Top 10 Lessons from NDCE

10 Sometimes, simple is best. We try so hard to teach our students EVERYTHING, that I think we get too complex. If we keep it simple, students may be better able to grasp each idea. Then, maybe, after the simple, main ideas are presented, we can get more complex.

 

9 Encourage or provide connection. Not every student will be able to relate to every subject. But if I can make it relevant to each student, then they will be able to take more away from it. This means that when I'm teaching scales, I will likely have to tell each student exactly what scales are good for and why we play them. They're not terribly exciting by themselves. But if I can help my students to see how they will help their playing, then the results can be terribly exciting.

 

8 When considering my teaching, I have to remember that every student is an individual, and has individual needs. The same things are not compelling for every student, so it's important to get a variety in there. This is good for me, as I primarily teach private lessons. However, it also makes it even more important for me to get to know each student. I currently have between 20-30 students, and while that may not seem like many to those who teach over 100 students every day in middle or high school, I am working individually with each student. I also only see them once a week. So I have about a half hour window each week to get to know each student. Students that I have had for a few months to a few years, we have a rapport and this comes easily. But new students, that don't know me, don't want to open up to me yet, this is more difficult for. I have to constantly remember that they are their own individual, and will need their lessons designed to make them compelling for them.

 

7 Just like in photography, composition of a lesson can have a big impact on whether or not it is compelling. As teachers, there's no way we can teach our students everything. We only have so much time. So we need to pick and choose what makes it into the lesson plan, and frequently I don't have enough time to teach the lesson plan, so from there I have to pick the most important things. Just like in photography, the addition or subtraction of one element can make a huge difference.

 

6 Everyone's interpretation is different, and right for them. I may think that Dvorak's Humoresque has a funny, lighthearted section, a bittersweet section, an angry section, but that's not the only way to interpret that piece. My students may think something completely different. And that's okay. Because with music, it's not about right or wrong, it's about taking something beautiful and making it your own.

 

5 Focus is important. There is an epidemic in the United States right now, of being so concerned that students learn everything for their standardized tests, that teachers tend to give students a lot of subject matter to learn, but barely skim the surface. I don't know anyone who thinks this is compelling. In my teaching, I need to be sure I take a deep breath, pick just a few topics, then focus on them. Allow my students to explore them in-depth. They will not only learn more about them, they will be able to extrapolate from them, and I can ensure that these focus areas are more compelling.

 

4 Surfaces matter. How I present a lesson will directly influence how my students perceive it. If I tell them, “Okay guys, pay attention. We're going to start learning about fractions. Fractions are really hard, so we'll have to work hard to master them,” then I'm creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They'll expect them to be hard, so immediately they're going to struggle with them and likely hate them. Whereas I can introduce it, “okay, we get to explore some really cool, fun numbers, called fractions. We'll start with snack, which is apples today. Everyone gets half an apple,” they'll start out thinking that this might be something easy they can master. I could also introduce it, “okay everyone, settle down. The next thing we're learning is really boring. We're going to learn fractions,” immediately they turn their brains off and disengage. Presentation really does matter. So I need to stay invested and excited for lessons, so my students will be.

 

3 What is beneath the surface matters. We frequently get so caught up in our daily to do lists, everything we must do, that we only skim the surface. But there are ideas and experiences that are within layers, that we have to dig deeper to find. I'm thinking of music, the way you will have a melody over the top, and that's all a lot of people hear. But if you listen, there is activity beneath the surface. Chord changes, unique rhythms, sustained notes, etc. So much is going on, and sometimes it's not the melody, the surface, that is the most exciting or meaningful. Take a moment each day to look beneath the surface.

 

2 It is the raw, unedited, undiluted experiences that are more compelling. In order to keep my lessons compelling, I need to stay fresh. I continuously am changing my focus, staying fresh. If I linger too long on one topic (like I taught ONLY Suzuki for the first 2-3 years), things get over-edited, sterilized, and they are no longer compelling. When I change my focus, to a different method book, a different style, then my lessons are fresher, more real, and more compelling.

