Concepts of the Environment
We have taken micro environments that we have taught in and experienced and will discuss the make-up of those environments:
Open Education (student-centered classroom) Community Choir Prison Choir Camp
Open Education (student-centered classroom) Community Choir Prison Choir Camp
In any classroom environment there are connecting elements that should be present throughout. While the physical space and the students in it may change, the following concepts can help to build a nuturing and open environment. The environment of a classroom should never be static; it should constantly evolve and adapt to the needs of the students and the teacher.
Environment only exists when there is interaction, without interaction, it is only space.
Environment only exists when there is interaction, without interaction, it is only space.
Community
In order to create a community, we have to understand how we define the term community so we are aware when one has been created. I have defined community as a group of people that get together who share similar views, in this case, about music and the ability to work as a cohesive unit. Community can have a myriad of definitions. It can also be defined as a partnership between people. In order to create a community among people, individuals must work together towards their goals, but before the community can exist, each student must form a partnership with one another. Music as a medium for creating said partnerships or communities depends on the individuals within the group, and with each individual comes many differences. In order to create a partnership or a community, we must first “acknowledge difference as the only condition of possibility for community, where community is understood as an imagined state of being derived from shared attitudes, interests, or goals that exist concomitantly with human difference” (Bradley 2009). When we accept the fact that each individual brings something new to the discussion, we can begin to form a community.
Using music as a vehicle to foster community, we must focus on developing relationships with the individuals in the group by sharing stories and asking for perspective. This will “enhance personal growth and independent thinking while enriching our relationships with others” (Allsup 2011). Our possibilities of becoming a more cohesive unit increase when we develop relationships with those around us. According to Block, “the communal possibility rotates on the question, ‘What can we create together?’ This emerges from the social space we create when we are together” (2008). In order to create a community, we must be aware of the needs of those around us as well as understand our contributions to the group. We must develop relationships with each person inside the community and accept our differences. If we allow ourselves to become aware of the boundaries that exist between individuals, we can accept our differences to create similarities.
The space that is created within a community is one that “allowed choir members to create themselves through others while being themselves”(Bradley 2009). In other words, the members of the community exemplify the ever-changing nature of teenagers. According to Allsup, the “rehearsal space is comprised of a unique collection of individuals with intersecting and colliding interest, guided by an ethos of learning from others rather than using others”(2011). Within a classroom setting, “teachers [should] recognize the importance of the social environment and the impact a sense of community can have on…student behavior and attitudes” (Bluestein 2011).
Potential Problems with community building:
Building communities can be seen as a positive activity within a classroom because it encourages students to share responsibilities and develop relationships with the teacher and other students, but like many activities, it can also have a negative impact on our students. Coll and Deane (2008) state, “partnership working is frustrating and amazing, time-consuming and powerful, irritating and enriching – usually at the same time”. Community building can be seen as a balancing act of good intentions for our students versus poor execution of the development of community. We, as educators, can advocate for building a strong community within our classroom, stating that it will enrich the growth of our students, while at the same time, neglecting the needs of some students. According to Bradley (2009), “community may be viewed as extremes of good and evil respectively”. While, we attempt to create a community within a classroom with the best of intentions, we may meet resistance from certain individuals.
Wayne Bowman describes the efforts of advocacy as “designed to convince others…without asking about the circumstances under which its promises might be realized, or acknowledging their contingency”(2003). So, what does this have to do with building communities? Advocating for the building or formation of a community could cause said community to be formed inauthentically due to the micro-management of the actual development of such community. The facilitator who perceives that the community has been formed may have inaccurate perceptions due to the bias of wanting to form a community. Their desire has become so passionate that they can no longer see that they have pushed members away and created a false community. They have convinced others that building communities will enrich their lives that they have forgotten that each student is different and has different needs. They can no longer promise that their efforts in creating a community will be fruitful. In advocating for community building within a classroom, we need to maintain the focus that we cannot force a community into existence, much like we cannot force our students to enjoy every activity. In order to create a community we need “less direction and more experimentation”(Allsup 2011). As Bradley states, “music education should not be used to ‘engineer humanity’ because the potential results of such engineering can neither be predicted nor controlled”(2009). Creating communities cannot be used to “engineer humanity” for the same reasons that music education should not be used in that way. We need to allow our students room for personal growth and make an effort to define communities with the ambition that our students will form an authentic community without our micro managing of such a community.
Using music as a vehicle to foster community, we must focus on developing relationships with the individuals in the group by sharing stories and asking for perspective. This will “enhance personal growth and independent thinking while enriching our relationships with others” (Allsup 2011). Our possibilities of becoming a more cohesive unit increase when we develop relationships with those around us. According to Block, “the communal possibility rotates on the question, ‘What can we create together?’ This emerges from the social space we create when we are together” (2008). In order to create a community, we must be aware of the needs of those around us as well as understand our contributions to the group. We must develop relationships with each person inside the community and accept our differences. If we allow ourselves to become aware of the boundaries that exist between individuals, we can accept our differences to create similarities.
