As I started into this week I was not sure exactly what to expect, for though I had been excited about last week's learning, I was honestly feeling a bit overwhelmed about the PLN (personal learning network) still. That feeling may not have changed by this point, but I am finding a new way to manage it, at least within my mind. The fact that there will be more information than I know what to do with, process, and have time to sift through is not likely to change, and I needed to just accept that fact. After doing so, it was easy to move on and whenever an opportunity would arise for me to peruse my PLN, I knew it would always have very interesting information to provide to me. There seemed to be a focus on practicing this week. Through Feedly and the Digital Musicking group there appeared to be a constantly influx of new articles and "research" on structure to practicing from the physical methods to mental conceptualizations and whether certain long held beliefs actually work. Fascinating information, though I cannot say I found anything that held definitive proof to sway me into believe certain methods are more effective than others.
Onto the actual course content for the week, much of the reading was centered around the creative aspect of music, which was reminiscent of the Music Creativity class that I took with University of Florida only roughly one semester ago. What was different about this approach was that the text outlined and narrowed down not only the poignant areas to focus on in terms of curricular activities and outcomes (Bauer, 2014, p.47) but also offered possible technology integration solutions through Chapter 3. Bringing up both composition and improvisation (improvisation being the focus of reading for this Module) examples of activities to facilitate learning (often with technology) of musical creativity was a nice overview of techniques that I have thought about before but not necessarily in the context of using technologies affordances. An interesting point was made regarding that these activities help promote audiation, being able to hear sound in one's mind without the reality being played.
A large portion of the class this week in discussion covered our value interpretation of the Kratus "seven-level sequential model for the development of improvisational abilities" (Bauer, 2014, pp. 52-3). I feel that it was a worthwhile discussion, if only to help us focus in on the model. I cannot imagine anyone not finding value in these levels, as they seem very educationally sound in terms of proper scaffolding of learning, just giving specific examples of how to proceed in terms of improvisation. Having these specific were helpful to many in the class, myself included, due to other side of the discussion question from this week that revolved around why more teachers do not include improvisation within their classes, and the resounding answer from most that it is because of lack of skill on the part of the teacher with improvisation, and lack of training on how to teach it. This model provides a nice framework to overcome both obstacles.
This week I learned a little more detail about MIDI, giving me more background knowledge that may come in useful later in the course.
Finally, I spent time learning about free notation programs. Free! I honestly did not know such a thing existed. I have used Finale mostly in the past, but in both my prior teaching experience and a an Army musician, I can wholeheartedly relate to not always having a budget that will facilitate the purchase of Finale or its counterpart Sibelius. Of the two that were explored (MuseScore and Noteflight) I much preferred MuseScore (as a free downloadable program), for it had the most similarities to Finale in my opinion. I realize I might be expressing some biased here however. Though not quite as intuitive as Finale (some functions require more in-depth processes than Finale) MuseScore is something I can see myself utilizing in the future. As for Noteflight, I might enjoy it more if a upgraded and could use the MIDI capabilities, but otherwise it does not seem like it is a complex enough program to arrange or compose with ease. Perhaps this might come with more familiarization and experimentation, but I personally doubt it. I found myself getting frustrated with the program often and not being able to easily find solutions for the issues I was having while attempting to learn to navigate the program, in direct contrast to MuseScore. One element I do recognize as unique is its web-based delivery that does make it appealing for score sharing purposes.
Once again, an interesting week in the class, and I look forward to the next!
Bauer, W. (2014). Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment