I'm taking a bit of a page from my all my writerly friends.
They have told me "if you send out 100 submissions, 1 will probably be accepted"
I felt that way about jobs, but, i'm starting to think finding a job is a lot more luck than perseverence. even if you're qualified and sending tons out, you're fighting that 100-1 ratio for applicants at every job it seems.
But, in submissions in my professional realm (sending out scores, auditioning for ensembles, etc) that's a different story. I'm really new to that market and so i'm pushing on. Still, it's been a rough summer for me. gigs falling through (i've learned to charge about 1/10 of what i'm actually worth professionally here. if i'd charge $1000 for an arranging job, charge $100. then, i might have a crack at it...), submissions rejected, and not winning auditions. throw on top the lack of a job, no money, having my car broken into, well, i prolly have a right to feel a little down...
But i don't really. My friends and family are being quite supportive. without that, maybe, i'd be done. But, instead, i'm taking a different approach.
I'm not working hard enough.
This summer is almost over and i don't have any new pieces written. why? there is no reason i shouldn't have written at least a couple major pieces by now. had the time.
So, it's time to man up even more. More submissions need to go out. put myself out there even more. Send my works around, get them torn apart, or maybe even accepted, and just keep on keeping on. i love doing this too much to quit. i won't waste the last 8 years of my life...
People put their faith in many different things: God, Allah, Buddah, money, the internet, other people.
I put my faith in myself first. Good thing will happen if i just work harder. just. work. harder.
7/15/10
7/10/10
Troll Trouble
here it is, the animated short i collaborated on. I think it's pretty freaking awesome!
7/2/10
writing for piano
Over the past 7 months, i've been to one masterclass on writing for piano, one piano performance masterclass, and spoken to many individuals on how to write for piano. some of the things i've heard have actually really upset me.
the reasons that the "advice" i've heard upsets me is because it really seems to narrow down what exactly piano literature should be. some of the things i've heard for "strong" solo piano writing:
1) uses the entire keyboard
2) makes use of extended techniques, especially playing inside the piano
3) does not have large amounts of direct repetition (say, playing the same chord, repeatedly, in sixteenth notes, for two measures.)
4) has all those things but is basically sight-readable "because pianist don't have time to sit down and work things out."
5) no large jumps (over a tenth or so), most especially during fast passages.
Ok, so the last one was a paraphrase and me getting irritated, however, it's not far off from what exactly was said.
now then, i understand some of these things. from a technical perspective, it is incredibly difficult (and sometimes impossible) to do a wide leap incredibly quickly. however, "quickly" is pretty relative. depending on the leap, passage, etc, i can nail about a 2 octave leap and back pretty quickly and with decent accuracy, and i'm not a good pianist. yes, the passage would need more work than say a straight scalar passage, but it's not unplayable. my passage was a set of running 16th notes at 8th equal 168. so, yeah, pretty darn quick. and it was a series of repeated chords with jumps every 5th note of 2 octaves. when i brought this before a pianist at a masterclass, she said it was "completely unplayable." however, i had another pianist basically play it down, complain a little bit, then practice and nail it on a regular basis.
this gets to what is my main gripe with this idea of "how to write well for piano." It dictates styles of composition. meaning this, if i want to write something highly repetitive and bombastic, say, like "Great Balls of Fire," i would get shot down immediately. or let's say i'm doing a pointilistic piece that is entirely about wide jumps and timbre changes. make sure it's nice and slow...Or, let's say i want to write a somewhat minimalist piece that only uses the middle 2 octaves of the piano.
every piece written for piano that people love does NOT use the whole range of the keyboard. i can think of many of Chopin's etudes that, since they focus primarily on one problem, limit things such as range. also, there are highly successful pieces that use a large amount of repetitive chords (say, Hammerklavier by Beethoven?).
as for playing inside the piano...well...at this point, it's rather cliche. it's cliche because of the attitude "it's not a modern piano piece without playing inside the piano." just like on all the other instruments, it's all about extended techniques. why?
for those that have heard my music, you know i'm far from "neo-classical" or "neo-romantic." I use extended techniques, my harmonic language is usually much closer to atonal than Tonal. in fact, i'm never Tonal, but i do work in free triadic harmonies on occasion. and yet i'm insulted when someone tells me "piano music is only good if you use the whole keyboard, play inside the piano, don't have banging repetition, and avoid large leaps." great, i'll just go write against Listz. and fail.
the best part was in the masterclass when the pianist asked me "did you even play this at a piano?" and i responded "Yeah. i've played for about 19 years, taken lessons for about 12 of those years. I can hack my way through the piece pretty well. and i am most definitely not a great pianist." After that, the session ended. I more or less pointed out that this pianist was a TERRIBLE sight-reader. i mean, really really bad sight reader (messed up a couple easy pieces people brought in). i don't care if you have multiple CDs, if you can't sight read, to offer to read pieces. when i did a masterclass on writing for trombone, i said "please send me files ahead of time for me to look at. don't expect me to sight read them day of, cause they won't sound very good."
ok, end rant. At the end of the day, if you have an artistic vision for a piece, and it isn't completely impossible (some things are, like, say, a 18 note chord played without the aid of a special device.) then go with it, and don't worry about what some people say. there are millions of pianists in this world, more than likely someone will like your piece and be willing to play it. if not, you may find someone professional enough to play it anyway.
6/4/10
Interpretation
Ok, it's been forever since i wrote. My past month hasn't been spent very productively either. lol.
I have been practicing piano on a more regular basis. It's little more than trying to get my fingers moving in the right directions again, get a little speed back. My main reason for doing this is to help me in composition, so i can play through my parts a bit easier. I've also been practicing doing score reductions by sight, very slowly, to get a feel for things.
I don't have a great deal of piano music with me. most of it seems to have been lost in various moves, my parent's house being redone and subsequent storage of things, and my own disregard for piano music over the last six years or so. The only full "serious' pieces i have on hand are J.S. Bach's French Suites. I played the Menuet from Suite III long ago, so i thought, hey, why not?
The first thing i had to do was go back over my dance suite info. It's been way too long since i've thought about the dance suites and i really wanted to make sure i had an idea of the character of each movement. I did some light reading on the dance suite movements, a bit about the evolution to Bach's suites, and a little bit about the French Suites. after i did that, i went into practicing. at first i just kinda ran through things as quickly as i could, to just kind of get the idea under my fingers, feel where things went. i wasn't paying attention to strict time, i was noticing where the passages i would be working hardcore would be, and getting a general idea for fingering.
I'm now to the real practicing stage, going nice and slow. I take things in little chunks, starting at the beginning, and slowly add more. I think i'll try a different approach after that and go backwards from the end, just to hear it differently.
but this isn't what the blog's really about...
I was practicing the first movement of Suite III, an Allemande. I had worked out some of the phrasing issues early on, as it seemed pretty straight forward. I was practicing for correct pitches and rhythms, but, one thing was nagging me. I knew Allemande's are generally somewhat grave in character and not speedy pieces (leave that for the Menuet on Crack and the Gigue). I couldn't seem to figure out a good tempo for it. It definitely didn't want to be slow. So, i did something i rarely do
I pulled out some recordings.
I've said before, i'm not a fan of learning music from recordings. I like being informed of practices, of course, but i don't like being judged by "Glenn Gould's interpretation." But, i was struggling a bit since i'm out of practice and i'm not in lessons, so, listening to half dozen or so recordings to get a general feel would be good.
I hit up youtube first, hoping for Glenn Gould actually. lol. the first thing i got was a video of what appeared to be a 16 y/o male playing the first movement. The video was actually shot right before he played it at a recital...
and, well, it wasn't bad. But, he definitely played it too fast. and there was no phrasing. it was a speed fest. No nuance, just GO! i decided to read the comments and there were TONS of positive comments "You are so good. blah blah blah." One guy attacked him for "not doing all the ornamentation." Happily, the pianist answered in a great way "By 'missed' you mean omitted, right?
In that case, there are very few ornaments that Bach actually wrote in the score. Most are inserted by the editor who has done research on Bach. I used an urtext edition. Listen to multiples recordings of the piece and you'll hear that there's a lot of variation in ornaments."
good answer kid, and Bravo to fight the power. I didn't like your approach, personally, but i defend your right to play it that way! and good for you to back it up.
As for me, i listened to a half dozen more with speeds varying from Dirge-like to Gigue-like. I was more than a little surprised, actually. there's interpretation then there is "whoa, that's a lot of different opinions!" It was actually amazing to me that Glenn Gould's recording may have been the fastest. I mean he really blazes through the piece. and only has about 2 ornaments the whole time because of it. I'm not a big fan of Glenn Gould's interpretations of pieces, other than for the pure enjoyment of listening to an amazing pianist with a very unique perspective.
It was an interesting exercise, especially since i was focusing mainly on just getting tempo ideas. In the end, i'm going to go with a moderate tempo. someplace in the middle seems about right. now, if i could play the Gigue as fast as Gould, that'd be hott
I have been practicing piano on a more regular basis. It's little more than trying to get my fingers moving in the right directions again, get a little speed back. My main reason for doing this is to help me in composition, so i can play through my parts a bit easier. I've also been practicing doing score reductions by sight, very slowly, to get a feel for things.
I don't have a great deal of piano music with me. most of it seems to have been lost in various moves, my parent's house being redone and subsequent storage of things, and my own disregard for piano music over the last six years or so. The only full "serious' pieces i have on hand are J.S. Bach's French Suites. I played the Menuet from Suite III long ago, so i thought, hey, why not?
The first thing i had to do was go back over my dance suite info. It's been way too long since i've thought about the dance suites and i really wanted to make sure i had an idea of the character of each movement. I did some light reading on the dance suite movements, a bit about the evolution to Bach's suites, and a little bit about the French Suites. after i did that, i went into practicing. at first i just kinda ran through things as quickly as i could, to just kind of get the idea under my fingers, feel where things went. i wasn't paying attention to strict time, i was noticing where the passages i would be working hardcore would be, and getting a general idea for fingering.
I'm now to the real practicing stage, going nice and slow. I take things in little chunks, starting at the beginning, and slowly add more. I think i'll try a different approach after that and go backwards from the end, just to hear it differently.
but this isn't what the blog's really about...
I was practicing the first movement of Suite III, an Allemande. I had worked out some of the phrasing issues early on, as it seemed pretty straight forward. I was practicing for correct pitches and rhythms, but, one thing was nagging me. I knew Allemande's are generally somewhat grave in character and not speedy pieces (leave that for the Menuet on Crack and the Gigue). I couldn't seem to figure out a good tempo for it. It definitely didn't want to be slow. So, i did something i rarely do
I pulled out some recordings.
I've said before, i'm not a fan of learning music from recordings. I like being informed of practices, of course, but i don't like being judged by "Glenn Gould's interpretation." But, i was struggling a bit since i'm out of practice and i'm not in lessons, so, listening to half dozen or so recordings to get a general feel would be good.
I hit up youtube first, hoping for Glenn Gould actually. lol. the first thing i got was a video of what appeared to be a 16 y/o male playing the first movement. The video was actually shot right before he played it at a recital...
and, well, it wasn't bad. But, he definitely played it too fast. and there was no phrasing. it was a speed fest. No nuance, just GO! i decided to read the comments and there were TONS of positive comments "You are so good. blah blah blah." One guy attacked him for "not doing all the ornamentation." Happily, the pianist answered in a great way "By 'missed' you mean omitted, right?
In that case, there are very few ornaments that Bach actually wrote in the score. Most are inserted by the editor who has done research on Bach. I used an urtext edition. Listen to multiples recordings of the piece and you'll hear that there's a lot of variation in ornaments."
good answer kid, and Bravo to fight the power. I didn't like your approach, personally, but i defend your right to play it that way! and good for you to back it up.
As for me, i listened to a half dozen more with speeds varying from Dirge-like to Gigue-like. I was more than a little surprised, actually. there's interpretation then there is "whoa, that's a lot of different opinions!" It was actually amazing to me that Glenn Gould's recording may have been the fastest. I mean he really blazes through the piece. and only has about 2 ornaments the whole time because of it. I'm not a big fan of Glenn Gould's interpretations of pieces, other than for the pure enjoyment of listening to an amazing pianist with a very unique perspective.
It was an interesting exercise, especially since i was focusing mainly on just getting tempo ideas. In the end, i'm going to go with a moderate tempo. someplace in the middle seems about right. now, if i could play the Gigue as fast as Gould, that'd be hott
5/2/10
statistics
I've gotten quite annoyed by some people's (and companies') use of statistics. Like, a recent Cherrios ad
"Reports show that people that consume more whole grains are shown to have healthier body weight."
or
"94% of all readers have engaged in an historical event or activity within the past year. this is based on 65,000 respondents. Our goal is to target this demographic"
So, it begs HUGE questions, which, at its most basic is "why?"
Why are people consuming more whole grains shown to have healthier body weight?
