Response #1: Wednesday January 10th, 2018
Rose, L. S., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘the elements’: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 12(3): 45–64.
This article caused me to feel conflicted, as at first, I was frustrated and disagreed. I asked, how could we teach music without some sort of academic approach to it? Some students learn more effectively through this academic approach that is taught by the elements of music curricula. As I continued, I realized that the elements of music approach to teaching music is not necessarily “academic”, rather, it tells students what to think about music. When the elements of music are taught to a student, the opportunity for the student to think critically for his or herself is taken away. If the music educator allows students to go beyond the curriculum involving the elements of music, students are able to describe the music in a way that makes sense to them and relates to their past experiences. This allows bonding in the classroom as students can connect through shared experiences of listening or discover new ways of interpreting what they hear. By the end of the reading, I felt as though I understood what the authors were saying and I was in agreement with them.
It surprised me to find out that only 5.7% of students enroll in Grade 12 music. I think that if learning music was more student-directed, then more students would take music class in high school. The list in the curriculum that defines what the elements of music are does not sum up every students’ experience of music. In high school, I even struggled to define what I was hearing by using the list of the elements that the teacher handed out in class. Everyone’s ear hears music in a different way and the curriculum should represent this diversity in the classroom. There are many unique ways through which people experience music. If students are not confined to the set list of elements, they are able to explore what music really means to them, whether that be through describing the tune as “groovy”, using gestures and movements, or comparing the song to a scene.
This article inspired me to reflect on music education in a new way. It made me realize that each student hears music differently and uses different methods to describe his or her experience with music, not just the elements of music outlined in the curriculum. It also allowed me to reflect on my high school music education and think about how my experience would have changed had I had the opportunity to share my experiences with music beyond the elements that we were strictly taught. Overall, this article has altered my perspective of the elements curricula, and the effect that this curriculum has on music students and their experiences with music in the classroom.
Rose, L. S., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘the elements’: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 12(3): 45–64.
This article caused me to feel conflicted, as at first, I was frustrated and disagreed. I asked, how could we teach music without some sort of academic approach to it? Some students learn more effectively through this academic approach that is taught by the elements of music curricula. As I continued, I realized that the elements of music approach to teaching music is not necessarily “academic”, rather, it tells students what to think about music. When the elements of music are taught to a student, the opportunity for the student to think critically for his or herself is taken away. If the music educator allows students to go beyond the curriculum involving the elements of music, students are able to describe the music in a way that makes sense to them and relates to their past experiences. This allows bonding in the classroom as students can connect through shared experiences of listening or discover new ways of interpreting what they hear. By the end of the reading, I felt as though I understood what the authors were saying and I was in agreement with them.
It surprised me to find out that only 5.7% of students enroll in Grade 12 music. I think that if learning music was more student-directed, then more students would take music class in high school. The list in the curriculum that defines what the elements of music are does not sum up every students’ experience of music. In high school, I even struggled to define what I was hearing by using the list of the elements that the teacher handed out in class. Everyone’s ear hears music in a different way and the curriculum should represent this diversity in the classroom. There are many unique ways through which people experience music. If students are not confined to the set list of elements, they are able to explore what music really means to them, whether that be through describing the tune as “groovy”, using gestures and movements, or comparing the song to a scene.
This article inspired me to reflect on music education in a new way. It made me realize that each student hears music differently and uses different methods to describe his or her experience with music, not just the elements of music outlined in the curriculum. It also allowed me to reflect on my high school music education and think about how my experience would have changed had I had the opportunity to share my experiences with music beyond the elements that we were strictly taught. Overall, this article has altered my perspective of the elements curricula, and the effect that this curriculum has on music students and their experiences with music in the classroom.
Feedback:
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. What a powerful transformation you’ve shared here! It’s interesting that even you, as someone who connected with the ways you learned music, still found those methods limiting. Imagine how unwelcoming it must have felt for those outside that 5.7% of students who remained enrolled in music instruction by grade 12, and it is no surprise they did not identify with what was being offered by their schools. I think the way you’ve shown you are open to considering other perspectives demonstrates an important quality that can be quite powerful. What would you say to these authors?
