(Note: skip to the bold section if you don’t have time to absorb the non-bold material.)
First, I love teaching this class, and I appreciate the contribution each of you makes to it.
Nothing has changed my life as a musician (and as a person) than improvising. Improvising, expressing your genuine emotions, using the musical vocabulary you have right now is so powerful; it’s being authentically who you are. And it is definitely not about being or doing what other people want you to be and do. Introducing other musicians to this kind of music making is one of the most wonderful things in my life; I know that it changes other people’s lives as it did mine.
Another thing that changed my life was being introduced to the ideals of humanistic education, of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation (in learning as well as the rest of life), and coming to understand how much of our current educational culture is shaped by behavioristic ideas of shaping behavior through rewards and punishments (such as grades). I’m acutely aware that a lot of what happens in schools and colleges about navigating a system and pleasing authority figures, and I honestly believe, as I’ve told you, that most of what happens in such a system is temporary learning meant to trigger a desired response (figure out what the professor wants, give it to him or her, and get your A).
You can read an excellent overview of humanistic education by clicking here. And, from that site, here’s a summary of its key features:
According to Gage and Berliner (1991) some basic principles of the humanistic approach that were used to develop the objectives are:
- Students will learn best what they want and need to know. That is, when they have developed the skills of analyzing what is important to them and why as well as the skills of directing their behavior towards those wants and needs, they will learn more easily and quickly. Most educators and learning theorists would agree with this statement, although they might disagree on exactly what contributes to student motivation.
- Knowing how to learn is more important than acquiring a lot of knowledge. In our present society where knowledge is changing rapidly, this view is shared by many educators, especially those from a cognitive perspective.
- Self-evaluation is the only meaningful evaluation of a student’s work. The emphasis here is on internal development and self-regulation. While most educators would likely agree that this is important, they would also advocate a need to develop a student’s ability to meet external expectations. This meeting of external expectations runs counter to most humanistic theories.
- Feelings are as important as facts. Much work from the humanistic view seems to validate this point and is one area where humanistically-oriented educators are making significant contributions to our knowledge base.
- Students learn best in a non-threatening environment. This is one area where humanistic educators have had an impact on current educational practice. The orientation espoused today is that the environment should by psychologically and emotionally, as well as physically, non-threatening. However, there is some research that suggests that a neutral or even slightly cool environment is best for older, highly motivated students.
There’s a fascinating article in today’s New York Times about a man named Loren Pope. He champions education at small, liberal arts colleges that are not too selective. DePauw, he believes, “has become too big, too prosperous and too selective.” “He even argues that B students ask more probing questions than A students, who he thinks are too caught up in trying to curry favor,” says the article. No offense to you if you are an A students, as I was, but that rings true for me.
Mr. Pope wrote a book about 10 years ago called Colleges That Change Lives. Isn’t that what college should do? In talking about our class the other day, I said to one of you that I’m really not interested in how many facts you temporarily learn. All I really want to do is to change your life, if you are willing to have it changed.
I want to change it by giving you the opportunity to participate in certain kinds of process. One is the process of creating your own music. The other is the process of engaging with particular set of subject matter in a way that is genuinely engaging. In a way that you have a lot of choice over. In a way that isn’t about jumping through the right hoops the right way (we’re all good at that already) but is about connecting to the material from your own passions and interests and using your own learning style(s).
A colleague in the English department and I were talking with other members of a committee yesterday about good teaching. He has his students write him a letter every two weeks telling him what is and isn’t working in the class and giving him suggestions. Based on that feedback, he sometimes completely overhauls the course mid-semester, and he’s constantly making less significant changes.
There’s a good idea, I think, especially in a course where the focus is on process and the experience of the students.
So, keeping in mind the ideals I’ve listed below (and discussed above) for the course, please ADD A COMMENT or EMAIL ME about how you feel the course is going, how the balance between music-making, history, and philosophical discussion is working, and sharing any suggestions you have for structuring class time, etc. (And if I’m doing anything you don’t like or think is counterproductive or annoying and ought to stop, tell me that, too.)
Here is what we’re trying to accomplish together:
- develop your own abilities as a creative musical artist;
- use the phenomenon of improvisation as a starting point to think about the nature of music, of musical performance, and what classical musicians do;
- really “get” that improvisation has always been an intrinsic part of what we call classical music, even though we’ve forgotten that;
- develop some in-depth knowledge about improvisation in classical music that connects with your musical passions and/or is relevant to what you are preparing to do professionally;
- participate in a collaborative learning environment in which you feel free to express your ideas and engage and debate with others; and
- have the opportunity to absolutely be and express yourself.
Thanks!
–EE
March 1, 2007 at 3:52 am
First comment…hmmm…
For me personally, I am usually half awake during class. A lot of dialogue does not generally help me to stay awake, at least not at the beginning of the class. I think incorporating more improv into the classroom will be very helpful. I also think that it would be useful/helpful/interesting to discuss any challenges that individuals faced during their respective ‘improv sessions’ during class. I think that could lead to discussions of improv techniques and practices that can help us in our experiences.
Overall, I really enjoy the class, and like how expressive we can be. I like the forum-style setup we have going.
🙂
March 1, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Well I hope this isn’t too straight forward but I don’t see a connection between this class and our practical study. Maybe im not seeing the point in a lot of the warmup excercises that we’re doing, but they just don’t click well with me. I feel weird and uncomfortable doing them, but I feel completely comfortable improvising so I don’t see how they are supposed to help create a more comfortable, aware environment for improvisation. I guess when I signed up for the class I figured we’d be talking about how to improvise over classical harmonies. So I guess I’d like to see more improvisation in general…but thats just me.
March 1, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Well, AJ, warmup exercises are often useful for people who aren’t comfortable improvising. We have a wide range of experience with improvisation among the members of the class. And you are comfortable with a certain kind of idiomatic improvisation. Interacting improvisationally with other people, even non-musically, can help develop other dimensions of your self.
We definitely will be working on improvising over classical harmonies, though, and that’s certainly an area for you to explore as an area of focus.
And thanks for sharing what you find frustrating–that is useful feedback.
Kate, thanks for your suggestions, too.
EE
March 1, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Kate, I forgot to congratulate you on your first post!
And, by the way, do you all agree that “B students ask more probing questions than A students, who . . . are more caught up in trying to curry favor”? Or that DePauw “has become too big, too prosperous and too selective”? (As Loren Pope was quoted in the NY Times.)
March 2, 2007 at 2:21 am
First of all, I am quite satisfied with where the class is going and how it has been conducted thus far (but I think that in terms of the level of actual improv, I am in the minority). I do miss doing the very small group improvs that we did at the beginning. I really enjoyed getting together with just one or two of my classmates and experimenting in a closed and informal setting that did not un-nerve me. I would like to have more experiences like that encorporated to the class.
Selfishly, I also hope to see the more general ice-breaking non-musical improv exercises stay, as they relate very closely to the philosophical cross over between music and acting improv, which is my subject of interest for the semester.
Finally, in reference to your last entry, I feel that engagement of students has more to do with the atmosphere of a class than the student. I feel like DePauw generally does a pretty good job of making classes “safe” environments in which to debate and challenge what is taught without an academic consequence. As a result, I feel that at DePauw it is easy to be a grade focused student while not losing out on intellectual engagement. For whatever it’s worth, I have generally found it easier to strike that balance in my liberal arts classes than in my music classes.
March 2, 2007 at 6:17 am
I feel that although this course is supposed to technically be a history course, I think instead of having that as our focus point, that could be an aid to helping us understand/explain the philosophy of improvisation. Learning about improvisation and its developement through history should be a stepping stone to understanding exactly what improvisation is.
There should also be more playing. The only way to get to Carnegie hall is practice, practice, practice. If we don’t experiment, we don’t learn (in theory).
I also feel that we should learn how interact more successfully with each other while we’re improvising…musical communication. This can be achieved by experimenting with sounds/modes/scales etc.
March 3, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I have been pleasantly surprised by the nature of this course. Last semester, I read the book “The Schools Our Children Deserve” by Alfie Kohn, a book that is devoted to the implementation of “intrinsic” education, in order to make things meaningful for the student. An understanding of why we are learning something is more important than anything else in this system. Actually seeing this type of an education implemented is very good for me.
However, I am the type of student who is trying to actively make whatever I am learning meaningful in some capacity, and I have a strong memory, so some elements of a traditional classroom do work well for me (not that that is what I want, because I believe in the value of a classroom utilizing social constructivism). Hopefully our open-ended project on improvisation can give me a stronger ability to create ideas on my own, because I do tend to be that “A” student, not necessarily asking very good questions.
March 5, 2007 at 1:52 am
Well, as I’ve already told professor Edberg, I think that there has been too much talking about improv and not enough doing. The problem is balancing theoretical learning with practical study. It is primarily a history course but I feel that we are asked to learn too much by listening and watching others do something, when we should be doing it ourselves.
I’m finding, Through this class and Edberg’s ensemble, that improvisation is a very personal thing and we should all be free to learn improv in the way that best suits us. We do all have to have a common middle ground but after that I think we should have multiple facets to the class.
Those uncomfortable with actually improvising only need do it in groups during the “middle ground” and can spend the other time, learning through discussion, or personal study. And those who feel they would learn better actually doing, get the discussionn out of the way in the “middle ground” and spend the rest of the time experimenting with improvisation.
I think that would be the ideal way to restructure the class, but taking what we have, I’d suggest that the class is divided into three groups on a Friday, Each group gets together and improvises for an hour and then at the beginning of each class one group does an improv to kind of kick start things.
