Endless Possibility of Sound (re: Drew 3/4/11)

"Is there a point where music can no longer reinvent itself?"

This is a great question with a definite answer. One of the first things you learn in a music class is that because there are so many different combinations of possible rhythms, articulation, notes, timbres, meter, form, and tempo, that there is no limit to how much music can be created.

For rhythms there are your standard whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes and sixteenth notes. Then it gets a bit more complicated with thirty second notes, dotted quarter, dotted half, dotted eighth, dotted sixteenth, triplets, duplets, quintuplets (say the word "un-i-ver-sit-y" or my favorite, "seg-a-gen-es-is" with equal space in between each syllable), and there are more. There is also the concept of poly-rhythms that I will not get into.

Articulation is a component that is extended from rhythm. Slurs connect notes, and the absence of a slur indicates to re-articulate each note. In addition, staccatos cut the note short and legatos give the note its full value making it sound longer, these can be added to any note.

There are 12 different notes across several octaves, if there was only one melodic line in any given piece of music, then yes there would be limited variety. Yet, there is the concept of harmony with the addition of counter melodies which defines the melodic structure of a piece and gives an infinite amount of possibilities. Music of our day is basically all I, V, IV (first note of the scale, fifth note, and fourth note) yet every song sounds different because of different lyrics, harmonies, and keys.

Timbre is the distinct sound each instrument makes, a trumpet sounds different than a piano. There are woodwinds, brass, percussion, and string.

Meter (how many beats and notes are in each measure) also extends the endless possibility in music. a Waltz is in 3/4 time, faster pieces are in 2/2 or cut time, and basically every thing else is in 4/4 or common time.

Form is how the music is structured. In contemporary popular music for our culture the form is: verse, bridge, chorus X 3. Of course there are variations of this. Other forms in classical eras include fugues, rondos (ex: ABA), sonata form, and so on. This component gives music its outline.

Tempo is how fast or slow a piece of music is. You would be surprised how different a song sounds just by speeding in up or slowing it down.

As you can see, with the variables of rhythm, articulation, notes, timbres, meter, form, and tempo the possibility of music created is endless. Just like there are a limited amount of words in a language, but an endless amount of stories to be told.

Question: How does the idea of a right or wrong answer in any scholastic subject change its properties?

Responce to Jessica 3/3/11

"Is music the greatest form of art for everyone or does it depend on the person? If a person is more connected to a different activity can it provoke the same feeling?"

Art is defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " Art is typically thought of as visual arts such as paintings, auditory arts such as music, performing arts such as theatre, and linguistic arts such as poetry. Yet, art is not limited to these subjects. One could argue that many things besides these lie under the category of artistic. What is it that makes something artistic? Anything that emitts emotion through an aesthetic medium is considered art in my book. I've only been horseback riding once in my life, but I can see why one would think it to be artistic. You are one with another creature and I assume it makes you feel closer to nature. Yes, it does depend on the person, if something feels beautiful to you than it is art in a subjective sense. Do what inspires you.

Another definition of art is any specific skill and its application. Anything can be an art if someone is good enough at it. Someone who is funny could be considered a comidic artist. Artistry isn't always a positive thing, an example is a con artist.

Question: What makes something art or an art?

Why music in education is important

In class yesterday Kim asked why should music should be taught in school?

Here are some reasons why:

· Music teaches sequential learning which is important to reading comprehension.

· Middle school and high school students who play instrumental music score significantly higher than non-band peers in standardized tests. University studies conducted in Georgia and Texas found significant positive correlation between the number of years of instrumental music instruction and academic achievement in math, science and language arts.

