Composition, Improvisation, and the NCAS (Week 2 - Reading/Video Response)

Composing, the act of creating music, along with the complementary act of improvising music, has always been a part of the national standards for music education.  The 2014 revision of those standards, also known as the National Core Arts Standards, emphasizes creation as a key component of music instruction.  This week's lecture and reading looked at tools for supporting student composition and improvisation, as well as processes to put into place to help students reach these goals.  These align with the new standards mentioned above, but can standards alone ensure that students are adequately supported and encouraged in developing creativity and compositional skills?

The National Core Arts Standards explains the Creating pillar as '[c]onceiving and developing new artistic ideas and work,' with the following anchor standards (NCAS):

• Anchor Standard #1. Generate and conceptualize artistic ideas and work.
• Anchor Standard #2. Organize and develop artistic ideas and work.
• Anchor Standard #3. Refine and complete artistic work.

Composition and improvisation do fit into these standards, but I hesitate to commit to the idea that creativity must be taught through composition (and notation by extension) and improvisation.  I think in many cases, introducing notation software and composition tasks may be overwhelming and turn students away from music!  At the same time, watering down composition instruction to include it without actually working on it doesn't actually help students grow and develop creatively. That's not to say that I'm opposed to the inclusion of composition and improvisation in any music classroom, just that I think that it requires specific and sequential preparation and support from the entire curriculum.

Thinking back to my undergrad experiences, I had limited opportunities to compose in any of my classes.  Notation in undergrad classes seemed to primarily center on the class that focused on arranging and orchestrating, followed by classes requiring specific warm-up exercises or companion exercises to literature being taught in the class.  These tasks were viewed with trepidation and anxiety.  Few to none of my classmates in either of my undergraduate programs had much experience composing or working with notation software -- especially my classmates in my first undergrad program, as most of us graduated in 1997!  The inclusion of composition standards in the NCAS certainly seems like one way to ensure students are exposed to and supported in composition experiences before they reach high school or even collegiate level classes.  But does including the material or giving the students the assessment really teach them creativity?

I think that composition instruction and support needs to be integrated into music instruction at all stages.  Even in kindergarten and first grade, students are capable of improvising and creating rhythms and simple melodies given support -- or, in another way of thinking about it, restrictions.  While restrictions might sound limiting, in composition they can be freeing: either freeing younger and less experienced students to be able to compose based on their abilities.  But restrictions are also good because they make the project feel safe - rather than thrusting themselves out there with no support structures, providing a structure, rules, limited ranges or rhythms or options of some kind makes composition seem much more accessible to young musicians.  The use of music notation software can make those rules and restrictions more convenient to put into place and teach with. Similarly, I think that composition assignments could benefit from sequencing and positioning within the curriculum similar to how other creative tasks are presented and supported, specifically ELA composition tasks.  While I haven't had the time to sit down and review the common core standards for ELA writing, I have a hunch that many if not most of the standards relating to creating, revising, and presenting written work would align with the composition standards in the NCAS.

Over time, and with repeated exposure and opportunities to experience composition-related tasks, I think that creativity in music can be more than just something that the highest-achieving students in K-12 programs excel in.  I also think that success in music composition can help students with developing that key self esteem that figures so highly into performance in other academic areas.


Resources and further reading:
NAfME (n.d.) Student Assessment using Model Cornerstone Assessments. Retrieved from http://www.nafme.org/my-classroom/standards/mcas-information-on-taking-part-in-the-field-testing/
NCAS (n.d.). National Core Arts Standards Anchor Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/content/national-core-arts-standards-anchor-standards#creating 

NoteFlight and MuseScore

This week's assignment centered around two composition tools for the classroom, NoteFlight and MuseScore.  I've been writing music using computer software since middle school - first intermittently on Finale when I had access to others' computers with it or computer labs at school, and more recently using my own copy of Sibelius.  I've tried multiple notation software packages, including text-based programs like freeware LilyPond and the VexTab add-on available for Google Docs.  MuseScore and NoteFlight both are solid programs that could serve multiple educational purposes.

NoteFlight is a freemium-model browser-based notation and playback package. An account is required to access and use the service, but the only requirement to initiate an account is an email address (which needs to be accessed to then activate the account).  Free accounts are limited to 10 scores, a limitation that can be worked around if you are willing to register multiple accounts with multiple email addresses (gmail and yahoo accounts work great for this). 

NoteFlight primarily uses point-and-click entry although there are keyboard shortcuts that can be used in addition to the mouse.  Simple note entry is fairly straight forward, but finding articulations, expressions, and other more nuanced detail requires opening up menus that are not obvious at first glance.  The layout settings are somewhat challenging, as the sliders have no markings and you have to actually drag the pointer along the various sliders to find out what each parameter is set to.  Scores in NoteFlight cannot be broken out into parts with just the free version (although this limitation could probably be overcome by judicious use of copy, paste,  and keeping multiple instances of the program up in multiple tabs).

NoteFlight seems like it would be best suited to using in the classroom with students who are familiar with the basics of music notation, but who might not be completely sure of all of the requirements of arranging or composing a piece of music.  The limited palettes (when compared to larger notation software packages) remove complexity that could be challenging for novice composers.  The point-and-click entry would be easy to navigate when using an interactive whiteboard,  making NoteFlight a good choice for guided practice or modeling in the classroom. 

 Student composition assignments would also benefit from the sharing options. Users can select to allow others to view,  view and comment,  or directly edit work on a score-by-score basis.  Older students may benefit from sharing work with their instructor and receiving comments back without ever printing the work out, which also saves the instructor from having to lug stacks of in-progress scores back and forth for grading purposes. 


NoteFlight's limitations as freemium software really turn into annoyances more than anything.

MuseScore is a full notation program for download and installation.  I found it to be very intuitive, other that creating a new percussion score separate from the primary score. For those with Finale and Sibelius experience already, MuseScore will be second nature. Conversely, MuseScore will make a great entry point for secondary students studying more advanced composition and theory. Being freeware, MuseScore is not as visually appealing or highly supported as the more commercial Sibelius or Finale, but it does fill a needed niche for low/no cost notation software free from ads or freemium pricing structures for advanced features. 

All things considered, both NoteFlight and MuseScore can be valuable notation programs in the classroom. I'm looking forward to introducing some of my students to these programs in the near future.

At the Intersection of Technology and Pedagogy (Week 1 - Reading/Video response)

Technology and education both share many similarities.  Both change frequently, both can be tricky and intimidating to navigate, both seem overwhelming to many adults and underwhelming to many kids.

In a perfect situation, technology would fit in seamlessly and effortlessly with any given day's lesson, but sadly it never seems to work that way.  I remember hearing from almost day 1 of my undergrad program to keep extra back-up plans when working with technology, just in case the technology had a glitch or wouldn't work.  In a lot of ways, that advice seems sound -- downtime in a classroom can spell doom for the day's lesson and any sort of hopes for a well-managed classroom -- and speaks to previous experiences with similar issues.  But at the same time, I wonder if this is one of the reasons why we 'digital immigrants' struggle so frequently with technology.  Just as our students will react to our expectations, most often rising or falling to meet them, our own experiences have to be colored by what we expect to happen. Now, I'm not advocating that any teacher not have a back-up plan, but what if we approached it as if the technology was definitely going to work, and the back-up plan was for if our administrator walked in the door five minutes before class started to let us know we would be getting an extra prep period today because we won some arbitrary student-selected popularity contest?  Which now becomes more likely, that the technology will work or that we will need our backup plan?  While it may seem to verge on the ludicrous, taking a silly approach such as this helps develop a positive attitude toward technology because it takes away that reinforcing thought pattern that focuses on the breakdown of the tools.

