I apologize for going back to the Music Curriculum butterfly again, but I am thinking more and more that it was a genius idea to use a metaphor for such a curriculum.
First of all, I am and always have been a creative person. Pure logic was something I always struggled with. I always flourished when we were given an assignment that allowed for some creativity - when we were able to put some thought into what we were going to do and how we were going to do it. And those are the assignments/projects that I remember the most as well. One that stands out from high school was having to create a "soundtrack" to Macbeth. That was right up my alley. Basically we had to make a tape with a song to represent each scene. We also had to provide a written document explaining why each song was chosen and how it complimented/supported the scene. I think this was an excellent example of how the teacher could still get a good picture of how well we understood what we were reading, while making it more intriguing for us rather than just writing an essay. Now writing is something I also love, so I probably wouldn't have minded an essay either. But give me a page of math questions or ask me to list facts about how the heart works and I freeze.
Anyway, my point is that those of us who are blessed/cursed with creative minds obviously see the world in a creative light. This brings me to our discussion of models versus metaphors in Chelsea's presentation of Gustafson's article, and why I think it is genius that they chose to use a metaphor for the music curriculum. I would say that probably most elementary music teachers are creative-minded people - especially Orff specialists. So it is only fitting that they didn't try to confuse our creative minds with a bunch of models with arrows and boxes. Again, I would take one look at that and freeze.
This led me to think about students within the context of my classroom. Being that I teach music using the Orff process, most of our time is spent being creative and expressive. This is partially due to the fact that I am a trained Orff specialist, but I'm sure the fact that I need creativity in my life has something to do with it. However, after our discussion of metaphors versus models and which representations we are most comfortable with, I was reminded of the fact that not all of my students have that creative mind. Not to say that all students are not creative - I think that everyone has the potential to be creative in some form or another. But just as non-creative pieces confuse and torture me, I'm sure that creative pieces can be confusing and torturous to others, and this is something that I need to remember in my classroom.
Here's an example of a class period in grade 4 or 5:
Students are divided into small groups and given a card with a 4-line poem (or piece of a story) on it. They are instructed to use instruments and/or body sounds of their choice (previous examples and discussions on choosing sounds to enhance a story have been explored as a group) and appropriate movements/staging to enhance the given text. They will also need to make use of previously learned concepts such as dynamics, tempo, timbre and form. Students practice their selection, refine and then perform for the class. They are given feedback from their peers as well as their teacher. Students are given an opportunity to refine and polish their performance after hearing the feedback. Finally, each group performs as a whole – perhaps as a Rondo (ABACAD…) to present the final product.
To the creative mind, this is a party! But when I observe students doing activities such as these, there are always some who sit back and don't contribute, or some who keep saying "I don't know what to do", or some who can't agree on anything to try with their group. I think that aside from problems such as difficulty working in groups or just not wanting to do anything, some of these issues might stem from the fact that this creative type of activity "freezes" students who are not as creative-minded. They are afraid to take a leap, or perhaps don't know how to take the leap. Perhaps their minds just don't work that way, or haven't been exercised in that way. But just as I know it is important for me to experience and develop facility with non-creative thinking, I believe that those non-creative thinkers also need to expand their creative capacities.
I was at a workshop one time where they were discussing the qualities most needed for jobs in this day and age, and one of the top qualities was creativity. When you think about it, it makes sense! Just think about the way our world is going - technology, technology, technology. And what kinds of qualities do you think one needs to develop video games, cell phones, web sites, television commercials, new cars, new curriculums, etc.? Hmmmm...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you Ashley. I feel like I'm a creative person as well, but since being in a mainstream classroom, I feel like my ability to think creatively has decreased. I never felt this way while student teaching. While in my practicums, all I could see were possibilities and creative elements of how to meet connect students with information. Once getting into my own classroom, it was a whole other story. Now instead of seeing teaching and learning in circles and clouds, I see it in charts, spreadsheets, flow charts... I can't help but think that maybe this is how my students feel as well. But, what I find most interestin is that the majority of my students ENJOY this type of structure because it is low risk. As you said, I think it is because they don't know HOW to take risks.
ReplyDeleteI read a book called A Whold New Mind, which discusses the importance of developing our right brain attributes because these are what are needed to be successful in the new economy.
Creativity is so often overlooked in school, especially high school because there is so much curriculum to cover. Creativity takes time and it doesn't fit into neat little boxes with arrows. It flies in unpredicatble elipses. This intimidates teachers who are accountable for showing HOW students have met outcomes.
I felt the very sense of creativity fade in my own education once I hit grade 9. After that, I was on my own to pursue creative endeavours because the school didn't have time for them anymore. When I look at the people I went to school with, the ones who continued their creative pursuits are the ones who have been most successful. (From my perspective)
Your music class sounds like a lot of fun. I'm amazed by how much things have changed since I was in elementary school.
I can identify with feeling like a creative person too. As a result, you would think that if I were teaching in a classroom, I would choose to teach subjects which allow for a lot of creativity. But, if I'm honest, if I were in a classroom the subject I would probably sign up to teach would be Math. The reason: I found Math assignments easier to mark than coming up with a way to assess more creative projects in other subject areas (this is in reference to question/answer Math assignments, not a creative type of Math assignment). I am not implying at all that teaching Math is easy, or that teachers can not infuse creative activities and assignments into their Math lessons. However, from a purely time consuming perspective, I found marking and assessing Math to be less time consuming out of school than assessing creative projects in English or Social Studies. While i enjoyed teaching creative subjects & assigments more, I found myself less than enthusiastic about the amount of time they required to prepare and to assess.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder how many teachers who identify with being creative individuals opt to teach in a manner that might not reflect that creativity due to factors such as time constraints, or working within a framework that puts more emphasis on objective completion than creativity. I certainly respect teachers who, despite the extra work which may be involved, choose activities and lessons wich provide their students with opportunities to be creative themselves.
hey ash...the tyranny of the mark in High School does a lot to beat the creativity out of classes...that and a content loaded curriculum which in some cases is a prerequisite for taking the next level of course...oftentimes i wished i didn't have to evaluate...in my mind the need to evaluate creates a propensity toward meaningless assignments...they don't really teach anything but you can give it a mark...and here i am going to play devil's advocate concerning your shakespeare assignment...my sense is that the assignment would really work for high achieving, literary skilled kids...what if they are deficient in language skills however...can we afford the luxury of creative exercises...this is not me being a curmudgeonly old b....just a reflection on my reality of a bio teacher which relies heavily on language skills...probably the single biggest reason that students don't do so well in science and why they don't like it...nothing to do with content...literacy skills...we actually got divisional funding for the development of a programme that was focussed on increasing literacy skills using the science program as a vehicle...
ReplyDeleteif i had to teach without being able to be creative i would have quit ages ago...so there has to be a balance i suppose between creativity and skill development...my sense is that there is no global awareness of the entire set of skills that are covered in a high school curriculum...might it be helpful i am wondering