Best,
Eric
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. What a powerful transformation you’ve shared here! It’s interesting that even you, as someone who connected with the ways you learned music, still found those methods limiting. Imagine how unwelcoming it must have felt for those outside that 5.7% of students who remained enrolled in music instruction by grade 12, and it is no surprise they did not identify with what was being offered by their schools. I think the way you’ve shown you are open to considering other perspectives demonstrates an important quality that can be quite powerful. What would you say to these authors?
Best,
Eric
Response #2: Sunday January 21st, 2018
Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57) 2, pp.22-24.
I was surprised that I could very strongly relate to this article. I agree with the author in saying that music education currently does cause the musician to be vulnerable in the class setting. I think that the creativity that the author describes as well as freedom to explore in the music classroom is beneficial for the student in many ways. As the author says, this approach to music education allows students to be co-learners. I like the idea of the teacher and the student working together in order to find what and how the student needs to be taught. My question to the author would be how can the teacher explore different and creative ways of teaching while still enforcing the endless practice and hard, dedicated work that it takes in order to master an instrument? Learning an instrument may not be completely black and white, as the author references, but it does require strict and regimented practice that may not be enforced through this new method of music education. However, I do agree that music should be taught in a way that the individual can feel free to experiment with learning. My proposal is that while music teachers should try out new and creative pedagogical approaches, the old method of scheduled and strict practice should not be thrown away entirely. I agree with the author when she says that there must be balance in music education in order to make musicians feel comfortable with being vulnerable and going outside what’s considered the norms of music making.
I have experienced exactly the vulnerability that the author describes in this article in my high school jazz band. I was new to improvisation and shocked that there was no real right or wrong way to play this style of music. When it was my turn to improvise on the piano, I froze. The teacher got angry at me and discouraged me from ever going back to jazz band. From then on, I felt extremely vulnerable when I had the chance to improvise or experiment with creativity on an instrument. Until I read this article, I had dismissed that experience as simply when I found out that I was not talented at playing jazz and now I realize that this was an example of the vulnerability that our music curriculum fosters in musicians. It frustrates me that I did not realize this sooner, as I may have missed out on countless opportunities to expand my musicianship by taking new and creatives risks in my practice as a musician. Now that I am aware of this, I can better address my vulnerability when it comes to musical creativity and challenge it as a musician as well as teach in a way that harbors experimentation and the confidence to try new things in a musical setting within my future classroom.
Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57) 2, pp.22-24.
I was surprised that I could very strongly relate to this article. I agree with the author in saying that music education currently does cause the musician to be vulnerable in the class setting. I think that the creativity that the author describes as well as freedom to explore in the music classroom is beneficial for the student in many ways. As the author says, this approach to music education allows students to be co-learners. I like the idea of the teacher and the student working together in order to find what and how the student needs to be taught. My question to the author would be how can the teacher explore different and creative ways of teaching while still enforcing the endless practice and hard, dedicated work that it takes in order to master an instrument? Learning an instrument may not be completely black and white, as the author references, but it does require strict and regimented practice that may not be enforced through this new method of music education. However, I do agree that music should be taught in a way that the individual can feel free to experiment with learning. My proposal is that while music teachers should try out new and creative pedagogical approaches, the old method of scheduled and strict practice should not be thrown away entirely. I agree with the author when she says that there must be balance in music education in order to make musicians feel comfortable with being vulnerable and going outside what’s considered the norms of music making.
I have experienced exactly the vulnerability that the author describes in this article in my high school jazz band. I was new to improvisation and shocked that there was no real right or wrong way to play this style of music. When it was my turn to improvise on the piano, I froze. The teacher got angry at me and discouraged me from ever going back to jazz band. From then on, I felt extremely vulnerable when I had the chance to improvise or experiment with creativity on an instrument. Until I read this article, I had dismissed that experience as simply when I found out that I was not talented at playing jazz and now I realize that this was an example of the vulnerability that our music curriculum fosters in musicians. It frustrates me that I did not realize this sooner, as I may have missed out on countless opportunities to expand my musicianship by taking new and creatives risks in my practice as a musician. Now that I am aware of this, I can better address my vulnerability when it comes to musical creativity and challenge it as a musician as well as teach in a way that harbors experimentation and the confidence to try new things in a musical setting within my future classroom.