March 5, 2007 at 1:58 am
Oh, and something I forgot. I think the people that improv should be randomly selected. I have noticed a sort of pattern in the way that Edberg chooses the people who improv. Honestly, if we are just going to pick people at the beginning, then names should be selected from a container and make the process truely random. And I think the people that are chosen should be put back in for each of the following classes so that we are always on our toes and so that everybody gets to improvise with everybody.
March 5, 2007 at 3:49 am
Thanks for your comments, Chris. When I select people to improvise, I try to balance between people who I think will be comfortable and/or are playing an instrument suited to what the specific activity is, and those who I think need encouragement. And I try to make sure it gets spread around evenly. I’ll avoid , for example, singers who I know aren’t feeling well, etc. But if it seems I’m favoring or slighting anyone, I sure want to know that.
Drawing names could indeed introduce a pleasant element of surprise! What do the rest of you think?
March 5, 2007 at 3:50 am
I do generally like the way the class is so far… although at times I do feel uncomfortable. But I think it is my own fault as a direct result of missing so many classes early in the semester. The warm up stuff does help me, becuase I don’t have anywhere near the experience that some peolpe in the class do. However, I can see how they could get a little bored, so maybe we should split into groups so that we can work to improve from the level on which we already exist.
March 5, 2007 at 3:59 am
Well, Kate 1, that’s a good idea–more independent small group work. We can use some class time for that, too, especially on Wednesdays when we have four spaces available.
Would you suggest we group people by levels of experience, or mix things up? Or vary it?
March 5, 2007 at 4:04 am
Personally I wouldn’t mind mixing by experience…..but I would also like to improvise with as many different groups as possible. I really enjoy experiencing the differing results with different instruments and different people.
March 8, 2007 at 6:26 am
First of all, I would like to apologize to the class, and especially Dr. Edberg, for missing the classes that I have missed thus far in the school year. I am no “party animal,” and my actual excuses aren’t valid enough to render merit, so I will just say that I am sorry and will do better in the future. It’s not a great start that I am writing this this late at night…
I really enjoy the intimacy of the classroom setting we have agreed upon, but as it has been said, most DePauw classrooms are decidedly open to suggestion and debate in terms of what we are learning and thoughts put forth by the students. I think that the setup is good; we are covering the material, slowly, but covering it. I think that some of us were just kind of hoping that the cadenzas and the understandings of ornaments and all the blissful benefits of improvisation would just come to us in a vision through this class, but really, what it takes is hard work (practicing improvising) and/or thinking (in this case, some of our research projects). Like anything in music, it doesn’t just happen. You have to work at it.
It’s interesting that Dr. Edberg phrased the third point as saying that we have “forgotten” that improvisation was apart of the creation and performance process in music. I don’t see how we could have “forgotten” something that some of us never understood in the first place. WE seem to be pretty enthused about this (maybe not everybody, but most of us), if we are willing to take a class in it, and I know that it will be a personal goal of mine to incorporate improvisation into my musical study somehow. I improvise every day, when I talk, but for some reason, talking out of my horn isn’t as easy. Again, it takes work, and I think that Dr. Edberg is leading us in the right direction.
I do have one concern. When we split off into groups and improvise, as we did over the ground bass today, it led to a very cool development in terms of how we took a rule (such as a ground bass) and then expanded on that rule in order to create the improvised…creation…that we did. However, we had very little direction in getting there, so little, in fact, that one of the group members actually raised the question “What are we doing in this class right now?” I know what we’re doing, or where we’re supposed to be going, but I think that since everyone is going a different direction with their improvisation, and there is no “end goal” or whole-class project/improvisation evaluation at the semester’s end, we can’t really have something to shoot towards except what we can aim for on an individual basis. It’s hard to work in groups when everyone has a different goal for their career, this class, and themself.
March 9, 2007 at 2:47 am
I am going to echo a few of the comments said earlier…I also miss the small groups that we use to meet between classes just to have fun! isnt that what improv. is about..having fun, and letting that help you grow and become comfortable on a different level with your instrument.. Sooo..the historical aspects we have been covering in class have been more interesting than I thought they would be..im saying this because chant and early music was the most boring part of music history when i took it..BUT since we are looking at it in a different light and talking about improve throughout it, it has been interesting to me. One of my favorite classes was when we went through one of the sacred works and tried to find the original line of chant before the ornaments (before recorded- improv)was added in. I think there is a good balance of playing and historical content. Bigger group activities i think help with getting people to be comfortable..sometimes i feel out place, and am afraid to jump in..
March 9, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Replying to Bob, whose candor I appreciate:
1) When I said “‘we’ have forgotten,” I was making a grand rhetorical gesture, and meant the classical music establishment as a whole, certainly this class. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
2) I understand, too, that I could have made Wednesday’s activities more clear (someone else pointed this out to me as well). Sometimes things are so clear in my mind that evidently I assume they are in yours as well. OK, OK, you aren’t mind readers.