• Students who were exposed to the music-based lessons scored a full 100 percent higher on fractions tests than those who learned in the conventional manner. Second-grade and third-grade students were taught fractions in a nontraditional manner by teaching them basic music rhythm notation. The group was taught about the relationships between eighth, quarter, half and whole notes. Their peers received traditional fraction instruction.
• A ten-year study, tracking more than 25,000 students, shows that music-making improves test scores. Regardless of socioeconomic background, music-making students get higher marks in standardized tests than those who had no music involvement. The test scores studied were not only standardized tests, such as the SAT, but also in reading proficiency exams. In 2001, SAT takers with coursework/experience in music performance scored 57 points higher on the verbal portion of the test and 41 points higher on the math portion than students with no coursework/experience in the arts.
• Music majors are the most likely group of college grads to be admitted to medical school. Physician and biologist Lewis Thomas studied the undergraduate majors of medical school applicants. He found that 66 percent of music majors who applied to med school were admitted, the highest percentage of any group. For comparison, (44 percent) of biochemistry majors were admitted.
• A study of 7,500 university students revealed that music majors scored the highest reading scores among all majors including English, biology, chemistry and math.
• A McGill University study found that pattern recognition and mental representation scores improved significantly for students given piano instruction over a three-year period.
• self-esteem and musical skills measures improved for students given piano instruction.
• Data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 showed that music participants received more academic honors and awards than non-music students, and that the percentage of music participants receiving As, As/Bs, and Bs was higher than the percentage of non-participants receiving those grades.
• Research shows that piano students are better equipped to comprehend mathematical and scientific concepts. children who received piano/keyboard training performed 34 percent higher on tests measuring spatial-temporal ability than the others even. "Spatial-temporal" is basically proportional reasoning - ratios, fractions, proportions and thinking in space and time. This concept has long been considered a major obstacle in the teaching of elementary math and science.
• Young children with developed rhythm skills perform better academically in early school years. Findings of a recent study showed that there was a significant difference in the academic achievement levels of students classified according to rhythmic competency. Students who were achieving at academic expectation scored high on all rhythmic tasks, while many of those who scored lower on the rhythmic test achieved below academic expectation.
• College-age musicians are emotionally healthier than their non-musician counterparts. A study conducted at the University of Texas looked at 362 students who were in their first semester of college. They were given three tests, measuring performance anxiety, emotional concerns and alcohol related problems. In addition to having fewer battles with the bottle, researchers also noted that the college-aged music students seemed to have surer footing when facing tests.
• The world's top academic countries place a high value on music education. Hungary, Netherlands and Japan stand atop worldwide science achievement and have strong commitment to music education. All three countries have required music training at the elementary and middle school levels, both instrumental and vocal, for several decades. The centrality of music education to learning in the top-ranked countries seems to contradict the United States' focus on math, science, vocabulary, and technology.
• Music training helps under-achievers. In Rhode Island, researchers studied eight public school first grade classes. Half of the classes became "test arts" groups, receiving ongoing music and visual arts training. In kindergarten, this group had lagged behind in scholastic performance. After seven months, the students were given a standardized test. The "test arts" group had caught up to their fellow students in reading and surpassed their classmates in math by 22 percent. In the second year of the project, the arts students widened this margin even further. Students were also evaluated on attitude and behavior. Classroom teachers noted improvement in these areas also.
• "The nation's top business executives agree that arts education programs can help repair weaknesses in American education and better prepare workers for the 21st century."

Facts provided by: http://www.nammfoundation.org/research/research-briefs-did-you-know

These facts clearly support the idea that music should be taught in schools. Music makes you smarter, more motivated, and raises your self-esteem. I realize that music and sports both teach team work, but an ensemble is the biggest team you will ever be in. A basketball team has 10-15 players and 5 players on the court at one time; a football team has 11 on the field; a baseball team has 9; soccer has 11. Do you know how many people are in an instrumental ensemble? 20, 30, 40, even up to 200 players! What other thing in the world involves this many people working together simultaneously towards one common goal? What other thing in the world do this many people work together to make something beautiful? With sports teams you have to be good initially to be on the team from middle school and beyond because you have to try out. Because they only need a limited amount of players, they only pick the best ones. Music never turns anyone down, the only way to be discarded by any ensemble is for having a bad attitude. They accept everyone no matter what your musical background, or how good you are, if you are interested the instructors will teach you. This could be why music raises ones self-esteem. I understand that music isn't for everyone and that not everyone is good at it, but that does not mean it should not be taught in schools. Just like gym class is required for physical health, music should be required for mental and emotional health.

So I end with the question: why shouldn't music be taught in schools?

Response to kim

Could the scientific method still be viable for the constructivist?

I can see why you ask that question. The constructivist relies on subjective experiences to make up their own world and the point of the scientific method is to study things objectively. The scientific method is a way to accurately measure something while cancelling out specific nuisance variables. You have an independent variable, a dependent variable and controls. Yet, one can carry out an objective study and then view it subjectively. The scientific method is important so that those pre-subjective thoughts or predictions do not get in the way of how the results turn out. The article we read a few weeks ago about radical constructivism, argued that radical constructivism should be used in physics classrooms. Physics highly relies on the scientific method to carry out experiments. Just like everyone else, radical constructivists want to discover knowledge and they know that when doing an experiment they cannot let their projections get in their way. The scientific method is viable for the constructivist.

Question: Do radical constructivists face obstacles in daily life that force them to go against their beliefs?

Phenomenology

In class on Wednesday we brought up the idea of social constructivism. I became interested in seeking out another type of philosophy of reality and came across the idea of Phenomenology. It was founded by Edward Husserl (yet he adopted terms and ideas from Kant and Hegel's philosophies.) Phenomenology looks into the conscious experiences of individuals. These experiences include: emotion, imagination, desire, memory, thoughts and most importantly perception.