Stepping away from personal paradigms, the idea of TPACK - Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge - as discussed in Chapter 1 of the Music Learning Today text by William Bauer really reinforced for me that technology shouldn't be used for everything.  The desire to meet school, district, and state goals for technology integration can lead to educators feeling highly pressured to include technology in every possible way.  As budgets tighten and standards increasingly refer to terms like 'digital', 'media arts', '21st century skills', and 'technology' itself, many educators that I have worked with or talked to feel pressure to try to do more in their classrooms.  Like so many other things, however, quantity does not equate quality.  As an orchestra teacher, integrating technology can be challenging!  I have 20 or more kids at a time, all with a pointy stick in one hand and a hollow wooden box worth several hundreds to several thousands of dollars in the other, and you want me to get them using computers and technology in the classroom?  I've developed some litmus tests to determine whether or not technology works as the best way for my kids to learn:

• Is it something that engages another mode of learning that hasn't been addressed in class for that topic?  
• Is it something that would be artificial in the ensemble classroom?
• Is it something that will benefit more than one student?
• Is it something that is reusable from year to year?
• Is it something that is more difficult / more challenging / impossible to accomplish without technology?
• Is it something the students can use without too much teacher direction?

If I can answer 'yes' to most of those questions, it would be a good use of technology in the classroom.  As an example, when my Promethean board was installed last week, one of the first things I did was create a flipbook where students could drag-and-drop circles that represented finger placement on a line that represented the string(s) on their instrument.  All four instruments were able to make it relevant by looking at steps as opposed to absolute fingers, and students had to use gross motor skills (moving their arm to manipulate the stylus) instead of fine motor skills (finger placement on the string of their instrument).  I was able to see where my kids understood the differences between half and whole steps on the fingerboard, and where we needed to do some more work.  Similarly, I have started using a free online program that allows students to test their music reading abilities and generates a score based on their accuracy.  It has limitations -- it has to be done in a computer lab or else one at a time on my classroom computer, so it takes time away from rehearsal if the whole group will participate.  It doesn't help students map what they see on the page to the fingerboard of their instrument -- they still have to link the knowledge of identifying the pitch to how to produce the pitch.  But it is much more effective to have 20+ students drilling note reading in the appropriate clef simultaneously, with immediate feedback and the ability to track progress over time compared to similar activities done on a projector or with flashcards.  It's infinitely differentiate-able by defining ranges, keys, accidentals, or even time- or accuracy-based goals based on a students strengths and weaknesses.

Technology isn't perfect, but taking a realistic and growth-minded approach to implementation of technology in the classroom goes a long way towards healthy implementation.

Four Wires and a Stick?

I am starting this blog to fufill class requirements for my Technology for Music Teaching class at Kent State University.  I've wanted to run a music ed-themed blog for a while, though, so it's hopefully something that will continue after the class is completed.

If you're not familiar with string instruments, the blog title might not make too much sense to you (and I might change it if I can find something clever-er).  I have been talking to my students recently about the importance of singing and vocalizing, especially when learning pitch and rhythm. I asked my middle school orchestras what the difference was between singing something and playing it on their instruments. They tried a few silly guesses, so when one kid finally admitted they didn't know I pointed out that the voice and the violin family share the same way to monitor and change pitch -- the ear has to drive the brain's decision-making skill and effect change in the pitch-generator, whether that's the vocal cords or the fingers on the string.  I told them that singing their part "makes it easier to hear pitches and understand the pitches because you don't have to deal with the machine that makes sound."

They were all a little confused when I referred to their instruments as a 'machine' that makes sound, so I elaborated... "You know, that box with four wires and a stick we all play?  That's all it is -- a machine.  A tool. Something that we can use and manipulate, but pretty useless on it's own -- it needs our brain in order to work.  And our brain sometimes needs to work on it's own before we add the machine in."

As I was trying to come up with something interesting/funny/thoughtful to title the blog, 'four wires and a stick' stuck with me.  I guess that most premium strings would be better referred to as strings or ropes instead of wires, but wires are exactly what student instrument have running on them.  So much of what I teach revolves around that stringed instrument machine, both how to manipulate it to make beautiful music as well as how to not let it get in the way of musicianship and musicality.

So, welcome to my blog, and I hope you find something of interest within!