Listening and Not Only Hearing

As a music educator of younger students, it is important to me that students are listening to our musical selections and not just hearing them. I want them to actually listen for key concepts and melodies as I ask them too. However, I often struggle with knowing if the students actually understand what I am asking them to listen to.

According to Bauer (2014) in Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music, there are two types of listening, intuitive and formal. Intuitive listening is “a natural process whereby the individual listener has control over all aspects of the listening experience” (pg. 121). Formal listening, on the other hand, is “usually very teacher-centered and analytical, often focus[ed] on musical elements, formal structures, and other facts related to the music” (pg. 121). I know my students spend a lot of time intuitively listening to music inside and outside of school. For example, the gym teachers use popular music as a timer for the students during activities, and the general education teachers use music as brain breaks and rewards. Finally, I cannot count how many times I have heard, “Now watch me whip, now watch me nay nay” in the hallways. I love knowing my students are listening to and enjoying music, but when they come to music I want them to listen not just for words or dance moves, but to listen.

To do this, I often have students move to the music selections. For example, we are studying music genres this year, and we are starting off with marches. Today, we learned about John Philip Sousa and marched to the steady beat of The Stars and Stripes Forever. Considering my students are only 5-8, we spend most of our time keeping a steady beat to the music, however, we also spend time on mood where we will move to the flowing sounds of the ocean or Symphony No. 40 in G Minor.

In order to incorporate more technology, I would like to use my Zaption project or a SmartBoard listening map with the students. I made a video of John Philip Sousa’s The Liberty Bell using a YouTube video of the Marine Band. In the video, the students will listen to the piece, analyze the music as piano or forte, learn about the conductor and the Liberty Bell, and pretend to play in the band. My Zaption video can be viewed below.

I am considering doing a SmartBoard listening map with Hungarian Dance #3 by Brahms. Around Halloween, the students and I will listen to the piece and develop a story about a group of trick-or-treaters and then encounter something dark and mysterious based on the mood of the music. To accompany our story telling, I would like to incorporate a listening map via the SmartBoard. I am thinking we could organize with shapes to represent each section of the story, and then, write the story inside the shapes as it progresses. This would be a lesson on or introduction to forms, because we could then change the shapes into letters. I think a listening map and story telling in this manner would keep the students much more involved and actively listening.

References:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Practice and Feedback Produce Life-Long Musicians

According to Bauer (2014) in Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music, students “need to develop the ability to diagnose their own musical performance problems and then utilize appropriate strategies to address those issues” (p. 99). During Module 4, we focused mainly on methods and technologies to help students develop their own musical abilities and practice strategies.

To begin with, we discussed the importance of practice and practicing correctly. It is often a struggle for music teachers to get their students to practice at home, especially when they must find time to do so between dinner, homework, sports, and leisure time. A student’s will to practice is affected intrinsically (internally) or extrinsically (externally). First, students experience intrinsic motivation to practice or make music, because they simply enjoy the process; they enjoy singing and/or playing instruments. By producing a good product and achieving success, students are rewarded intrinsically through music. Likewise, students are also motivated to make music extrinsically through family, friends, and teachers. Knowing these facts, how can we encourage our students to practice at home? And, how do we ensure they use good practice strategies? (Bauer, p. 94)

One way is through technology! For example, “Researchers have found that students generally prefer to practice with accompaniment…some students believe that practicing with accompaniment allows them to learn music better and to learn it more quickly” (Bauer, p. 94). Teachers can provide accompaniment recordings through many sources, such as CDs, audio recordings, or SmartMusic.

Of the three, I would like to focus on SmartMusic. SmartMusic is a newer program that is subscribed to through schools and music teachers. Students can then access the database at school or at home via the Internet. SmartMusic is beneficial in many, many ways. First, it is a database of accompaniment recordings from early elementary school to collegiate levels. Second, as a student plays along with the accompaniment, the program will alert the student to mistakes in pitch and rhythm. Thirdly, SmartMusic is a great resource to assist in good practice habits. Most young students practice their music by playing a piece from beginning to end without stopping and without regard to mistakes. With SmartMusic, students are forced to reflect on their performance by reflecting on simple questions, such as “Did I miss accidentals?” or “Did I play that rhythm incorrectly?” In addition, students are able to play through difficult sections by using a looping tool within the program. This process of performing, reflecting, and practicing will not only improve a student’s performance, but it will also teach them to become self-correcting musicians. Musicians who can self-correct and self-monitor will be much more successful in their future music making experiences.

Although, however wonderful SmartMusic is, in the end, it is still only a resource. A computer program cannot provide feedback on tone and breath support, nor can it teach a student how to articulate or good practice strategies. Thus, it is crucial that students also receive feedback from their instructors.

“One of the most powerful ways to enhance achievement is to provide students with appropriate formative feedback that allows them to gauge their performance in relation to specific criteria” (Bauer, p. 99). Formative feedback should give students a clear understanding of what they did well, what they need to improve, and how to improve it. The model for positive feedback should be an Oreo cookie. A teacher should state something positive about the performance, then state what the student needs to improve, and end with another positive statement. The last positive statement should be how to correct the issue and encouraging to the student. An Oreo model will extrinsically motivate the student to practice and provide constructive and relative feedback.