Why are readers attending historical events?
and, with the second, what KINDS of events or activities?
These statistics are incredibly misleading. let's take, for instances, the first.
Why do they have healthier body weights? Well, whole grains tend to be much more filling, so, perhaps, they're eating fewer servings. Or, perhaps, it's because the whole grain foods, especially cereals, aren't always covered in sugar. or, is it because those focusing on eating whole grains are also equally focused on eating other healthier foods. will eating whole grain cereal make you healthier. nope, not by itself, at all.
the second, well...
Without answering the "what kind of events" how can any company really decide on a product? saying "they like the civil war and will spend money on it, regardless" is pretty ridiculous. are they buying may different dvd's (the main product of this company)? are they going to re-enactments? or are the going to, say in the case of professors that subscribed to the magazine the stats came from, going to a conference over the Civil War. without that sort of info, WHAT are they ACTUALLY spending money on, it's nearly impossible to decide on a product. you can't just say "Hey, it's Civil War, they'll love it!"
Also, as i've noticed with a lot of Civil War buffs i know, they tend to gravitate toward specific events, battles, figures. It's not "OOO, CIVIL WAR! Let's buy a DVD!" also, the company is not paying attention to other figures, like money actually made in dvd sales vs. other products, such as live performances. Take a look at the film industry. They don't make their money back on the show from DVD sales, they make it back at the BOX OFFICE!
also, there's another VERY important part to the second set of statistics. how many people are actually in the demographic? in other words, when you break it down, is your primary audience 100,000 people? 1 million people? 65,000 people? and then, how many would really be interested in your product from that demographic?
so, yeah, i'm growing tired of this misuse of statistics. They can contain a large amount of info, but, c'mon. I'm not stupid enough to go on something that only offers part of the story. I'm especially wary of statistics presented just as percentages. so, let's say 75% of my friends on facebook are fans of my artist page. that sounds pretty good. but what if i said i only had 100 friends on facebook? all of a sudden, i only have 75 fans. well...that's pretty lame.
so, statistics good. bad use of statistics REALLY REALLY BAD. rant over
"Reports show that people that consume more whole grains are shown to have healthier body weight."
or
"94% of all readers have engaged in an historical event or activity within the past year. this is based on 65,000 respondents. Our goal is to target this demographic"
So, it begs HUGE questions, which, at its most basic is "why?"
Why are people consuming more whole grains shown to have healthier body weight?
Why are readers attending historical events?
and, with the second, what KINDS of events or activities?
These statistics are incredibly misleading. let's take, for instances, the first.
Why do they have healthier body weights? Well, whole grains tend to be much more filling, so, perhaps, they're eating fewer servings. Or, perhaps, it's because the whole grain foods, especially cereals, aren't always covered in sugar. or, is it because those focusing on eating whole grains are also equally focused on eating other healthier foods. will eating whole grain cereal make you healthier. nope, not by itself, at all.
the second, well...
Without answering the "what kind of events" how can any company really decide on a product? saying "they like the civil war and will spend money on it, regardless" is pretty ridiculous. are they buying may different dvd's (the main product of this company)? are they going to re-enactments? or are the going to, say in the case of professors that subscribed to the magazine the stats came from, going to a conference over the Civil War. without that sort of info, WHAT are they ACTUALLY spending money on, it's nearly impossible to decide on a product. you can't just say "Hey, it's Civil War, they'll love it!"
Also, as i've noticed with a lot of Civil War buffs i know, they tend to gravitate toward specific events, battles, figures. It's not "OOO, CIVIL WAR! Let's buy a DVD!" also, the company is not paying attention to other figures, like money actually made in dvd sales vs. other products, such as live performances. Take a look at the film industry. They don't make their money back on the show from DVD sales, they make it back at the BOX OFFICE!
also, there's another VERY important part to the second set of statistics. how many people are actually in the demographic? in other words, when you break it down, is your primary audience 100,000 people? 1 million people? 65,000 people? and then, how many would really be interested in your product from that demographic?
so, yeah, i'm growing tired of this misuse of statistics. They can contain a large amount of info, but, c'mon. I'm not stupid enough to go on something that only offers part of the story. I'm especially wary of statistics presented just as percentages. so, let's say 75% of my friends on facebook are fans of my artist page. that sounds pretty good. but what if i said i only had 100 friends on facebook? all of a sudden, i only have 75 fans. well...that's pretty lame.
so, statistics good. bad use of statistics REALLY REALLY BAD. rant over
4/27/10
educational paradigms
Today was my last day teaching CITS. it's been a good experience for the year, and i can't wait till next year.