 

1 Allow choice and ownership. I discovered, in exploring the way I have fashioned my home, that I find my own creations to be compelling to me. So if I am able to encourage my students to fashion their own creations, and give them some choice in how they go about it, they will be more invested in the learning process and find it more compelling.

On "Surface and Substance"

I don't ordinarily write a response to just a single reading, but my response is so strong that I felt compelled to.

First of all, you can't necessarily say that Coke and Pepsi are exactly alike, only differentiated by packaging.  Now, to me, sure they are, but I don't particularly care for soda.  However, they are made by two different companies.  And while I'm sure they're similar, I'm equally certain that they're not exactly the same.  And if people get more excited about one or the other, because of the packaging?  Where's the harm in that?

The critics of "surface," who claim that it erodes the "Puritan values" capitalism was built on . . . really?  You're going to connect religion and economy?  While the two certainly influence each other, I do not believe it is right to demand that they work together.  Certainly, our country was founded on at least Protestant ideals, but we are by no means the only country with capitalism.  Capitalism exists in Muslim countries, Buddhist/Hindu countries, Catholic countries, etc.  It's absolutely ridiculous to shun design and fashion because it influences capitalism away from Puritan values.

It was also argued that all surfaces deceive.  They all tell lies, manipulate consumers, and detract from content.  Certainly, this is sometimes the case.  But definitely not always.  There are many very functional products that also happen to look nice.  Like my new flooring.  It does the job of being a floor very well.  My allergies have decreased since putting it in (we had carpet), it's much easier to clean, and it certainly withstands walking very well.  It also looks really nice, which I consider a good thing.  As far as manipulating the consumer, and getting them to spend more?  Go for it.  If people can't realize that they have no use for the thing they're buying, then they deserve to spend more money.  Actually, the way some of the views were expressed, made me wonder if the people expressing them had been "deceived" into buying something worthless and pretty.

Now, the minister worrying about aesthetics taking away from worship, that I can get.  He can worry about that - it's relevant.  However, some of the most beautiful things in the world have been created because the artists were inspired by religion.  Handel's Messiah, The Sistine Chapel, and the vast majority of Bach's works are great examples.  If I were religious, I imagine my faith would be enhanced by experiencing them.  Who knows, maybe today's Christian rock bands will be tomorrow's Bach?

I have definitely seen my fair share of movies that are more special effects than anything else.  Take Avatar, for example.  It wasn't a bad film; it was actually pretty good.  But I don't feel it deserved all the hype it got from actual substance.  It got that hype because of the special effects.  Sometimes, though, you just want to see something pretty.  Or as my husband says about Transformers, "Sometimes you want a compelling film that makes you think and changes the way you feel.  And sometimes you just want to see giant robots wailing on each other."  Then there are undoubtedly movies that are very good, in and of themselves, but also have great special effects.  I'm not a huge movie-watcher, so I don't have an example, but I'm sure there are.

Maybe I've got it easy with my own looks.  I'm okay looking, not gorgeous, not ugly.  And quite frankly, I don't have the time, patience, or energy to care about my hair, clothes, shoes, or makeup.  So I get my hair cut on a semi-regular basis, make sure it's short and I won't have to worry about it, and otherwise take the stylist's recommendations.  I buy clothes that while they're not "in style," they don't look horrible.  I have a pair of serviceable boots that I wear everywhere, and I wear jeans.  I simply do not wear makeup.  And if some people don't like me for it?  So what.  I've got better friends that don't care.  What if I lose customers over it?  Big deal.  I have plenty of students, and always appreciate more time.  My students pay me for my expertise, not to look at my face.  If that's what they care about, they won't worry about my looks.  If they don't care about my expertise, then I don't really want them as students.  But luckily, I was warned by my teachers that I would have to pay attention to my looks, so I got into the business prepared.

