing, guitarists don't often read music from the staff. Then you have different hand positions and finger numbering. But, the experience has improved my musicianship. Being able to pick up a new instrument gives me more experiences to draw on in teaching my students. And, of course, my students think I'm really cool because I play the guitar.
I began playing the piano for church services and their choir. The choral director made the comment last week that it was really nice to have a pianist who also sings, because my understanding of voices comes out in the way I play and helps the choir so much more. Strangely enough, I had never thought how my choral background affected the way I play.
I've also found that when I'm playing or reading music, I'm now starting to analyze the chords and progressions. Music theory was not a favorite subject in college, even though I was good at it. (Math!!) But, strangely enough, I'm now embracing it as something that explains the "whys" of music, helps with memory, and improves me and my performance on the whole as a musician.
So, musicianship improves with... experience, age, practice, time.... And performance improves with musicianship.
How will technology affect the way we read music?
An interesting comment was made in a workshop that got me to thinking. It was in reference to how it isn't important for music teachers to teach our students to read/write music. The instructor commented that most of today's contemporary musicians do not read music, but that each musician has their own method for reading/notating music. And that the method may not necessarily be a paper/pencil method. Now I can see how some pop/country guitarists notate using tabs, or chord charts. And drummers - well... And maybe some singers just read the lyrics and memorize the melody by ear (listening to a recording). But are the pop/country musicians all musically illiterate? And is this acceptable?
Even though I'm a middle aged music teacher, I still try to think outside the box. Just because "that's the way I learned to do it, it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you" attitude has dominated education for decades, I am willing to let it go and look at what's in my future and the future of my students. Just because we have read traditional staff notation for thousands of years, that doesn't mean musicians will read music staff notation in next 100 years. And just because we have been reading "books" for thousands of years, that doesn't mean our grandchildren will ever see/touch/use a book. (Already, my husband does a lot of his reading on a Nook.) So, can I let this go? Will my teaching staff notation to my students be relevant to them? Will symphonies be playing concertos using something totally different from the last few centuries?
Over 10 years ago, I read an interesting periodical article (yes, they're still being published and read) about bands and orchestras that use a tablet inserted on a pole (similar to the base of a music stand) to read their digital music. Some of the neat aspects of music on a stick (or digital music) was the ability to backlight the music, zoom/adjust size of the music, and turn the page with the quick flick of a finger. BUT, this is still notation, just not on paper anymore.
So, if there isn't staff notation reading, will it all be by ear? Will it be by some other method of notation shorthand, maybe using something similar to stick notation (see Kodaly method)? What about communicating phrasing, articulation, dynamics, tempo, meter? Will this be conveyed at all in some alternative music notation?
I don't know if I can let this one go. I think it would be similar to telling today's teachers that teaching children to read is archaic and isn't relevant to their future. I can admit there are some successful performers (I can't call them musicians, can I?) do not need to read music to achieve their dreams. But, knowing how to read music allows musicians to pick up any instrument, be shown how to produce music on that instrument, and be able to play music. Maybe this is the first step in separating a performer from a musician.
Even though I'm a middle aged music teacher, I still try to think outside the box. Just because "that's the way I learned to do it, it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you" attitude has dominated education for decades, I am willing to let it go and look at what's in my future and the future of my students. Just because we have read traditional staff notation for thousands of years, that doesn't mean musicians will read music staff notation in next 100 years. And just because we have been reading "books" for thousands of years, that doesn't mean our grandchildren will ever see/touch/use a book. (Already, my husband does a lot of his reading on a Nook.) So, can I let this go? Will my teaching staff notation to my students be relevant to them? Will symphonies be playing concertos using something totally different from the last few centuries?
Over 10 years ago, I read an interesting periodical article (yes, they're still being published and read) about bands and orchestras that use a tablet inserted on a pole (similar to the base of a music stand) to read their digital music. Some of the neat aspects of music on a stick (or digital music) was the ability to backlight the music, zoom/adjust size of the music, and turn the page with the quick flick of a finger. BUT, this is still notation, just not on paper anymore.
So, if there isn't staff notation reading, will it all be by ear? Will it be by some other method of notation shorthand, maybe using something similar to stick notation (see Kodaly method)? What about communicating phrasing, articulation, dynamics, tempo, meter? Will this be conveyed at all in some alternative music notation?
I don't know if I can let this one go. I think it would be similar to telling today's teachers that teaching children to read is archaic and isn't relevant to their future. I can admit there are some successful performers (I can't call them musicians, can I?) do not need to read music to achieve their dreams. But, knowing how to read music allows musicians to pick up any instrument, be shown how to produce music on that instrument, and be able to play music. Maybe this is the first step in separating a performer from a musician.
Friday, August 19, 2011
The Dumbing Down of America's Potential Musicians
As a music educator, I sometimes wonder how many potential "Mozarts, Beethovens, and Bachs" are being destroyed in the music classroom. I can positively or negatively affect almost 1,000 students every year. I know very few of my students will go on to choose music as a career. Bu they will always be consumers of music. And many will go on to be musicians - even if it's only for their own enjoyment.
We are being trained to teach cross-curricular. Yes - my 45 minute, once a week class isn't only for teaching music, but math, reading, social studies, science, social skills, and character education. I wonder - is the math teacher (who teaches 90 minutes 5 times a week) teaching music? Is the reading teacher teaching music? WHO'S teaching music to these students? It can't be me - I'm teaching everything else! Is music class only relevant because a more important subject can be taught by using music? NOW I'm being told that I am also responsible for assessing the math lesson I'm teaching in the music classroom!?!
I know that music classes have wonderful connections to other subjects. Song texts give us great insights to historical events and lifestyles. Science is covered in many songs about nature. The understanding of rhythm is firmly based in mathematics. And just the ability to read music enhances reading. These are natural cross-curricular applications. I can look at any of my relevant lessons and find at least one other subject that can be connected. But I should not design a lesson purely for the intent of teaching another subject. Just as the math teacher is not going to design a lesson simply to teach music.
America's music classrooms are being dumbed down when our students can't read or write music.
In some of the music education workshops I've attended, I've seen wonderful lessons for keeping beat, how to play beautiful orchestrations on instruments - by rote, fun dances and games, great ways to teach improvisation, and gorgeous part singing songs. The focus of the lessons? Beat, playing, improvising, moving, part singing. That's all and good. We need that in our classroom. But where is the music literacy? Now that you can keep the beat - can you add rhythm to that? Now that you can play an instrument - can you start reading the music to play it? Now that you can play a game or a dance - can you identify which music notation on the board is the one we just sang? Now that you can improvise - can you compose? Now that you can part sing - can you read an octavo in a choral ensemble?
I'm so grateful our students get reading class every day, for 90 minutes. I expect that by 1st or 2nd grade, these students will be reading independently. But they didn't start learning to read in Kindergarten. They started learning to read the first time someone spoke to them - "hear the language". The next step in learning to read is when someone reads to them - "see the language". They hear the words for years and years before we started showing them the letters, identifying the sounds of the letters, and putting them together to make words.
Music teachers do a great job in the first steps of teaching music reading. First the students have to "hear the language" - we sing to them. Then they have to "see the language" - we put music on the board or in their hands. At this point, they still can't read, but they have visual exposure to the language. This should go on for years - preferably before they go to Kindergarten. Now it's time to "show them the letters" (notes on a staff, rhythm values), identify the sounds of the letters (sing with solfege or absolute pitch, tap the rhythms) and put them together (sight sing). This is music literacy. If we're so busy with teaching other subjects and providing less relevant lessons - how many of us music teachers are producing literate musicians?
As music teachers, we have many teaching responsibilities: singing, playing, improvising, composing, reading, writing, listening, evaluating, relating to other areas, and understanding music history. That's a challenge for once a week, 45 minutes. It's daunting if we're responsible for teaching other subject areas in addition to our own.
We are being trained to teach cross-curricular. Yes - my 45 minute, once a week class isn't only for teaching music, but math, reading, social studies, science, social skills, and character education. I wonder - is the math teacher (who teaches 90 minutes 5 times a week) teaching music? Is the reading teacher teaching music? WHO'S teaching music to these students? It can't be me - I'm teaching everything else! Is music class only relevant because a more important subject can be taught by using music? NOW I'm being told that I am also responsible for assessing the math lesson I'm teaching in the music classroom!?!
America's music classrooms are being dumbed down when we are expected to cover all subject areas in our once a week music class.
I know that music classes have wonderful connections to other subjects. Song texts give us great insights to historical events and lifestyles. Science is covered in many songs about nature. The understanding of rhythm is firmly based in mathematics. And just the ability to read music enhances reading. These are natural cross-curricular applications. I can look at any of my relevant lessons and find at least one other subject that can be connected. But I should not design a lesson purely for the intent of teaching another subject. Just as the math teacher is not going to design a lesson simply to teach music.
America's music classrooms are being dumbed down when our students can't read or write music.
In some of the music education workshops I've attended, I've seen wonderful lessons for keeping beat, how to play beautiful orchestrations on instruments - by rote, fun dances and games, great ways to teach improvisation, and gorgeous part singing songs. The focus of the lessons? Beat, playing, improvising, moving, part singing. That's all and good. We need that in our classroom. But where is the music literacy? Now that you can keep the beat - can you add rhythm to that? Now that you can play an instrument - can you start reading the music to play it? Now that you can play a game or a dance - can you identify which music notation on the board is the one we just sang? Now that you can improvise - can you compose? Now that you can part sing - can you read an octavo in a choral ensemble?
I'm so grateful our students get reading class every day, for 90 minutes. I expect that by 1st or 2nd grade, these students will be reading independently. But they didn't start learning to read in Kindergarten. They started learning to read the first time someone spoke to them - "hear the language". The next step in learning to read is when someone reads to them - "see the language". They hear the words for years and years before we started showing them the letters, identifying the sounds of the letters, and putting them together to make words.
Music teachers do a great job in the first steps of teaching music reading. First the students have to "hear the language" - we sing to them. Then they have to "see the language" - we put music on the board or in their hands. At this point, they still can't read, but they have visual exposure to the language. This should go on for years - preferably before they go to Kindergarten. Now it's time to "show them the letters" (notes on a staff, rhythm values), identify the sounds of the letters (sing with solfege or absolute pitch, tap the rhythms) and put them together (sight sing). This is music literacy. If we're so busy with teaching other subjects and providing less relevant lessons - how many of us music teachers are producing literate musicians?
As music teachers, we have many teaching responsibilities: singing, playing, improvising, composing, reading, writing, listening, evaluating, relating to other areas, and understanding music history. That's a challenge for once a week, 45 minutes. It's daunting if we're responsible for teaching other subject areas in addition to our own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)