That being said, i'm going to go in a slightly different direction with this post. The teacher was discussing how each year it is getting harder and harder for him to get students to do any work. This year's beginning group, he said, was one of the worst he's ever seen, and, as a whole, he has seen the program decline. In fact, he told me that the school in general has been in a steady state of decline over the past few years. The main culprit, in his estimation? Lack of work outside of school.
I'm not one to take up one side of a story and run with it as fact, however, this is not an isolated incident. I have heard of school districts where teachers are actually afraid to assign homework. What?!? SERIOUSLY?!? yep, it's true. One school, in particular, has had several teachers leave over the last few years completely based upon the threats of parents. Yep, parents are coming to this school, complaining that the teachers are giving far too much work, that the assignments are far beyond what any 6th grader could ever accomplish, and threaten the administrator and teacher with legal action.
OK, i'm not even positive what legal action could be taken. "My son/daughter says doing a 2 page book report on a grade level 6 book is far too difficult. I don't have time to help him/her, so i'm coming in and TELLING you that s/he is NOT going to do it. And if you fail him/her, i will sue you." I REALLY hope that this is a complete exaggeration, but i don't think it is in all cases.
Now then, i'm not saying that perhaps the parent does have a point. Maybe, just maybe, it is too much work. for me, as a 6th grader, i would have laughed my head off. I remember having to write a 500 word book report in 6th grade (this is about a page and a half to two pages, double spaced) and having HUGE problems summarizing the 350 page book in 500 words. Granted, i was reading something a little larger, but, seriously? and even if they don't hit 2 full pages, they won't get automatically failed.
There has been a continuing shift from teacher oriented to learner oriented learning. Basically, the mode of transmission, originally the teacher lecturing, has been moving toward giving students more free reign in deciding projects and assignments as well as assessment. This is supposed to give students more flexibility to work on projects that interest them, take advantage of their strengths, and hopefully produce better outcomes. But...is that the point?
Education's main purpose, to me, is to create life-long learners. I'm not concerned as much with outcomes assessment, or skill creation, or even knowledge transference. All those things are a part of education, but if we (teachers) cannot create learners that are able to learn on their own, and WANT to learn on their own, and have the ability to learn on their own, then we have failed. why? let's take a simple model:
a student is working in his English class, preparing a book report. The teacher is having all students write a report on the exact same book. unfortunately, this student did not like the book, and struggled to even finish it. He is a bright student, gotten mostly As and Bs throughout his career. The teacher has decided, seeing so many students "struggle" with the book, to go over it in class for about a week. the student, being grade oriented (he cannot play sports if he doesn't keep at least a 3.0 GPA) pays attention in the lectures and takes a few notes. Prepared with the notes from the teacher going through the book in class, he writes a 3 page book report that is, in fact, nothing more than a regurgitation of the notes. He checks it carefully for spelling and grammar, and turns in the report. The teacher awards the student at A because of the perfect spelling and grammar. The teacher agreed with the content, of course, because it was his own words rewritten in an eloquent manner. The student receives the A, is pleased, and goes on with his life.
Now, what's wrong with this picture? i can name a bunch of things, in my opinion. And whose fault is it? everyone involved. First, having everyone do a report on the same book, while a good exercise, always has the danger of having students thoroughly dislike the book. There is something to the "you have to learn to work through things you don't like," and i can appreciate that, however, if the point of the assignment is to get into a book and write a good paper, then it is not a good approach.
I'd say the teacher failed in these ways: 1) clear objectives were not giving for the assignment. Why is everyone reading the same book? What does he specifically want from the report? 2) instead of getting to the root of why the students are struggling, he assumes it is just too difficult of a book and walks them through it. how is the achieving his (unstated) goals? 3) giving a good grade based upon grammar alone trains students to expect that is how ALL papers will be graded. Again, this problem really goes back to #1, because how can he grade it in any other way without clearly defined goals for the assignment.