I don't understand why people are freaking out about other people spending more on surface.  If I want to spend $50 to get my nails done, well, that's my decision, and I'll make that decision on my own.  If I needed to spend that money on something else, then sure, I'd forgo the nails.  I have often enough.  But I see no need to worry about how someone else is delegating their resources - that's their business, not mine.  The argument that surfaces are all about status is just bogus.  Sure, I'm happier that my floor is nicer so when I'm teaching out of the home my students will see a nicer home.  But I wanted these floors long before I decided I wanted to teach out of my home, and never thought any of my students would see them.  I love my new floor for itself - both the function, and the form.  However, I just realized that Frank's ideal world where everything was drab, does indeed exist.  The Amish have all agreed to wear drab colored clothes, eschew music, and only invest in function.

"A bad person can be beautiful or create beautiful things." (pg 90)  Case in point: Wagner.  He created some truly beautiful and moving music, but his character was not exactly the best.  He was Hitler's favorite composure, which should give you an idea.

So, what does all of this have to do with teaching?  Other than directly, what I've already mentioned, a lot.  If we, as teachers, can take valuable content, but package it in a way that is pleasing to our students, they will learn more.  For example, I used to teach solely from the Suzuki books.  I happen to really like the music, but not all my students do.  Now, I encourage students to play other music, music they find fun.  It has occurred to me that it really doesn't matter what they play.  Any music they play will only contribute to their education.  And actually, a lot of popular music is written in more difficult keys, with more accidentals, and weird, difficult-to-count rhythms.  So it really stretches my students, sometimes more than the "traditional" lesson music.  And, because they find it fun, and find intrinsic value in playing popular music, they practice more, learn more, and become better musicians.  All through "fun" music.

Fashion . . . in a sense

When I first looked on Angel today and saw that a unit on fashion had been added, I was appalled.  I detest fashion.  I purposefully buy clothes that aren't necessarily "in fashion," rather, I buy clothes that will always work.  I hate shopping, and the idea of having to buy new clothes every season to fit the latest fashions really terrifies me.  In fact, fashion is a cause of a major gulf between my mother and myself.  She'll buy me a shirt, or a dress, and it will be so horrendous that I'll never wear it.  I'm sure it was "in fashion" when she got it for me, but honestly, it looked like a painting smock I would have worn in kindergarten.  Or it was a tad too . . . revealing . . . for a teacher.  She has since been outlawed from buying me clothes.

Now that I have that off my chest, I think I'll take a somewhat creative view on what fashion is.  In the readings, it's been asserted that you can also look at fashion as a verb, the act of fashioning something.  I'm going to look at it that way, and explore how I have fashioned my home.  Not the inside, as I already explored that during the interior design unit, but the outside.

My home sits on a beautiful 3 1/2 acres.  We have a pasture in front that is fenced in for my ducks and chickens, and their coop is on the side of the house.  In between the house and the pasture is the old coop.  This is where I'm raising this years' chicks.  In the backyard, I have 2 beehives, 3 garden beds, and a turtle enclosure.  I have 2 rows of different kinds of fruit trees, and along the left side is a row of vines - blackberries, raspberries, and grapes.

I'm not a landscape architect.  Most probably would not consider what I've done to be the most beautiful thing I could have done.  But it is compelling to me.  Why?  Because it's mine.  I created it, planned and built the garden beds, put in the fence, built the coop, painted my beehives, planted my fruit trees.  It is more the act of fashioning my home that is compelling.

What about education?  I fashion lessons all the time.  However, would it be more compelling to encourage my students to fashion their own lessons?  To encourage them to ask questions, and direct their own learning?  Of course, they have to have a certain maturity to manage this, both as people and as musicians.  And they have to be motivated to do it.

I've already been working on allowing my students more choices.  I encourage them to find fun music they want to play, to bring it to their lessons, ask questions on that.  Because I've come to realize that any playing they do on their instrument is going to help them improve.

One thing I've been working on improving in my playing as well as my teaching is improvisation.  In English, students are expected to be able to not just read the language, but also to write and speak in it, to analyze novels, hold discussions, and think of things on the spot.  The equivalent of this in music is improvisation.  If I can teach my students how to fashion their own pieces, would that not be more compelling for them?  To be able to create their own songs, and have ownership.  In addition, it will undoubtedly increase their understanding of music.