In the end, as music educators, our job is to create life-long musicians. With proper feedback and practice strategies enhanced through the use of technology, students will not only enjoy music making, but they will become self-monitoring and more successful musicians.

References:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Composition in the Classroom

During Module 3 of Technology Assisted Music Learning, we discussed the importance of composition and how technology can assist in its teaching. We discussed the affordances and constraints of using programs such as, Soundtrap and Incredibox. We also discussed the affordances and constraints of non-traditional music classes, in which students learn about technology rather than only music history and notation.

“Some people believe composition is one of the highest forms of musical expression” (Bauer, p. 81). This is true, because composition forces a musician to compile all of his/her musicality to create a new product. S/he must decide on melodic/harmonic contour, dynamics, articulations, tempo, key signature, mood, etc. Unfortunately, when most think of music composition, they immediately think of music notation and using programs such as Finale with a MIDI keyboard. Although, in today’s world, composition can be taught using new technology advanced programs such as, Soundtrap and Incredibox that do not require the user to understand music notation. Using these programs in the classroom has many affordances and a few constraints.

To begin with, using programs such as Soundtrap and Incredibox have the major affordance of not requiring music notation. A user simply drags and drops their choices onto the workspace. S/he may drag and drop any option in any location of the workspace and then continue to manipulate their choices until they reach their desired product. For example, below is a link to my Soundtrap composition entitled, Life. I simply dragged and dropped the loops I wanted onto the workspace, and then added a few dynamics.

https://www.soundtrap.com/playlink/e98f9655-edac-47be-a9ac-972c10fe705c/

In addition to being user-friendly, I believe programs such as this would open up the creativity locked inside a student due to peer and teacher feedback. The students cannot make a wrong choice. For the most part, all loop options fit together in Soundtrap, and all lines fit together when using Incredibox.

With this being said, I believe technology programs such as Soundtrap and Incredibox can also inhibit an advanced students’ creativity. For example, in both programs, all loops are set to a specific length. You cannot shorten or elongate a phrase. You cannot create your own loop on specific instruments either, depending on your subscription. Thus, “[Students] may.. be more reluctant to alter an original idea if it has been placed in notated form” (Bauer, p. 79). Since altering the set options is not an option, students cannot use their creativity to its fullest extent. They are forced to be creativity within the boundaries of the program.

As mentioned earlier, feedback can inhibit a students’ willingness to be creative and try new things. However, this does not mean that feedback is not important. On the contrary, “Feedback is an important component of all learning… [it] tells the learner to what extent learning has been successful, and where strengths and weaknesses exist” (Bauer, p. 75). As stated, feedback is a necessary evil in order for a student to grow within their craft. By using programs such as Soundtrap and Incredibox, students are free to be creative within certain boundaries. It is then the instructor’s job to provide accurate feedback on what they did well and how they could improve. In some instances, improvement could be the student moving onto actual notation. While in other instances, the students could work on the composition of their piece, or the musical components used. For example, the student may need to use fewer loops, or add dynamics to allow loops to fade in and out of their composition.

With all of this in mind, I would like to discuss the importance of non-traditional music courses that would use programs such as Soundtrap and Incredibox to their advantage. According to Williams and Dammers (2015), 80% of students do not participate in music ensembles. Thus, it is imperative that music educators include these students in music courses that appeal to them, and the way to do that is through technology. Using programs such as Soundtrap and Incredibox will appeal to students who do not play musical instruments or sing regularly. In non-traditional music courses, teachers can also educate students on sound technology, rather than musical concepts and notation. By teaching these programs and concepts, music educators will have created courses that appeal to 100% of the students in the student population. Not only will the educators increase the size of their music program, but they will also open doors to new careers in sound technology to their students. Furthermore, in today’s world, it is imperative that music educators advocate for their teaching positions, and the best way to do that is to involve all students in the music programs.

References:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, D., & Dammers, R. (Eds.). (n.d.). Music Creativity Through Technology (www.musicCreativity.org). Retrieved September 13, 2015, from http://www.musiccreativity.org

During my undergrad, I had a very difficult time in Aural Theory. I could not hear chord changes easily, and I struggled singing solfege with accurate pitch.  I also shied away from soloing during jazz ensemble. On the other hand, my boyfriend, who is completing his Masters in Jazz Studies and Composition, was much more willing to improvise during jazz ensemble, and he breezed through Aural Theory. He can hear chord changes easily and often analyzes music he hears on a daily basis in public. What caused this different between us?

The only difference I could find is our family music background. While in public school, I do not remember composing often in any manner. I remember singing from a textbook in elementary school, studying basic music theory and history and guitar in middle school, and performing in high school bands. In addition, my family is not very musical. My dad sings in church, and my mom does not sing. Likewise, my sister will sing to the radio occasionally, but she ceased most of her music career after entering college. Although my boyfriend had a similar public school music education, his family is extremely musical. They sing often in and outside of church, and they talk about music as a family. For example, they sang 4-part harmony at his last birthday party.