The student also failed in this assignment: 1) if anything was unclear, he should have asked for clarification. 2) when struggling with anything, asking questions is the way to approach the problem. how else can a problem be rectified?
i could keep going on and on, showing each failing i see at each level, from teacher to student, to parent, to administrator. In the end, education is a chain of ALL levels working together. And what's most important, again in my estimation, is creating a life-long self-sustaining learner. Once you're out in life, there isn't a teacher to hold your hand, or even, sometimes, a parent or friend to guide you through the process. If I want to learn a brand new piece of audio software, i may get lucky and know someone that has used it, but, more than likely, its me, the program, a 2000 page instruction manual, and a few tutorials. i better have a way of learning this program all on my own.
In the end, that is the greatest thing any student can learn. yes, the transmission of some specific knowledge is required to function in society (yes, red means stop and green means go. not knowing this is, well, a big problem...) as well as skill building (from mechanics to math to suitable typing and language skills) but if a student can never learn to be a student on his/her own, then life after high school will be nearly impossible, be it going onto college or entering the work force. It becomes a trial by fire, a sink or swim environment where people learn to learn or they lose quickly and fall back only on the skill they have accrued to this point.
Do i have an answer to the problem? no, not really. I'm becoming a fan of contractual learning, where students, teachers, and parents all get some input at some point. It's much like providing a syllabus with a few blanks that can be filled in. Open communication at all levels is also of huge importance, and making sure that the communication line is not garbled. Telling a student to tell his/her parent(s) about something isn't a great way to do things. Written communication is better, especially something that can be sent directly to the parent. I dunno, i still have a lot more questions than answers and am still working on identifying problems. Some of the problems are obvious, others are much more covert. maybe, by the time i'm 175, i'll have worked out something suitable.
That being said, i'm going to go in a slightly different direction with this post. The teacher was discussing how each year it is getting harder and harder for him to get students to do any work. This year's beginning group, he said, was one of the worst he's ever seen, and, as a whole, he has seen the program decline. In fact, he told me that the school in general has been in a steady state of decline over the past few years. The main culprit, in his estimation? Lack of work outside of school.
I'm not one to take up one side of a story and run with it as fact, however, this is not an isolated incident. I have heard of school districts where teachers are actually afraid to assign homework. What?!? SERIOUSLY?!? yep, it's true. One school, in particular, has had several teachers leave over the last few years completely based upon the threats of parents. Yep, parents are coming to this school, complaining that the teachers are giving far too much work, that the assignments are far beyond what any 6th grader could ever accomplish, and threaten the administrator and teacher with legal action.
OK, i'm not even positive what legal action could be taken. "My son/daughter says doing a 2 page book report on a grade level 6 book is far too difficult. I don't have time to help him/her, so i'm coming in and TELLING you that s/he is NOT going to do it. And if you fail him/her, i will sue you." I REALLY hope that this is a complete exaggeration, but i don't think it is in all cases.
Now then, i'm not saying that perhaps the parent does have a point. Maybe, just maybe, it is too much work. for me, as a 6th grader, i would have laughed my head off. I remember having to write a 500 word book report in 6th grade (this is about a page and a half to two pages, double spaced) and having HUGE problems summarizing the 350 page book in 500 words. Granted, i was reading something a little larger, but, seriously? and even if they don't hit 2 full pages, they won't get automatically failed.
There has been a continuing shift from teacher oriented to learner oriented learning. Basically, the mode of transmission, originally the teacher lecturing, has been moving toward giving students more free reign in deciding projects and assignments as well as assessment. This is supposed to give students more flexibility to work on projects that interest them, take advantage of their strengths, and hopefully produce better outcomes. But...is that the point?
Education's main purpose, to me, is to create life-long learners. I'm not concerned as much with outcomes assessment, or skill creation, or even knowledge transference. All those things are a part of education, but if we (teachers) cannot create learners that are able to learn on their own, and WANT to learn on their own, and have the ability to learn on their own, then we have failed. why? let's take a simple model:
a student is working in his English class, preparing a book report. The teacher is having all students write a report on the exact same book. unfortunately, this student did not like the book, and struggled to even finish it. He is a bright student, gotten mostly As and Bs throughout his career. The teacher has decided, seeing so many students "struggle" with the book, to go over it in class for about a week. the student, being grade oriented (he cannot play sports if he doesn't keep at least a 3.0 GPA) pays attention in the lectures and takes a few notes. Prepared with the notes from the teacher going through the book in class, he writes a 3 page book report that is, in fact, nothing more than a regurgitation of the notes. He checks it carefully for spelling and grammar, and turns in the report. The teacher awards the student at A because of the perfect spelling and grammar. The teacher agreed with the content, of course, because it was his own words rewritten in an eloquent manner. The student receives the A, is pleased, and goes on with his life.