Feedback:
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In class Wednesday, I mentioned examining our goals. Your question for the author about “enforcing the endless practice and hard, dedicated work that it takes in order to master an instrument” makes me wonder. If mastering an instrument (probably worth considering-what does that mean?) is the goal, then teaching practices would likely be different than would be appropriate if the goal were different- for example cultivating a lifelong love of music, learning enough guitar to play around a campfire, being able to jam in a rock band, or play happy birthday on piano. I think the story you shared about your experience in your high school jazz band is important for realizing the impact of making those moments of vulnerability less frightening. Also, let’s not lose sight of the fact that even though she starts with the risk-taking inherent in music making as a student, the vulnerability the Dawe is really getting at is the uncertainty of allowing students’ needs and interests to direct instructional content and practices as a teacher. So, while you’ve got a strong sense of how significant that would be as a student, I encourage you to think about how you could/would embrace it as a teacher!
Best,
Eric
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In class Wednesday, I mentioned examining our goals. Your question for the author about “enforcing the endless practice and hard, dedicated work that it takes in order to master an instrument” makes me wonder. If mastering an instrument (probably worth considering-what does that mean?) is the goal, then teaching practices would likely be different than would be appropriate if the goal were different- for example cultivating a lifelong love of music, learning enough guitar to play around a campfire, being able to jam in a rock band, or play happy birthday on piano. I think the story you shared about your experience in your high school jazz band is important for realizing the impact of making those moments of vulnerability less frightening. Also, let’s not lose sight of the fact that even though she starts with the risk-taking inherent in music making as a student, the vulnerability the Dawe is really getting at is the uncertainty of allowing students’ needs and interests to direct instructional content and practices as a teacher. So, while you’ve got a strong sense of how significant that would be as a student, I encourage you to think about how you could/would embrace it as a teacher!
Best,
Eric
Reading #3: Thursday January 25th, 2018
Wasiak, E. (2017) Unmasking the Hidden Curriculum in Canadian Music Education Canadian Music Educator.
I agree with many things the author has to say in this article. I agree that different cultures should be represented in music education today, and that the music we teach is extremely Eurocentric. Not only is the music played in music classrooms today Eurocentric, but so is the theory that musicians are taught and the history that we pass down to the next generation. I liked how the author referred to the axiom, “We teach our students, not our subject”. This is important to live by as a music educator, as each classroom is fully of diversity; this is proved in the article when the author states the fact that one of every five Canadians was born outside Canada , that the indigenous Canadian population is growing, and that individuals who identify as female or LQBTQ make over half of our population. I was very surprised at these facts, considering that this diversity fails to be recognized in not only our music education, but our society. I find that society is under the impression that white males still make up the majority of the population in Canada. Discovering these facts was a wake-up call for me. While many people think that the acceptance of diversity in Canada has improved and social issues such as hegemony, oppression, and exclusion are gone, they are not. This is obvious when looking at the music education curriculum. The majority of the concepts taught focus on the white male composers. Subtitles such as “Females in Music” or “Middle Eastern Music” create the assumption that these are not “normal” for us to experience and alienates those for whom do consider this “normal”. We enforce these concepts and then wonder why more students are not continuing on in music! The majority of the population cannot relate to the material we are teaching, and therefore feel alienated, excluded, and oppressed by their learning.
On the other hand, I know it’s impossible to include every culture, religion, language, and sexual orientation in the material we teach, there is too much diversity in our world to cover everything, and diversity is only growing. Therefore, my question to the author is, how do we create a curriculum in which there is no single student who feels oppressed, excluded or alienated? Is this achievable? I strongly agree that change needs to happen and diversity in music education needs to improve, but how do we choose what diverse lifestyles to include? There is not enough time in the school year to cover all of the possibilities. How do we stop alienating one culture without alienating another? Overall, this article speaks strongly to me, as I have realized that in order to be inclusive for everyone, we must create a change in the material we teach and how we teach it.