I firmly believe my boyfriend’s family background filled the gaps his public school music education left. By filling these gaps, he was more eager to solo in jazz ensembles, sing and write music he heard in his head, and have a better ear for aural theory. As a music educator, I believe it is our responsibility to fill these gaps in the first place. We do not depend on family support to ensure students can read and write, so why do we depend on family support for students to be successful in improvising and composing? We should be taking the same amount of time we take to teach rhythms and fingerings to teach improvising and composing.

One reason I believe music educators do not allot that amount of time for improvising and composing is because it is an uncomfortable area for them. For example, most music educators are classically trained. As an instrumentalist or vocalist, most music majors are not expected to improvise on their major instrument. Even all cadenzas and solo sections are written out based on other performers. A second reason for not teaching improvisation and composition is the time alloted for music classes in schools. Educators are so busy preparing the students for a good performance that creative activities are left out of the curriculum.

However, during Module 2, I discovered a few ways to incorporate improvising and composing into daily lessons within the classroom that I would feel comfortable teaching, even as a classically trained musician, within a short amount of time. I derived these ideas from Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music by William Bauer. In the book, Bauer (2014) references’ Kratus’ “seven-level sequential model for the development of improvisational abilities” (p. 65). The seven levels are as follows:

            Level 1: Exploration

            Level 2: Process-Oriented

            Level 3: Product-Oriented

            Level 4: Fluid Improvisation

            Level 5: Structural Improvisation

            Level 6: Stylistic Improvisation

            Level 7: Personal Improvisation

As a public school music educator, I believe we can realistically help our students to reach Level 4. Collegiate professors and personal curiosity would allow students reach Levels 5-6, and Level 7 would be only accomplishable through personal perseverance and practice. However, I believe the 4 levels are only accomplishable through a well-round music education from elementary to high school.

To begin with, Level 1: Exploration, should be explored during elementary school in the very beginning years of a child’s music education. In Level 1, students try “out various sounds, without any particular structure” (Bauer, 2014, p. 65). For example, activities should focus on pitch matching and voice exploration with non-sense syllables. Through the use of instruments, students can improvise the sounds of nature, such as creating rain with xylophones.

In Level 2: Process-Oriented, “Students have some control over the process, coordinating motor skills with intentionally created sound patterns, patterns that are often repeated” (Bauer, 2014, p. 65). I can see this stage being experienced during second grade and onward. For example, students could improvise using given solfege patterns during a call and response activity. Likewise on percussion instruments, students could perform short rhythmic patterns in an order of their choosing. This level also opens up numerous partner and small group activities that would encourage teamwork and performance. In addition, students should be able to begin training their ear at this level. Educators can use technology, such as aural theory apps and games to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses.

During Level 3: Product-Oriented, students become “…more aware of musical structures – tonality, meters, tempo, harmonic changes, and phrases – and begins to utilize these structures in improvisations” (Bauer, 2014, p. 66). This would be introduced during third or fourth grade when students begin learning staff notation and playing recorder. At this age, students should be able to build on their basic understanding of music and their experiences by adding notation. I firmly believe students would be able to compose simple patterns on their own, and rhythmically improvise to an ostinato. In addition, music educators should encourage students to improvise on their recorder as they master notes. This could be accomplished by setting specific parameters, such as stay on one or two notes; students could then improvise over a piano or recorded accompaniment.

Finally, during Level 4: Fluid Improvisation, students exhibit “more control and automaticity over the technical aspects of performance (being able to sing/play without having to consciously think about it) with greater fluidity in keys, meters, and tempos” (Bauer, 2014, p. 66). This level could be experienced as early as middle school and definitely experienced during high school. Even if they are improvising in simple keys, such as Bb, G, and C, students should be able to analyze which notes are playable for specific chords, and then solo based on this knowledge.

Ideally, students should start their improvisation experience in the very early years of music education. As they grow, they will strengthen and build upon their basic skills. I also believe that these levels provide a basic outline for scaffolding. Students must take baby steps to improvisation, by starting with given parameters and examples. As students’ improvisation skills develop, they will naturally develop composition skills by adding notation. I firmly believe you cannot have composition without a firm education in improvisation. Once an education in improvisation is established, students can then explore composition tools, such as Noteflight, MuseScore, or Finale.

As a final thought, as an early elementary music educator, it is easy for me to layout a framework for a long-term improvisation and composition education. However, not all music educators in the upper grades have a supportive or substantial elementary or middle school music program. I believe it is the responsibility of the music educator to assess his/her students and challenge them appropriately. Ideally, students should reach and be exposed to Kratus’ Level 4 of Improvisation, but some teachers may only reach Level 3. The level is not the most important concept. The experience and exposure in a larger amount is what is important, and it is imperative that this experience is positive. Music educators must give their students an improvisation and composition experience that leaves them wanting more, no matter what level they are at when they leave.

Reference:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.