Now, what's wrong with this picture? i can name a bunch of things, in my opinion. And whose fault is it? everyone involved. First, having everyone do a report on the same book, while a good exercise, always has the danger of having students thoroughly dislike the book. There is something to the "you have to learn to work through things you don't like," and i can appreciate that, however, if the point of the assignment is to get into a book and write a good paper, then it is not a good approach.
I'd say the teacher failed in these ways: 1) clear objectives were not giving for the assignment. Why is everyone reading the same book? What does he specifically want from the report? 2) instead of getting to the root of why the students are struggling, he assumes it is just too difficult of a book and walks them through it. how is the achieving his (unstated) goals? 3) giving a good grade based upon grammar alone trains students to expect that is how ALL papers will be graded. Again, this problem really goes back to #1, because how can he grade it in any other way without clearly defined goals for the assignment.
The student also failed in this assignment: 1) if anything was unclear, he should have asked for clarification. 2) when struggling with anything, asking questions is the way to approach the problem. how else can a problem be rectified?
i could keep going on and on, showing each failing i see at each level, from teacher to student, to parent, to administrator. In the end, education is a chain of ALL levels working together. And what's most important, again in my estimation, is creating a life-long self-sustaining learner. Once you're out in life, there isn't a teacher to hold your hand, or even, sometimes, a parent or friend to guide you through the process. If I want to learn a brand new piece of audio software, i may get lucky and know someone that has used it, but, more than likely, its me, the program, a 2000 page instruction manual, and a few tutorials. i better have a way of learning this program all on my own.
In the end, that is the greatest thing any student can learn. yes, the transmission of some specific knowledge is required to function in society (yes, red means stop and green means go. not knowing this is, well, a big problem...) as well as skill building (from mechanics to math to suitable typing and language skills) but if a student can never learn to be a student on his/her own, then life after high school will be nearly impossible, be it going onto college or entering the work force. It becomes a trial by fire, a sink or swim environment where people learn to learn or they lose quickly and fall back only on the skill they have accrued to this point.
Do i have an answer to the problem? no, not really. I'm becoming a fan of contractual learning, where students, teachers, and parents all get some input at some point. It's much like providing a syllabus with a few blanks that can be filled in. Open communication at all levels is also of huge importance, and making sure that the communication line is not garbled. Telling a student to tell his/her parent(s) about something isn't a great way to do things. Written communication is better, especially something that can be sent directly to the parent. I dunno, i still have a lot more questions than answers and am still working on identifying problems. Some of the problems are obvious, others are much more covert. maybe, by the time i'm 175, i'll have worked out something suitable.
4/24/10
college teaching experience
Well, i was a bit behind in getting it done, but in my Pedagogy of Composition class, i was required to teach at least a 20 minute session of an undergrad composition course. I got lucky in my late planning and got a chance to work with a beginning electronic music class.
it's been a little while since i last taught college students, and i've never formally taught electronic music. I spent a large amount of time working in labs and helping students with tech skills but that's a bit different. One thing i noticed about my teaching style was i first commented on the technical aspects. it was "i heard distortion here, i a bad edit here, blah blah blah." However, i tried to push on past that and focus on compositional ideas.
the time really flew and even though i have sketched notes of what i talked about it seems kinda cloudy in my head. I'm going to go ahead and blame the ash cloud over Europe from the eruption on Iceland. Most people are blaming it for things, why not blame it on my being brain dead? lol.
anyway, i had thoughts and they're gone. It was a good experience. Maybe i'll recall them better after i get some more caffeine in my system.
it's been a little while since i last taught college students, and i've never formally taught electronic music. I spent a large amount of time working in labs and helping students with tech skills but that's a bit different. One thing i noticed about my teaching style was i first commented on the technical aspects. it was "i heard distortion here, i a bad edit here, blah blah blah." However, i tried to push on past that and focus on compositional ideas.
the time really flew and even though i have sketched notes of what i talked about it seems kinda cloudy in my head. I'm going to go ahead and blame the ash cloud over Europe from the eruption on Iceland. Most people are blaming it for things, why not blame it on my being brain dead? lol.
anyway, i had thoughts and they're gone. It was a good experience. Maybe i'll recall them better after i get some more caffeine in my system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)