Wasiak, E. (2017) Unmasking the Hidden Curriculum in Canadian Music Education Canadian Music Educator.
I agree with many things the author has to say in this article. I agree that different cultures should be represented in music education today, and that the music we teach is extremely Eurocentric. Not only is the music played in music classrooms today Eurocentric, but so is the theory that musicians are taught and the history that we pass down to the next generation. I liked how the author referred to the axiom, “We teach our students, not our subject”. This is important to live by as a music educator, as each classroom is fully of diversity; this is proved in the article when the author states the fact that one of every five Canadians was born outside Canada , that the indigenous Canadian population is growing, and that individuals who identify as female or LQBTQ make over half of our population. I was very surprised at these facts, considering that this diversity fails to be recognized in not only our music education, but our society. I find that society is under the impression that white males still make up the majority of the population in Canada. Discovering these facts was a wake-up call for me. While many people think that the acceptance of diversity in Canada has improved and social issues such as hegemony, oppression, and exclusion are gone, they are not. This is obvious when looking at the music education curriculum. The majority of the concepts taught focus on the white male composers. Subtitles such as “Females in Music” or “Middle Eastern Music” create the assumption that these are not “normal” for us to experience and alienates those for whom do consider this “normal”. We enforce these concepts and then wonder why more students are not continuing on in music! The majority of the population cannot relate to the material we are teaching, and therefore feel alienated, excluded, and oppressed by their learning.
On the other hand, I know it’s impossible to include every culture, religion, language, and sexual orientation in the material we teach, there is too much diversity in our world to cover everything, and diversity is only growing. Therefore, my question to the author is, how do we create a curriculum in which there is no single student who feels oppressed, excluded or alienated? Is this achievable? I strongly agree that change needs to happen and diversity in music education needs to improve, but how do we choose what diverse lifestyles to include? There is not enough time in the school year to cover all of the possibilities. How do we stop alienating one culture without alienating another? Overall, this article speaks strongly to me, as I have realized that in order to be inclusive for everyone, we must create a change in the material we teach and how we teach it.
Feedback:
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Once again, you’ve shared a thoughtful transformation in your response. Your concern about being inclusive but not leaving anyone out is legitimate. I think the author would likely agree with you that it would be impossible to incorporate every single culture’s music into a curriculum or represent every type of diversity in instructional content. However, in what ways could making some changes—any changes—to the Eurocentric normalized curriculum to become any more inclusive at all begin to change the messages being delivered by the “hidden” curriculum? Can change be incremental in this case to make an impact?
Best,
Eric
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Once again, you’ve shared a thoughtful transformation in your response. Your concern about being inclusive but not leaving anyone out is legitimate. I think the author would likely agree with you that it would be impossible to incorporate every single culture’s music into a curriculum or represent every type of diversity in instructional content. However, in what ways could making some changes—any changes—to the Eurocentric normalized curriculum to become any more inclusive at all begin to change the messages being delivered by the “hidden” curriculum? Can change be incremental in this case to make an impact?
Best,
Eric
Reading #4: Thursday February 1st, 2018
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
Series, D. Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Retrieved from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
I felt very conflicted when I read these two articles. In both articles, there were ideas that I supported but also statements that frustrated me. At first, I completely agreed with Hourigan when I read the article about some children being “invisible” in the classroom when they have a disability or are different compared to the “normalcy” of the rest of the class. When I read the article by Series immediately after collecting my thoughts regarding the Hourigan article, I was taken aback by how my opinions were challenged. I understand what Hourigan is proposing in the article and I do believe that it is crucial to make the music classroom a warm and inviting environment for students of all abilities to feel at home in. I think that if a child is isolated by his or her peers it can have detrimental and long-lasting effects to the child’s idea of self-worth within the ensemble and confidence.
