(In
my life B.B. [Before Blogs], I used to write articles. Mostly just to clarify
my thinking about my craft, but sometimes they were published in various Orff/
Music Education magazines. Yesterday I wrote one for an international Orff
gathering in the summer. And I liked it. And since I have nothing to say about
today other than I’m out of my mind to think I can prepare 32 6th
graders to play music for, decorate and be judges for our annual Samba Contest
at school in just two 45 minute classes (one of them was today), I thought I’d
share the article. Part I as follows:)
Bringing an Orff Schulwerk program into schools is reason
for celebration. It gives children who might not otherwise be exposed to any
kind of music education the opportunity to meet their musical self and discover
how to speak and express themselves through song and sound and movement and
more. When taught in the full spirit of faith not only in each child’s innate
musicality, but also his or her creative faculties and humanistic promise, an
Orff program can change a child’s life for the better, can change a school
culture for the better, can do its part to refresh and even heal a troubled
world.
But schools often have very different agendas that are not
always friendly to children’s flowering, that care little about healing the
world, that are more concerned with the right answers than the right questions,
that often care for tests scores more than the students. To negotiate the
conversation between two sometimes opposing cultures, there must be clear and
careful thought. Consider the following scenario:
A Model Class
Children are seated in a circle of instruments—bass
xylophones, altos, sopranos, cowbell, conga, hi-hat, ride cymbal, bass drum.
Each instruments has a different part to play in a multi-layered arrangement of
a children’s game, Boom Chick a Boom. In-between
each instrument is a child watching, listening and studying the player to his
or her right. All play until the teacher signals, “Uh-huh! Oh yeah! All right!
Move on!” and during the next 8 beats, all move one place to the right. The
children who had been studying now play, the children who had played now watch
to learn the next part. And so it goes, until all have traveled around the circle.
The atmosphere is relaxed, the music is swinging, the kids
are clearly having fun and so is the teacher. When someone is struggling with a
part, the person next to them leans over to help them. Not because the teacher
told them, but because it’s the natural thing to do—it feels good to help
people and things are more fun when the music sounds good. If the time is up
before they get all the way around, you might hear kids groan and one might
even exclaim (as once happened), “This is more fun than recess!!”
Notice the high level of education and the model of healthy
community here:
1). Kids are motivated without threats or promises of
reward. The excitement of great music that is playable by them at their
developmental level is enough.
2) The kids are happy.
3) The kids are relaxed, willing and able to try out new
things, take a risk within the circle of community.
4) The kids are connected to each other, each individual
part joining to make a yet more glorious whole. They are part of a venture larger
than themselves of which they contribute a necessary and beautiful part.
5) The music sounds great.
6) The kids get to hear it from a different vantage point as
they move around the circle and play each of the separate parts, thus getting a
round and complete understanding of how it works.
7) The kids discover what they can initially do well, what’s
challenging. They’re ready to keep working on it in the classes to come.
Who can argue with that? Wouldn’t any music teacher be
thrilled to have a class filled with happy, helpful, motivated children who are
playing great music?
Trouble in Paradise
Now imagine if we bring the traditional school culture into
the above activity, grading the children on their performance on each
instrument in the circle. What would happen?
1)
Now the kids are not motivated by the innate
pleasure of striving for mastery and instead or focused on doing what the
teacher want to get a good grade. The grade becomes more important than the
music and the process of learning it.
2)
The kids are stressed, knowing they are being
judged and that their grade will (theoretically) indicate their future success
in society. They’re not happy.
3)
They will be unwilling to take risks because
they might fail on their first time and be punished with a bad grade. When
there’s stress, the brain gets stuck down in the lowest part—flight, fight or
freeze—and kids can’t access higher level thinking skills nor the body master
the needed techniques.
4)
The kids are now in competition with each other.
Since most grading systems are based on the curve—all can’t get A’s—one child’s
“failure” is thus a cause of celebration for another child’s chance for
“success.” Instead of helping, kids are pitted against each other.
5)
Nervous, stressed musicians don’t make good
music.
6)
The kids are not listening to the whole, more
worried about their success with their part.
7)
When kids discover something is challenging and
their grade will decrease as a result, they add an extra layer of feeling like
they failed or they’re stupid or they’re not talented instead of recognizing,
“Hey, I’ve never done this before. Of course it will take a while to feel
comfortable.”
In short, the wrong
kind of assessment, even with the intention of holding teachers and children
accountable for successful learning, ends up doing the opposite. And if
we’re serious about “successful” learning, it means we have to entirely
re-think the way we assess kids.
And I have. Starting with some essential principles and then
moving on to the specifics of how, here’s a look at a kind of assessment that
supports the feeling of joy, inclusion, risk, community and belonging that a
good Orff classroom cultivates.
(Stay tuned for Part II tomorrow.)
(Stay tuned for Part II tomorrow.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.