Phenomenological philosophy terms

1. Lifeworld: the world of lived experience from a person.

2. Intentionality: Consciousness is always conscious of something, that something being whatever a person is focusing on. This can be mental or physical stimuli. Intentionality looks at the aim of consciousness.

3. Evidence: The subjective gathering of truth

4. Noesis and Noema: Noesis is the actual thought and noema is the ideal thought in any act of intentional consciousness.

5. Empathy and intersubjectivity: the phenomenological concept of empathy refers to concentrating on the “subjectivity” of oneself and then applying that to experiencing another’s human body as yours. Intersubjectivity represents objectivity. One must view themselves as a subject among other subjects. At the same time, they must see themselves as existing for the other person.

Phenomenology as an applied pedogological practice allows teachers to discover new meaning in the aspects they teach and allows them to make choices that change personal teaching practices.

In a school reform study sixteen teachers participated in the process of coming up with a shared school pedagogy. This involves teachers sharing their successful experiences with teaching methods so that they may collectively come up with joint pedagogical beliefs. Teachers also shared their personal stories with teaching and this gave other teachers insight to how others perceive things. After these joint beliefs were established they attempted to incorporate them into their everyday teaching.

They used phenomenology as a methodology in addition to these new practices. This implied exploring the knowledge of children: how they perceive, what they think about, and how they view the world. After this incorporation, some, but not all of the teachers felt like they had more insight to the students which helped them teach better. (http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/mos02453.htm)

Question: How would teachers benefit from understanding how their students perceive, imagine, think, and structure their conscious?

What is Knowledge?

The radical constructivist's two main claims are as follows: Knowledge is not received but actively built up by an individual. Mental processes change and work to adjust the experiential world, not to realize ontological reality.

Ontological reality contains what 'really exists', it is a question of metaphysics. The way that radical constructivist theory protects itself from being called solipsistic is by remaining agnostic to any metaphysical claims. Solipsism is based off of Descartes claim: I think therefore I am. (I can only know I exist). Solipsism is philosophical suicide because it is ridiculous to think that you only exist and everything else may very well be a figment of your imagination.

Radical constructivist theory stresses the importance of perception, how an individual perceives reality to be. Reality does not exist independently of its perceivers. Knowledge is not knowledge until someone perceives it as that way. There is no raw knowledge only interpretations of it. This is why in radical constructivist teaching, the teacher must make a cognitive map of how their student interprets information, because they must understand their reality.

In class on Wednesday, Professor Johnson talked about the theories of radical constructivism and realists. He stated that knowledge = justified/ truth/ belief. Our knowledge consists of what we believe is justified and true. For realists, when a new belief matches an already existing belief, the new belief is true. Yet, for the radical constructivist when a new belief matches a previously existing belief, the new belief is viable, not true.

Questions: Are justification, truth, and belief necessary or sufficient conditions for knowledge? Since radical constructivist theory does not believe something can be true, does that mean that they do not have valid knowledge? Can the information in their repertoire only be 2/3 knowledge?

Re: Emily 2/17/11

"Is it valid to reject radical constructivism solely because it makes it very hard (maybe even impossible) to function in society?"

It is not valid to reject RC theory because it makes it difficult to live in society. Yet, that does give reason to adjust the theory and add a missing link. What is it about radical constructivism that makes it very hard or impossible to function in society? In my opinion it is the fact that those living by this theory cannot accept things that they have not experienced. We experiences society, so we should know how to function in it. The missing link may be the addition of societal joint perceptions (that an individual experiences) to an individual's constructed reality.

Carl Rogers, a famous client-centered therapist and humanistic psychologist, believed that experience is the private world of an individual. It is always conscious at some level, yet there are experiences we encounter that are difficult to bring into awareness. The individual is the only one who can know their awareness completely.

For psychological purposes, reality is essentially the inner world of individual perceptions. Yet, for social purposes, reality is made up of perceptions that have a high amount of agreement within a society.

The perceptual field of an individual, how the world appears to them from their specific point-of-view is known as the internal frame of reference. It is based off of the entire span of one’s learning history and experiences in addition to the meanings and feelings attached to them.

Roger’s definitions of experience and reality are very similar. Private world of the individual vs. private world of individual perceptions vs. private world of societal perceptions. Experience is inner awareness, it is all internal because we all have our own set of experiences. Psychological reality is our inner world created by how we perceive external stimuli. Social reality consists of our intake of societal perceptions and projections of our responses to them. The internal frame of reference ties the three theories together by inductively stating that an individual’s view of reality is based off of their experiences. This supports the radical constructivist theory. The missing link in the radical constructivist theory may be the idea of a social reality. In Rodger’s theory it emphasizes the importance of individual experiences and perceptions but also highlights that societal joint perceptions are important too. These joint perceptions and acceptances are needed to function properly in society.

If Ernst von Glasersfeld adopted the theory of social reality would his RC theory still be valid?