I received this criticism the other day, "[Nate], I love your ideas, but you have deviated from the doctrine of STEAM - Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Mathematics. Please get back to your mission, or re-name your blog. Thanks," - John B., Connecticut.
Dear John, (I've always wanted to say that?) Thank you for the criticism.You're right, it's time I got back to work on STEAM! This week, I want to discuss an idea that has been in my brain for some time now. The scope and sequence of a full compliment music program for K-12 functioning in a school under the Race to the Top / No Child Left Behind accountability measures. How will the arts continue in this environment? That's a good question, but with the PARCC Assessment and the Common Core Standards on the horizon, I think the arts are primed to become a hot commodity in schools and arts people need to be ready to lend their creativity and leadership to struggling non-arts people that are trying to find ways to get their students to higher order think.
What is the key to this? The answer may lie in our current national standards. Music Standards 8 and 9 declare: "Understanding the relationship between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts." And, "Understanding music in relation to history and culture." In my mind, these two standards are the power standards in music. They give us access to the other subjects, allowing us to find ways to mingle and work. Music itself is approachable and in many ways innate, but it can also become complex and challenging. The flexibility of music, and the accessibility of it, afford strong music teacher's pedagogical advantages when integrating with other disciplines.
How does this work?
Mathematics
First, there are metrics to the tempus (timing) of music. Everything that happens in a song must happen in TIME. Time is a measurable piece. Time can be quantified. The divisions of time can be measured, the speed at which the time passes can be measured. Also, the idea of stretching or altering the time variable is measurable. For non-musicians, singers must sometimes "create time" by stretching a phrase (really they're slowing it down) to work in a breath. Like all other scientific calculations, this can be shown on a graph.
The second mathematical principle in music is range. Range is the distance between notes. We refer to this as interval. Musicians judge interval, calculate the movement, and then make the jump between notes. This process happens very quickly. Young singers need time to orchestrate these jumps, but seasoned site-singers work by feel. They feel the distance and make those jumps easily. The distances between intervals can be mapped mathematically. If you feel really surly, you could map the relationships between intervals. I believe mathematicians call this ratio? In the case of music, not only does the size matter, but the position of the number in relation to tonic. Tonic is home base. Numerically we attribute the number 1 to tonic.
The third way that mathematics and music fit is found in fractions. Note values can be multiplied or divided. Since the values take place in time they are given a fractional value. For example, the quarter note takes up 1/4 of a measure in 4/4 time. Students should be able to divide full measure when given the variable of how many notes fit in a measure and what kind of note we are establishing time on. In 2/4 time, there are 2 quarter notes per measure. The measure can be no greater than that, unless one changes the time signature.
Most of these mathematical principles are taught in the primary grades. I would suggest to school principals and directors that the music teachers reinforce these gen-ed concepts during those K-5 grades. The nature of music classes at those grades lend themselves to having structured lessons that expose the students to instruments and singing, but also foster the mathematical principles that are the building blocks of rhythm and timing. By the 4th grade, students should be reading music outright.
In the Secondary grades, students will be taking more advanced classes and the mathematics of music will be too easy for them. The focus, then should shift to the higher order concepts of tonicization and analysis. To continue math in music at this point, students will need to shift to classes like Music Theory, or Aural Skills. The band and choir classes will need to focus on performances at this point, and honing the skills of the art itself.
English
The English connections are simple, yet profound. Reading is reading; the ability to understand symbols that translate to sounds and deciphering meaning from those sounds. Discovering meaning in symbols and imbuing that meaning with understanding. Utilizing understanding to create new meaning and associations is the synthesis of language - metaphor, allegory, analogy. These elements exist in music with words, and in music without words. Utilizing musical texts is the easiest way to connect the learner to the music and integrate English into the class. However, understanding the meaning of songs without words is much more higher order.
Writing music enhances the idea of word choice. When a composer creates music, they choose the sounds and instrumentation that they want - much like an artists chooses the colors for their palette. Authors also choose words that help to define their meaning, even when that meaning is cryptic. Helping students understand that English is an art, and that writing in the arts is much like composing or painting is another way to connect the two subjects.
Finally, language conventions. Just as there are conventions in writing prose or poetry, music also has a system of cadences that allow a composer to denote when the song is finished, when they are pausing, and when they are simply changing ideas, like changing paragraphs. Teaching this to students is similar to teaching the word choice concept. Why did you choose that chord? Why did you choose those notes? Why did you end there? Does this feel complete when you hear it? These are all questions that I've asked my theory students in the past.
Obviously, these concepts are much more difficult for students to grasp, and should be taught at the higher levels. I have had some success teaching these theories in a traditional method, but the best success has come when I have allowed students to play, not in a discovery learning sense - but with guided practice and synthesis. When I ask the students to write a melody, then a harmony, then change that harmony, then adjust the melody, and so on... That has yielded much more progress as the students become acquainted with the artistic process.
Isn't that what we really want to teach... a process of thought? A process of experimentation that will yield gains?
Hang on Science folks... I'm coming to you next week. You might consider that word, "process" and your own scientific "method". I think there's a link there for you to hook into?
Until then.
No comments:
Post a Comment