Even though I agree with the basic idea proposed in Hourigan’s article, I think that some of the wording used is inappropriate and proves the point that Series makes in his article. One statement that frustrated me in the article written by Hourigan was that “information promotes acceptance”. This statement popped up in my mind as I read the article by Series. To me, this statement implies that the more information we know about why someone is not “normal”, the better we are able to make them fit in to society’s obsession with normality. The Series’ article confronts these thoughts, considering that people with disabilities do not want to be given special treatment and instead just want the same acceptance as an individual who does not have a disability. The methods that Hourigan proposes in order to make a child feel accepted by his or her peers are good ways for inclusion in the classroom if a child is being isolated by his or her peers, but I think that when it comes to children with disabilities, it would lead to the child being singled out by his or her peers simply due to the fact that he or she is not exactly like the rest of them.
In the classroom, we give special treatment to those who have disabilities, making the curriculum easier for them and therefore setting our standards lower for them. This is discouraging towards the child. It gives them the impression that we do not believe that they can achieve the same level of success as a child without disabilities. As addressed in the article by Series, from the moment a child is labeled as having a disability, they are pitied and considered to have a lower quality of life and standards than the rest of the world. If we break apart the word “disability” and take a look at the prefix “dis”, we can see that this is a negative prefix, implying the opposite of the word it precedes. Therefore, “dis – ability” is another way of saying “not able” or “unable”. Our world is under the impression that just because one has “disabilities” they are unable to achieve the same level of success as those who are “able”. We must strip these negative assumptions away, especially in the classroom. While accommodations may be needed by those with disabilities, such as more time allotted for test-taking, or ramps suitable for wheelchairs, we should stop assuming that their disability makes them any less of a person and any less able to achieve the same levels of success. I would like to propose a question to Series, asking how can we draw the line between providing accommodations for those with disabilities and treating them as if they are limited? For example, a person who is paralyzed needs accommodations, and even though I do notice that they are still a person who can achieve great things the same as those who have the ability to walk, how do we decide what is accommodation and what is unnecessary labelling?
Overall, both of these articles made me question my morals and how I will work with children who have disabilities when I become a teacher. In the end, I’m still not sure if I have found the answer to how I will approach these situations when I am a teacher.
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
Series, D. Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Retrieved from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
I felt very conflicted when I read these two articles. In both articles, there were ideas that I supported but also statements that frustrated me. At first, I completely agreed with Hourigan when I read the article about some children being “invisible” in the classroom when they have a disability or are different compared to the “normalcy” of the rest of the class. When I read the article by Series immediately after collecting my thoughts regarding the Hourigan article, I was taken aback by how my opinions were challenged. I understand what Hourigan is proposing in the article and I do believe that it is crucial to make the music classroom a warm and inviting environment for students of all abilities to feel at home in. I think that if a child is isolated by his or her peers it can have detrimental and long-lasting effects to the child’s idea of self-worth within the ensemble and confidence.
Even though I agree with the basic idea proposed in Hourigan’s article, I think that some of the wording used is inappropriate and proves the point that Series makes in his article. One statement that frustrated me in the article written by Hourigan was that “information promotes acceptance”. This statement popped up in my mind as I read the article by Series. To me, this statement implies that the more information we know about why someone is not “normal”, the better we are able to make them fit in to society’s obsession with normality. The Series’ article confronts these thoughts, considering that people with disabilities do not want to be given special treatment and instead just want the same acceptance as an individual who does not have a disability. The methods that Hourigan proposes in order to make a child feel accepted by his or her peers are good ways for inclusion in the classroom if a child is being isolated by his or her peers, but I think that when it comes to children with disabilities, it would lead to the child being singled out by his or her peers simply due to the fact that he or she is not exactly like the rest of them.
In the classroom, we give special treatment to those who have disabilities, making the curriculum easier for them and therefore setting our standards lower for them. This is discouraging towards the child. It gives them the impression that we do not believe that they can achieve the same level of success as a child without disabilities. As addressed in the article by Series, from the moment a child is labeled as having a disability, they are pitied and considered to have a lower quality of life and standards than the rest of the world. If we break apart the word “disability” and take a look at the prefix “dis”, we can see that this is a negative prefix, implying the opposite of the word it precedes. Therefore, “dis – ability” is another way of saying “not able” or “unable”. Our world is under the impression that just because one has “disabilities” they are unable to achieve the same level of success as those who are “able”. We must strip these negative assumptions away, especially in the classroom. While accommodations may be needed by those with disabilities, such as more time allotted for test-taking, or ramps suitable for wheelchairs, we should stop assuming that their disability makes them any less of a person and any less able to achieve the same levels of success. I would like to propose a question to Series, asking how can we draw the line between providing accommodations for those with disabilities and treating them as if they are limited? For example, a person who is paralyzed needs accommodations, and even though I do notice that they are still a person who can achieve great things the same as those who have the ability to walk, how do we decide what is accommodation and what is unnecessary labelling?
Overall, both of these articles made me question my morals and how I will work with children who have disabilities when I become a teacher. In the end, I’m still not sure if I have found the answer to how I will approach these situations when I am a teacher.
Feedback:
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You’ve got such an interesting way of reading these two articles in dialogue with each other. If I can ask you to consider something differently from Hourigan, could “information promotes acceptance” mean that the better we understand someone or something that is different, the more we accept them as they are, rather than forcing them to fit our conception of normal? Wouldn’t that then actually support Serres’ shift in narrative surrounding disability and normalcy?
It’s clear these articles have had a powerful impact on you, and I also think it’s okay not hold all the answers for how to navigate these situations. The fact that you are thinking about it is an important indication that you will consider the issues with care and make thoughtful choices in those moments. Your question for Serres is exactly my own, and I think we have to rely on being kind, considerate, and conscientious can help guide us through those decisions!
Best,
Eric
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You’ve got such an interesting way of reading these two articles in dialogue with each other. If I can ask you to consider something differently from Hourigan, could “information promotes acceptance” mean that the better we understand someone or something that is different, the more we accept them as they are, rather than forcing them to fit our conception of normal? Wouldn’t that then actually support Serres’ shift in narrative surrounding disability and normalcy?
It’s clear these articles have had a powerful impact on you, and I also think it’s okay not hold all the answers for how to navigate these situations. The fact that you are thinking about it is an important indication that you will consider the issues with care and make thoughtful choices in those moments. Your question for Serres is exactly my own, and I think we have to rely on being kind, considerate, and conscientious can help guide us through those decisions!
Best,
Eric
Reading #5: Sunday February 18th, 2018
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98.
Whilst reading this article, I was very conflicted on whether or not I could be convinced to consider the iPad as an instrument and someone who “plays the iPad” as a musician. I was surprised at how closed-minded I was to not consider the iPad as an instrument at first though, as I try to approach these new and modern concepts with an open mind. Something about using the iPad as a means of electronically playing instruments that we can actually hold and learn to play did not sit well with me though. But on the other hand, when I thought of the songs on the radio today that I enjoy and considered the electronics used to produce music in these songs I have to think again. I consider these songs to be music, so why can’t music produced in the classroom on an iPad be music too? I must admit that even though it may still be music, I think that playing a piano on an iPad would not have nearly the same impact as playing a piano physically. When playing an instrument physically in real life rather than just through an iPad, there is much more emotion and connection between the performer and the music, at least by what I have experienced comparing playing my upright piano and the keyboard on my brother’s iPad. While iPads can be used to create music, I still think that it’s important that students understand the impact of actual instruments and how to use these. They should know where the sounds on their iPad come from and how they are made. In society today, we rely on technology far more than ever before, if we begin to rely on iPads and electronics for all of our music making as well, we will lose the diverse musical culture we have created. My question for the author would be how do we incorporate iPads into a classroom of students living in a society that is already obsessed with technology? Is this reinforcing the idea that nothing can be done without electronics anymore?
In retrospect, iPads can give students who have disabilities the chance to be a part of the band in the classroom. If a student has a disability that stops them from making music using physical instruments, iPads can be used to help that student stay active with music and be a part of the band. I think that incorporating technology in this way in the music classroom is one instance where technology can empower students rather than lead them to think that nothing can be done without technology in modern times.
One concern that I have regarding using iPads for music making and teaching in the classroom is the costs. Many schools struggle to afford physical instruments in general, to supply enough iPads to teach a classroom full of students on would be extremely costly and most schools would not be able to afford it. With limited iPads, that would leave some students out of this new and unique way of music making.
Overall, while using iPads and technology can be seen as making music and I am not against this type of music making being explored in the classroom, I do think that there are several issues that could arise from using this type of technology in the classroom and that those must be considered as well as the pros that come with this use of technology.
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98.
Whilst reading this article, I was very conflicted on whether or not I could be convinced to consider the iPad as an instrument and someone who “plays the iPad” as a musician. I was surprised at how closed-minded I was to not consider the iPad as an instrument at first though, as I try to approach these new and modern concepts with an open mind. Something about using the iPad as a means of electronically playing instruments that we can actually hold and learn to play did not sit well with me though. But on the other hand, when I thought of the songs on the radio today that I enjoy and considered the electronics used to produce music in these songs I have to think again. I consider these songs to be music, so why can’t music produced in the classroom on an iPad be music too? I must admit that even though it may still be music, I think that playing a piano on an iPad would not have nearly the same impact as playing a piano physically. When playing an instrument physically in real life rather than just through an iPad, there is much more emotion and connection between the performer and the music, at least by what I have experienced comparing playing my upright piano and the keyboard on my brother’s iPad. While iPads can be used to create music, I still think that it’s important that students understand the impact of actual instruments and how to use these. They should know where the sounds on their iPad come from and how they are made. In society today, we rely on technology far more than ever before, if we begin to rely on iPads and electronics for all of our music making as well, we will lose the diverse musical culture we have created. My question for the author would be how do we incorporate iPads into a classroom of students living in a society that is already obsessed with technology? Is this reinforcing the idea that nothing can be done without electronics anymore?
In retrospect, iPads can give students who have disabilities the chance to be a part of the band in the classroom. If a student has a disability that stops them from making music using physical instruments, iPads can be used to help that student stay active with music and be a part of the band. I think that incorporating technology in this way in the music classroom is one instance where technology can empower students rather than lead them to think that nothing can be done without technology in modern times.
One concern that I have regarding using iPads for music making and teaching in the classroom is the costs. Many schools struggle to afford physical instruments in general, to supply enough iPads to teach a classroom full of students on would be extremely costly and most schools would not be able to afford it. With limited iPads, that would leave some students out of this new and unique way of music making.
Overall, while using iPads and technology can be seen as making music and I am not against this type of music making being explored in the classroom, I do think that there are several issues that could arise from using this type of technology in the classroom and that those must be considered as well as the pros that come with this use of technology.
Feedback:
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really appreciate how carefully you consider the issues and you reflect on your experiences as you read. I admit, I share some of the hesitation to consider the ipad an instrument, especially when simply substituting it for a traditional instrument with a touch screen. As you said, the experience is different when playing a piano or an ipad, but does that mean it lacks the possibility for emotional expression and meaningful connection when used in other ways? Best,
Eric
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really appreciate how carefully you consider the issues and you reflect on your experiences as you read. I admit, I share some of the hesitation to consider the ipad an instrument, especially when simply substituting it for a traditional instrument with a touch screen. As you said, the experience is different when playing a piano or an ipad, but does that mean it lacks the possibility for emotional expression and meaningful connection when used in other ways? Best,
Eric
Response #6: Friday March 16th, 2018
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
I found that this article was very relevant to the activities being incorporated in music education today. Already, I can see that some of these ideas involving remixing, making mash-ups, and using previously composed work to create something unique to you is in the classroom. In my experience as a high school music student in choir, we often took time to create mash-ups of two songs and then would all agree on whose mash-up to sing at our next performance. Through these experiences, I was better able to relate to the message that the article had. I agree with the authors idea that we must know how and what music is present in students’ life outside of school in order to know what to incorporate in the classroom. Media has developed in new and exciting ways and now allows students to engage in music in different ways than in the past.
I was surprised to have the author answer many of the questions I had while reading in the article, as this has not occurred in any of the previous articles. For example, while reading, I was wondering how could we include this new, modern technology on mixing and reshaping popular music today without having the students miss out on other older aspects of music we must be teaching in the classroom. Right after I posed this question, the author reassured me in the article by stating the importance of converging the old and the new and not getting rid of the old altogether.