The space that is created within a community is one that “allowed choir members to create themselves through others while being themselves”(Bradley 2009). In other words, the members of the community exemplify the ever-changing nature of teenagers. According to Allsup, the “rehearsal space is comprised of a unique collection of individuals with intersecting and colliding interest, guided by an ethos of learning from others rather than using others”(2011). Within a classroom setting, “teachers [should] recognize the importance of the social environment and the impact a sense of community can have on…student behavior and attitudes” (Bluestein 2011).
Potential Problems with community building:
Building communities can be seen as a positive activity within a classroom because it encourages students to share responsibilities and develop relationships with the teacher and other students, but like many activities, it can also have a negative impact on our students. Coll and Deane (2008) state, “partnership working is frustrating and amazing, time-consuming and powerful, irritating and enriching – usually at the same time”. Community building can be seen as a balancing act of good intentions for our students versus poor execution of the development of community. We, as educators, can advocate for building a strong community within our classroom, stating that it will enrich the growth of our students, while at the same time, neglecting the needs of some students. According to Bradley (2009), “community may be viewed as extremes of good and evil respectively”. While, we attempt to create a community within a classroom with the best of intentions, we may meet resistance from certain individuals.
Wayne Bowman describes the efforts of advocacy as “designed to convince others…without asking about the circumstances under which its promises might be realized, or acknowledging their contingency”(2003). So, what does this have to do with building communities? Advocating for the building or formation of a community could cause said community to be formed inauthentically due to the micro-management of the actual development of such community. The facilitator who perceives that the community has been formed may have inaccurate perceptions due to the bias of wanting to form a community. Their desire has become so passionate that they can no longer see that they have pushed members away and created a false community. They have convinced others that building communities will enrich their lives that they have forgotten that each student is different and has different needs. They can no longer promise that their efforts in creating a community will be fruitful. In advocating for community building within a classroom, we need to maintain the focus that we cannot force a community into existence, much like we cannot force our students to enjoy every activity. In order to create a community we need “less direction and more experimentation”(Allsup 2011). As Bradley states, “music education should not be used to ‘engineer humanity’ because the potential results of such engineering can neither be predicted nor controlled”(2009). Creating communities cannot be used to “engineer humanity” for the same reasons that music education should not be used in that way. We need to allow our students room for personal growth and make an effort to define communities with the ambition that our students will form an authentic community without our micro managing of such a community.
Democracy
If we use Dewey's definition of democracy (1916) it is an appropriate construct to incorporate into the classroom. It means that everyone in the classroom has a say and stake in what is happening. Hansen (2002) talks about how democracy in the classroom can lead to, "a balanced educational environment that sponsors individual development while also fueling a social moral consciousness."
Please see Prezi presentation link below for more on Dewy, Democracy, Dialogue and Experience.
http://prezi.com/yazupyaws0-j/john-dewey/
Please see Prezi presentation link below for more on Dewy, Democracy, Dialogue and Experience.
http://prezi.com/yazupyaws0-j/john-dewey/
Divergent Thinking
Divergent thinking means moving away from conformity. More than that, it is, “the process of having original ideas that have value,” (Robinson, 2010). If each child learns and thinks differently, (McCarthy, 2000) than why should educators look for each child to give the same answer? Rather than leading students to one answer, as methods often do, educators should encourage seeing the varied possible answers to a question. Divergent thinking does not mean creativity; it is, “an essential capacity for creativity,” (Robinson, 2010). Students naturally have the capacity for thinking laterally and unless that is encouraged that capacity deteriorates as students get older (Robinson, 2010). The way to encourage this natural capacity is through a safe and collaborative environment where students are not directed toward one correct answer or outcome. Dewey as quoted by Hansen (2002) warns against blueprinting an environment before you know who your students are, but says that, “a balanced educational environment sponsors individual development while also fueling a social moral consciousness.”
Divergent thinking does not mean creativity; it is, “an essential capacity for creativity,” (Robinson, 2010). Students naturally have the capacity for thinking laterally and unless that is encouraged that capacity deteriorates as students get older (Robinson, 2010). The way to encourage this natural capacity is through a safe and collaborative environment where students are not directed toward one correct answer or outcome. Dewey as quoted by Hansen (2002) warns against blueprinting an environment before you know who your students are, but says that, “a balanced educational environment sponsors individual development while also fueling a social moral consciousness.”
Divergent thinking does not mean creativity; it is, “an essential capacity for creativity,” (Robinson, 2010). Students naturally have the capacity for thinking laterally and unless that is encouraged that capacity deteriorates as students get older (Robinson, 2010). The way to encourage this natural capacity is through a safe and collaborative environment where students are not directed toward one correct answer or outcome. Dewey as quoted by Hansen (2002) warns against blueprinting an environment before you know who your students are, but says that, “a balanced educational environment sponsors individual development while also fueling a social moral consciousness.”
Ken Robinson on Divergent Thinking:
Student-Centered
Student-driven vs. Activity-driven
Educators should not manipulate how students experience music or attempt to lead them towards a “right answer,” doing so can only yield artificial results. There is value in how a student reaches a concept with guidance rather than through a forced process. “Each concept, role and object is a social creation bound to the situation in which it is produced,” thus, the only way teachers should and can guide play is through creating an environment in which free thought and spontaneity are encouraged where, “the meaning of classroom interaction,” is not assumed, but discovered (Apple, 1977). The use of the word play indicates fun, however ‘creating’ play and fun and incorporating it into a lesson can only yield artificial results and, “students simply become tools in the process,” rather than the focus (Benedict 2009). A lesson that is student-driven, versus activity-driven, means students are not expected to yield the same results; they are free to make informed choices in an environment; and play has a purpose and critical thinking and creativity are not inhibited by a step-by-step process.
As teachers, we know that there will always be students who are not interested in participating. This can create a problem with our classroom as a community. It has been suggested by many educators that there are several ways to include those who will not participate. First, children love playing games. If the teacher creates their lesson plan in the form of a game, a greater majority of students will participate because they will see that everyone else is having fun. Secondly, allow the children to write on the chalkboard. This gives students a sense of responsibility and gives them a chance to express themselves in front of the class. What if the teacher used sidewalk chalk instead of the regular white chalk? This would also make for a fun environment for students who might not regularly participate. Finally, the last idea is to keep the classroom moving. Keeping the environment of the classroom in motion is a great way to keep uninterested students interested.
As teachers, we know that there will always be students who are not interested in participating. This can create a problem with our classroom as a community. It has been suggested by many educators that there are several ways to include those who will not participate. First, children love playing games. If the teacher creates their lesson plan in the form of a game, a greater majority of students will participate because they will see that everyone else is having fun. Secondly, allow the children to write on the chalkboard. This gives students a sense of responsibility and gives them a chance to express themselves in front of the class. What if the teacher used sidewalk chalk instead of the regular white chalk? This would also make for a fun environment for students who might not regularly participate. Finally, the last idea is to keep the classroom moving. Keeping the environment of the classroom in motion is a great way to keep uninterested students interested.
Critical Pedagogy
Abrahams (2005a) says educators must ask who we are. “Who we are” combines, “Who am I?” and, “Who are my students?” CPME says education is 1) a conversation, 2) a way to broaden the student’s reality, 3) empowering, 4) transformative, and 5) political. Without delving too deeply into CPME, the CPME questions and the five tenants are based on a combination of philosophies that all center on the importance of critical thinking through dialogue. Paulo Freire (2008) believed that critical pedagogy was a, “conversational exchange of information,” and that true dialogue cannot exist without critical thinking. Both parties, the educator and the student, must be transformed by the experience. Lori Arner (2010) believes that CPME focuses on critical learning objectives and the ‘transformation’ occurs during the, “enactment of the critical objective.” Under the critical objective, “both student and teacher engage in a meaningful dialogue that acknowledges the prior experience of students, connects the learning process to the student’s reality of knowledge,” and facilitates a change in both the student and teacher. Bernice McCarthy’s learning styles (2000) also play a large role in CPME. McCarthy (2000) plays a part in CPME because of how the 4MAT Cycle, “honors individual differences throughout the learning process.” As students move through the cycle, experienceàreflectàconceptualizeàactàintegrate, they combine critical thinking and, “problem-posing and dialogue,” to come to a new level of understanding. Experiencing is stressed in the 4MAT Cycle as a means to understanding, a concept also shared by Joan Wink (2005). Howard Gardner’s “multiple intelligences” (1993) also helped to frame CPME in that Gardner honors different types of intelligence and sees intelligence on an individual level. Intelligence is subjective depending on the topic at hand, and rather than one type of intelligence there are, “various, relatively independent intellectual faculties,” (Gardner, 1993). CPME recognizes that students are individuals who think differently. A criticism of CPME is that in the current educational paradigm it is difficult to adapt traditional methods of assessment that most schools require. However, through critical and experiential objectives and dialogue, “verbal or musical through discussion or improvisation,” a transformation occurs as students are empowered to make their own critical decisions and think critically (Abrahams 2005b).