Another question that I had while reading that was answered by the author is, shouldn’t we be encouraging students to compose their own music and express their creativity through their own creations rather than relying on what has already been composed by someone in order to express creativity? Don’t the methods explained in the article only teach students how to manipulate works rather than create their own unique ones? The author again reassured me by saying that these methods of remixing and altering what is already composed can be adding in addition to self-composition in the classroom. Still though, I wonder how these two methods of teaching can be balanced so that the students understand that even though they are manipulating and adding their own individual style to a piece that is already composed, it still is not owned by the student and it is not the same as writing your own piece.
I was surprised that the author answered another one of my major questions in the article. The author addressed alternatives for schools that did not have access to this new technology and did not simply assume that every school had the benefit of having internet and equipment or apps that allow every student to participate. The author says that these ideas can be translated to schools with limited technology by having students create their own covers of songs live, using vocals, percussion, or other instruments in the band room.
I do agree that the ideas explained in this article are crucial in getting students involved in music education, which will in response effect their musical involvement throughout the rest of their life. By allowing students to have the freedom to create using their favourite songs and genres of music, we are incorporating their interests into their education, leading to a more enjoyable experience with not just music, but with education as a whole.
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
I found that this article was very relevant to the activities being incorporated in music education today. Already, I can see that some of these ideas involving remixing, making mash-ups, and using previously composed work to create something unique to you is in the classroom. In my experience as a high school music student in choir, we often took time to create mash-ups of two songs and then would all agree on whose mash-up to sing at our next performance. Through these experiences, I was better able to relate to the message that the article had. I agree with the authors idea that we must know how and what music is present in students’ life outside of school in order to know what to incorporate in the classroom. Media has developed in new and exciting ways and now allows students to engage in music in different ways than in the past.
I was surprised to have the author answer many of the questions I had while reading in the article, as this has not occurred in any of the previous articles. For example, while reading, I was wondering how could we include this new, modern technology on mixing and reshaping popular music today without having the students miss out on other older aspects of music we must be teaching in the classroom. Right after I posed this question, the author reassured me in the article by stating the importance of converging the old and the new and not getting rid of the old altogether.
Another question that I had while reading that was answered by the author is, shouldn’t we be encouraging students to compose their own music and express their creativity through their own creations rather than relying on what has already been composed by someone in order to express creativity? Don’t the methods explained in the article only teach students how to manipulate works rather than create their own unique ones? The author again reassured me by saying that these methods of remixing and altering what is already composed can be adding in addition to self-composition in the classroom. Still though, I wonder how these two methods of teaching can be balanced so that the students understand that even though they are manipulating and adding their own individual style to a piece that is already composed, it still is not owned by the student and it is not the same as writing your own piece.
I was surprised that the author answered another one of my major questions in the article. The author addressed alternatives for schools that did not have access to this new technology and did not simply assume that every school had the benefit of having internet and equipment or apps that allow every student to participate. The author says that these ideas can be translated to schools with limited technology by having students create their own covers of songs live, using vocals, percussion, or other instruments in the band room.
I do agree that the ideas explained in this article are crucial in getting students involved in music education, which will in response effect their musical involvement throughout the rest of their life. By allowing students to have the freedom to create using their favourite songs and genres of music, we are incorporating their interests into their education, leading to a more enjoyable experience with not just music, but with education as a whole.
Feedback:
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Even though the article answered many of your questions as you read it (this appeared in the most widely read practitioner journal, which tends to emphasize practical application), it seems you are still wrestling with what it means to be creative: how do mashups and remixes encourage creativity if the product is not “owned” by the student? Well, is the process in this case what they “own” as their creative outcome? Has participatory culture formed a need to reconsider how we conceive of not only creativity, but also ownership? And how would that impact pedagogy that encourages creativity in music?
Best,
Eric
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Even though the article answered many of your questions as you read it (this appeared in the most widely read practitioner journal, which tends to emphasize practical application), it seems you are still wrestling with what it means to be creative: how do mashups and remixes encourage creativity if the product is not “owned” by the student? Well, is the process in this case what they “own” as their creative outcome? Has participatory culture formed a need to reconsider how we conceive of not only creativity, but also ownership? And how would that impact pedagogy that encourages creativity in music?
Best,
Eric